Loading...
2006, 09-26 Regular Meeting MinutesMayor Wilhite called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m., and welcomed everyone to the 101s meeting. Attendance: Diana Wilhite, Mayor Steve Taylor, Deputy Mayor Mike DeVleming, Councilmember Bill Gothmann, Councilmember Rich Munson, Councilmember Dick Denenny, Councilmember Gary Schimmels, Councilmember MINUTES City of Spokane Valley City Council Regular Meeting Tuesday September 26, 2006 City Staff: Dave Mercier, City Manager Nina Regor, Deputy City Attorney Mike Connelly, City Attorney Ken Thompson, Finance Director Mike Jackson, Parks & Recreation Director Greg McCormick, Planning Manager Cal Walker, Police Chief Neil Kersten, Public Works Director Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer Greg Bingaman, IT Specialist Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk INVOCATION: Pastor Darrell Cole of Wesleyan Church gave the invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Wilhite led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called roll; all Councilmembers were present. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: It was moved by Deputy Mayor Taylor, seconded, and unanimously agreed to approve the agenda. INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS: None. COMMITTEE, BOARD, LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS: Councilmember Schimmels: reported that he attended a Solid Waste meeting a few weeks ago and that the group will take a few months off and will re -group in December or January. He also reported he attended a regional transportation meeting. Councilmember Denenny: stated that he attended the Spokane Transit Authority (STA) Board meeting last week where they discussed ridership, which has apparently increased 15% overall from last year's figures. Councilmember Gothmann: explained that he attended a Housing Community Development Advisory Committee to discuss grants. Councilmember Munson: said that he attended a Public Transportation Improvement conference where some smaller areas of Spokane Valley were considered to be added to the service district, and that a public meeting on that issue will be held in November; he also attended the STA Board meeting where they discussed positive trends in getting more people to ride the bus; he went to a WSU Building dedication for their academic center; and that last night he attended a Town Hall meeting at KSPS TV where participants were able to ask six state senators various questions regarding what the legislature is doing for our region. Councilmember DeVleming• reported that the Student Advisory Council's third installment of members occurred, and that Council can expect to hear presentations in the future; that he also attended a 911 /Board meeting this morning where they are moving forward with the 211 /mental health information issues including associated funding; that regarding crime reporting and crime check, the 311 /Government information number might be a possibility; that the Board also discussed modeling of a modified crime Council Meeting: 09 -26- 06 Page 1 of 4 Approved by Council: 10 -10 -06 check or a different crime reporting center, adding that the new Spokane Police Chief said that is one of her highest priority; Councilmember DeVleming said that he would like council concurrence to continue that discussion in order to get something formally back to this council on what we want to do. Councilmembers nodded in agreement that they still want some crime check or similar reporting mechanism. MAYOR'S REPORT: Mayor Wilhite reported that she attended the Northwest Mayor's meeting where they signed a support statement for the N/S Corridor; that she also attended the Chamber of Commerce's annual meeting, the East Valley School District strategic planning meeting, and that she had an opportunity to meet with the new Spokane Police Chief. After Fire Marshall Kevin Miller gave a brief overview of the history of fire and Fire Prevention Week, Deputy Mayor Taylor read the Fire Prevention Week proclamation, proclaiming October 8 to 14 as the 2006 Fire Prevention Week. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Yvonne Alves, 14 N Grady Lane, Greenacres: spoke concerning private development and private construction projects within the city, and of the McMillan Estates Project specifically, which started July 2006; how it affects the public, her problems with the designers and contractors, that the residents received no prior notification of the project and the activity blocked local residents without notice; there were interruptions of utility service; dust control and traffic control were also problems, that her calls to Eller Construction, Traffic Control, and Crime Reporting were all met with no response; that she suggests residents receive notification prior to the commencement of these projects; and that the developers /contractors be penalized for noncompliance. She stated that someone needs to monitor the projects on a regular basis, as she never saw anyone observing the work or letting neighbors know who to talk to when problems arose, and that she was frustrated to have never received a return call from the Police Department. Mayor Wilhite assured Ms. Alves that staff will research these issues and be back in contact with her. 1. CONSENT AGENDA: Consists of items considered routine which are approved as a group. A Councilmember may remove an item from the Consent Agenda to be considered separately. a. Claim Voucher #9967, dated 9- 13 -06, for $14,200 to Valleyfest b. Payroll for Period Ending September 15, 2006: $162,315.29 c. Minutes of September 12, 2006, Regular Council Meeting d. Minutes of September 19, 2006 Council Study Session Meeting It was moved by Deputy Mayor Taylor, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. NEW BUSINESS 2. First Reading Proposed Ordinance 06 -022 Levying Property Tax — Ken Thompson After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Taylor and seconded, to advance ordinance 06 -022, levying property taxes at $1.60 per thousand dollar assessed value for the 2007 budget, to a second reading. After Finance Director Thompson gave a short PowerPoint presentation explaining the levy estimates, Mayor Wilhite invited public comment. No comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 3. First Reading Proposed Ordinance 06 -023 Confirming Excess Property Tax Levy — Ken Thompson After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Taylor and seconded, to advance ordinance 06 -023 confirming the I% increase in 2007 property tax levy, to a second reading. Finance Director Thompson explained that this is the accompanying ordinance to the prior ordinance, and that state budget law requires an ordinance be passed confirming the desire to levy the annual 1% allowable increase in property tax, or as an option, to decide not to pass the ordinance and forgo adding Council Meeting: 09 -26- 06 Page 2 of 4 Approved by Council: 10 -10 -06 this amount to the tax levy. Mayor Wilhite invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 4. Motion Consideration: Bid Award, Poe Asphalt — Neil Kersten It was moved by Deputy Mayor Taylor and seconded, to award the bid for street repair work to Poe Asphalt Paving, and to authorize the City Manager or designee to sign the contract in an amount not to exceed $200, 000. Public Works Director Kersten gave the background of the bid award, including the need for the bid as the County has completed some pavement repair but has indicated they will be unable to do any additional work in the City this year. Mr. Kersten stated that there are still several street locations that require repair to prevent serious pavement breakup during the coming winter, and that Poe was the lowest responsive bidder for this proposal. Mayor Wilhite invited public comment; no comments were received. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 5. Motion Consideration: Fund Allocations to Outside Agencies — Nina Regor It was moved by Deputy Mayor Taylor and seconded, to approve the 2007 budget allocations for outside agencies. Deputy City Manager Regor explained that the original budgeted amount of $120,000 was the same as previous year; that the City received ten requests for funding totaling approximately $290,000; that at the last meeting Council determined to fund seven of the requests for a total of $130,000. Ms. Regor stated that staff recommends the additional $10,000 come from the computer software /hardware appropriation, which will still leave sufficient funding in that line item. Mayor Wilhite invited public comment; no comments were offered. During council discussion, Councilmember DeVleming asked that next year's requests be divided into two meetings, so that one night will be dedicated to social services' requests; and the other night to economic development requests. Councilmember Munson also asked that we make sure that requestors know they should include a budget. Ms. Regor explained that staff has contacted Spokane Arts Council regarding their budget, and that they are in the process of creating their budget. The appropriations include: Big Brothers /Big Sisters $2,500; Project Access $30,000; Spokane Valley Arts Council $5,000; Spokane Valley Community Center $5,000; Spokane Valley Meals on Wheels $2,500; International Trade Alliance $20,000; and Spokane Area Economic Development Council $65,000. Vote by acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Wilhite invited general public comment; no comments were offered. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS: 6. Animal Control Contract Update — Nancy Hill Spokane County Regional Animal Protection Service (SCRAPS) Director Nancy Hill gave a PowerPoint presentation on the pet license campaign, animal protection services, and revenues versus expenses. She mentioned that the organization works hard to keep expenses down, and they have not filled one vacancy, adding that the current fuel costs are wrecking havoc with their budget. Councilmember Munson asked what percentage of revenues could be attributed to Spokane Valley, and Ms. Hill said she did not have that information handy, but will get those figures to Council. Discussion included mention of any cost cutting initiatives for 2007; fee increases; boarding fee increases; and that the fees should be based on cost recovery. City Manager Mercier mentioned that staff will research to determine if the City has regulatory authority to require people who sell pets, to have them licensed at point of sale, and /or some type of reporting mechanism to animal control. After further Council discussion, Mr. Mercier stated that there is Council consensus that Council would like Ms. Hill to take the message to the Board of County Commissioners that Council favors the fee increases. Mr. Mercier added that Ms. Hill might want to check the rate increase proposal against the CPI increase over a set time span as moving from a former $5.00 to a proposed $10.00 license fee is not a sufficient increase to keep in line with the CPI from the same time span. Council Meeting: 09 -26- 06 Page 3 of 4 Approved by Council: 10 -10 -06 Mayor Wilhite called for a short recess at 7: 25 p.m., and reconvened the meeting at 7:34 p.m. 7. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Application — Greg McCormick Planning Manager McCormick went through the CDBG process, background, and timeline, including mention of key dates. Discussion included the concept of a City entitlement area including funding speculations; the Sewer Tank Elimination Program and with the conclusion of that program, projections from HUD as to what we could get as entitlement. Mr. McCormick mentioned this issue will be brought back to Council October 10 to discuss project ideas; and October 24 for a public hearing. 8. General Budget Discussion — Dave Mercier City Manager Mercier said this is one of several budget discussions Council will engage in as Council considers adoption of the 2007 budget and examines upcoming budget years. Mr. Mercier distributed copies of page 83 of the proposed 2007 budget, showing "Street Fund - Problem Statement #2;" and said that the question is, what can we do to push that deficit year (2009) off further in the future, and that one option would be to do less with a sustained level of service. Mr. Mercier's additional handouts showed areas highlighted in yellow as possible areas to reduce. Mr. Mercier stated that the different scenarios showed optional spending levels to have the deficit appear later. Further discussion included applying fiscal restraint now and a level service of spending; come back later with options on how to provide more stable funding for street maintenance; that our gas tax is one of the largest sources of revenue for this fund; recommendations that Council give serious consideration for the 2010 and 2011 model, knowing they always have the opportunity to come back and re- calculate later; the bleeding down of the current amount of the fund balance; that the 2010 model keeps existing programs intact while waiting for the completion of the street masterplan; that the 2011 model might make it easier to adjust in favor of positive changes rather than negative ones; the need to lower the spending curve; the flexibility of the budget and the process of amending it; and the possible fiscal impact of Initiative 933. After further discussion of Initiative 933, it was Council direction to place that issue on the October 10 council agenda for a public hearing. 9. Personnel Ordinance/Resolutions — Nina Regor Deputy City Manager Regor explained that at the August 8 council meeting, staff presented a few areas of potential modification of the current personnel ordinances and resolutions, and tonight Council can take further opportunity to review those regulations. Ms. Regor also mentioned that some of the changes were made to make the documents consistent with the recent collective bargaining agreement, and some changes were merely scrivener's errors. [Note: Councilmember Gothmann stated he was not feeling well and was excused from the meeting at 8:15 p.m.] Council discussion included the suggestion to have staff research to see if the medical plan needs to be approved by resolution. Ms. Regor stated that the ordinances and resolutions will be scheduled for future council meetings for adoption consideration. As the remaining items were informational in nature and not for discussion, it was moved by Councilmember Denenny, seconded, and unanimously agreed to adjourn into Executive Session until approximately 9:00 p. m. to discuss land acquisition, and that no decision will be made upon return to the regular meeting. Council adjourned into Executive Session at 8:24 p.m. At 8:56 p.m. Mayor Wilhite declared Council out of Executive Session. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Taylor, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn . The meeting adjourned at 8:57 p.m. A 67; istin- Bainbridge, City Cle Dav:ciN akfitL Diana Wilhite, Mayor Council Meeting: 09 -26- 06 Page 4 of 4 Approved by Council: 10 -10 -06 tgn in 1! you wtsn To maxe [Atone. comments,. NAME PLEASE PRINT TOPIC OF CONCERN YOU ADDRESS TELEPHONE WILL - 3PEAK ABOUT \ vonnt 41\te ?\09 1)(10 PLO fr 1 4. ■ 4*. cl' 2-'e, , 1 GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENT SIGN-IN SHEET SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: Sept 26, 2006 CITIZEN COMMENTS YOUR SPEAKING TIME WILL BE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES • • • r 1 Development in City of Spokane Valley Presented by: Yvonne Alves 14 N Grady Lane Greenacres, WA 99016 509 - 928 -6204 912612006 1 Madam Mayor and members of the City Council, thank for allowing me to come before you tonight. The subject I would like to address tonight deals with private construction projects in our city. 1 Development for the sake of development is not effective for our community! 2 My Point tonight is that "Development for the sake of development is not effective for our community" 2 The McMillan Estates Project • A ongoing private development project in Greenacres • Started in July 2006 • Affects the public by installing sewer lines under Sprague avenue east of Barker Road • Sprague Avenue is still unpaved. 9126/2006 3 1. This summer I have had the opportunity to witness a private development project first hand, the project known as the McMillan Estates Project on east Sprague in Greenacres. I have spoken about this during a council meeting in July of 2006. 2. I believe that this project is a good example of why we need better planning before construction begins, rather than trying to deal with the effects that the lack of planning can create and the lack of control over said project once it begins. 3 The Players • Whipple as the designers • Eller Corp as the contractors • Residents of East Sprague as the victims 4 The Players. Whipple seems to be responsible for the project design. Eller is the contractor. Our small neighborhood on east Sprague is directly effected by this project. And since we are small in numbers, I and other neighbor complaints go largely ignored. This project has largely been a nightmare for me and neighbors. I feel that Whipple and Eller rushed into this project without proper and complete plans and it is our neighborhood that has paid the price. 4 _ jr Construction Issues • No prior notification of project • Blocking local residents without notice • Interruptions to Utility service ❑ Telephone oGas ❑ Water 9/26/2006 5 1. When the project first began, no individual notification was performed until one or two days before construction began. No signs were ever posted in advance for thru traffic in the area. 2. I woke up on a Friday in mid July to discover that we were under attack by large noisy construction equipment and their operators. They proceeded to deconstruct Sprague Ave all day Friday and laid about 50 feet of pipe. After less than 6 hours of actual work, they closed the road for the remainder of the weekend. Traffic was turning around in my yard all weekend. Why couldn't they just have waited until Monday? 3. On the following Wednesday, I was awoken to a quick knocking on the front door at 7 am. The workers told me that I had about 15 minutes to move my vehicle off my property or would be blocked in for the entire day. They could and should have said something the night before. They should have posted written information to each household on our cul- de -sac the day before. Some neighbors weren't able to be reached and discovered later that they could not get home. 4. During that week, we did receive notification from Consolidated Water District that our water was about to be shut off for the day with about an hour's notice. That is simply not enough time to plan ahead. We couldn't even flush the toilets that day. During the time that the water was affected, there were strange noises coming from the pipes and other surges in the water supply. When the water was tumed on again, Darline Cronquist, my elderly neighbor discovered that her water pipes had burst. She complained to both Eller and Consolidated Water, but in the end, had to pay for the repairs. This was very expensive and not her fault. Yet, she paid a heavy price for the privilege of new construction. 5. Eller is also responsible for other outages. One day, a construction worker accidentally cut a gas line. LaFrance Nursery lost telephone service for entire day. Eller workers promised to contact Qwest, but they never did. My Comcast cable service hasn't worked right since. It wouldn't surprise me if they made a mistake there and just covered it up too. 5 S " I'lf ' __ -_ - Recent Issues • Rebuilding the road ❑ Waiting for pavement ❑ "Closed Street" ❑ Barriers • Dust control ❑ Watering • Traffic control 9!2612006 6 1. In late August, I was relieved when they began to level the road bed, lay the sub -bed in preparation for paving. It seemed that this project might be nearing an end. But then the project seemed to just stop. Apparently, the project did not have their permits for the next phase and in fact also had some design issues regarding their placement of utilities within their own project. I heard from construction workers that they were somehow off by 6 feet. The paving of our street has been delayed indefinitely. 2. Mr. Henry Allen told me on September 14th that the project was delayed because the final street design plans had not been approved and paving -type permits had not been issued. The delay was due to the designers not having their final plans complete before the initial construction phase was completed. 3. As to the street being closed, that is a joke! Eller does not consistently place enough barriers in the right places to adequately discourage thru traffic. In fact, recently, they just have gotten in the habit of leaving their job site wide open. After they laid the sub -bed, traffic increased again because the road was smooth and firm, with a coat of gravel. That created an amazing amount of dust. Drivers saw the nicer road as a challenge to go 4- wheeling and enjoyed driving with excessive speeds through the area. 4. I was under the impression that due to environmental concerns, the construction project team was required to water the road several times a day. even on the weekends. Eller has been extremely lax in this area. In fact, on the last three weekends of September 9 -10th, September 15 -17th and September 23 -24th, they did not water even once. Right now, traffic and dust is my biggest concern 6 Resident Options • CaII Eller — No response • Call Traffic Control — No Answer • CaII Crime Reporting — No Response • Call 911 — Not an emergency 9126!:003 7 1. This brings me to the next issue. What can a citizen do about any of this? The answer is nothing. 2. When you call Eller, they don't answer. I have tried to call them after 5 pm and on weekends. I leave messages requesting their help with regards to water, barriers and on one occasion to move some equipment that was blocking my husband's truck. They simply do not respond. Nor do they fix the problem. 3. On Sunday, September 10th, I tried to get a traffic police patrol. Not only are drivers violating the "No Thru Traffic" rules, but they are also speeding. Add that to the dust problem and it is enough to drive me crazy. So I called our Police Department. But if you aren't bleeding, its not an emergency. The only department to answer calls is 911. The Crime Reporting number that I called took my name, address and Social Security Number when I asked to speak to an officer. But no one ever returned my calls. The Traffic department doesn't even allow you to leave a voice mail. I just got disconnected. I felt dumped and abandoned by law enforcement. The After -hours police support is dismal. 7 Suggested Solutions • Notification • Reporting • Penalties • Planning W2C0'2006 a So, what can we do about these problems? This is why 1 am here tonight. We need laws and ordinances that have some teeth that can impose fines and penalties when they are broken. And we need a reporting system that acknowledges that most people work and do not discover problems until after 5 or on weekends. 8 1 • iammug Notification 426i2C'�; • Individual residents in the construction zone • Through traffic • Notices must be done in a timely manner. • Reduce speed limits in work zones. • Project Name • Permits issued • Project dates • Contact Info: o Company name D 24/7 response phone 9 NOTIFICATION: 1. Construction projects must notify individual homeowners in areas directly affected by construction. 2. Projects must also notify thru traffic via signs and even newspapers. 3. Notification should include the name of the project, permits issued, project dates and include a contact number. 4. Contact numbers must be accurate and accountable. Voicemail should be responded to in a timely manner. And the company should be on -call to respond to conditions that occur because of their making. 5. When utilities will be interrupted, affected persons should be given at least 12 hour notice. Especially when power and water is effected. 6. Post signs that this is a work zone and that traffic penalties will double. Just like out on the freeway. 7. Post Reduced Speed signs. And temporarily change the speed limit. 9 Reporting • Report to city officials ❑ Direct & Dedicated phone number ❑ Cali tracking • Add a form to the web • Update the city's web site with private project info 9/292076 10 Reporting back to city officials must be addressed. 1. I suggest a dedicated and direct phone number for reporting violations. This number must be answered during business hours; a record made of all calls, and responded to when necessary. This must be a direct number that does not require the receptionist to route the call, or as an option on the telephone menu system. 2. You should also consider adding a web page form to allow online users to report all the relevant information thru the city's web site. 3. www.spokanevallev.orq should have an updated list of current private construction projects as well as those performed by the city itself. The Barker Road project was well publicized. Why do we not issue press releases to the media regarding private projects? Especially when they interrupt traffic in our city. 10 Penalties • Large fines for violations ❑ Per incident a Per Home owner • Traffic Patrols • Increase fees for tickets issued in work zones. 4rsn_a1s 11 The project should be made to pay a fine when they violate the laws and ordinances. 1. This fine should be stiff enough to discourage them. Any fine too small will just be added to their project costs and nothing will change. 2. Fines should be assessed per incident and per each affected homeowner. Wouldn't it be great if the effected homeowner also received part of that fine for being inconvenienced? 3. Assign regular traffic patrols to encourage drivers to use the detours. Give tickets to drivers ignoring the situation for speeding and driving straight thru closed streets. 11 • Planning • Assign a city official to monitor each project in the field. • Issue permits after all of the project design has been completed. • Withhold permits regardless of contractor issues like weather and financing. • Plan projects in school zones during non - school times. 91262006 12 1. A City official should be assigned to monitor the progress of each development project. 2. The Permits for these types of projects should NOT be issued until the project design has been completed. 3. Permits should only be issued when proof of planning and notification has been provided. 4. Permits should not be issued simply to appease a construction project. I understand that construction projects have a short window due to weather, but that is not my problem. Just allowing them to start just because they want to is not the answer. We need to make them accountable. 5. Allow residents to identify themselves with stickers or signs in their vehicle windows that will allow them to be in restricted traffic areas. 6. Require that all construction that occurs around a school be started after school ends and is completed before school begins again. There is a project on 4th avenue from Barker to Long that started right after school got out last summer and still hasn't paved the road. This creates unsafe conditions for children that walk or ride bicycles to school. And the buses must detour around the construction. 12 New Development Pro's • Increase Property Tax collections • Increase Sales Tax revenues Con's • No impact planning • No project control • No monitoring 13 I am not opposed to new development projects. These projects add to our property tax base and increase sales taxes revenue. But the money that the city collects should not be the only concern when approving them. 13 Other Considerations • CVSD is Overcrowded. ❑Greenacres Elementary ❑ Liberty Lake Elementary ❑ Barker Center Kindergarten • No Parks or recreation areas • Impact Fees! 9/26/2006 14 1. When you decide to allow a new residential development project in Greenacres, please consider the impact to our schools and the children. It is my understanding that projects like McMillan Estates are directly targeted towards starter family homes. What is the average number of children per household in this area? If part of the marketing strategy of these new homes is the benefit of living in the Central Valley School District, then by adding these new homes without considering the impact to the school district, you destroy that benefit. 2 The fact is, our schools are full and getting worse. The Greenacres Elementary and Liberty Lake Elementary have had to remove the kindergarten classes from their schools and have started a joint - Kindergarten program at the Barker Center. That leaves grades 1 — 5 at Greenacres Elementary and still it is not large enough. They have 3 portable classrooms parked in the playground area. And the children have gone back to eating their lunch at their desks as the gym is in use all day. 3. We have no parks in Greenacres. No play areas for children south of the freeway. With increased residential neighborhoods and a higher number of units per acre, we need additional playgrounds for these children. Make them put them in. If they want the development, they must consider and address the issues that arise because of their development. 4. Consider impact fees for new residential construction. I really hate this idea, but the Central Valley School District cannot continue to absorb the increasing number of new students to our district. Previous bond issues have failed and property taxes just keeping going up. 14 1 Thank you Yvonne Alves 14 N Grady Lane Greenacres, WA 99016 926/2006 15 •The City of Spokane Valley has an opportunity to grow as a wonderful place to live and raise a family. We are growing in all areas. But you are missing a key point. •Development for the sake of development is not effective for our community. Thank you for listening to me tonight. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or want additional information. 15 Development in City of Spokane Valley Presented by Yvonne Alves 14 N Grady Lane Greenacres, WA 99016 509- 928 -6204 Development for the sake of development is not effective for our community! The McMillan Estates Project • A ongoing private development project in Greenacres • Started in July 2006 • Affects the public by installing sewer lines under Sprague avenue east of Barker Road • Sprague Avenue is still unpaved. 1 1 U The Players • Whipple as the designers ■ Eller Corp as the contractors • Residents of East Sprague as the victims •11 .. . Construction Issues • No prior notification of project • Blocking local residents without notice • Interruptions to Utility service uTelephone oGas o Water Recent Issues • Rebuilding the road oWaiting for pavement o "Closed Street" oBarriers ■ Dust control ❑Watering • Traffic control • 2 ' Resident Options • CaII Eller — No response • Call Traffic Control — No Answer • CaII Crime Reporting — No Response • Call 911 — Not an emergency ■ �' • - e � Suggested Solutions • Notification • Reporting • Penalties • Planning 111:4:41 Notification • Individual residents in the construction zone • Through traffic • Notices must be done in a timely manner. • Reduce speed limits in work zones. • Project Name • Permits issued • Project dates • Contact Info: ❑ Company name o 24/7 response phone 3 ■ri , Reporting • Report to city officials o Direct & Dedicated phone number o Call tracking • Add a form to the web • Update the city's web site with private project info • .s Penalties • Large fines for violations oPer incident oPer Home owner • Traffic Patrols • Increase fees for tickets issued in work zones. Planning • Assign a city official to monitor each project in the field. • Issue permits after all of the project design has been completed. ■ Withhold permits regardless of contractor issues like weather and financing. • Plan projects in school zones during non - school times. • 4 New Development Pro's • Increase Property Tax collections • Increase Sales Tax revenues Con's ■ No impact planning • No project control • No monitoring t) ■ d u Other Considerations ■ CVSD is Overcrowded. oGreenacres Elementary o Liberty Lake Elementary o Barker Center Kindergarten • No Parks or recreation areas • Impact Fees! Yvonne Alves 14 N Grady Lane Greenacres, WA 99016 5 1 Initiative 933: "An Act relating to providing fairness in government regulation of property" Information Only September 26, 2006 Attached please find four (4) examples of Resolutions enact by Washington cities in opposition to Initiative 933 (I -933). These documents were found on the Municipal Research and Service Center website. No information has been located which would indicate that any city has enacted a resolution in support of I -933. If the City Council wishes `as to consider taking a position on this matter, a public hearing should be scheduled to enable citizens to express their opinions of no position or for or against the proposed measure prior to enactment of a resolution stipulating the City Council's position on I -933. RESOLUTION NO. R2006 -013 - 11 iv/at f2 A RESOLUTION of the City of Tumwater, Washington, opposing Initiative 933, entitled An Act Relating to Providing Fairness in government regulation of properly." WHEREAS, Initiative 933 (1 -933) will be presented to the voters of the State of Washington at the general election on November 7, 2006, with the following official Ballot Tille: Statement of the Subject: Initiative Measure 933 concerns government regulation of private property. Concise Description: This measure would require compensation when government regulation damages the use or value of private property, would forbid regulations that prohibit existing legal uses of private property, and would provide exceptions or payments. Should this measure be enacted into law? Yes [ J No [ J ; WHEREAS, 1 -933 would require an agency that "decides" to enforce or apply any ordinance, regulation or rule to private property that would result in damaging the use or value of private property payment to first pay compensation, as defined in 1 -933; WHEREAS, the definition of "private property" includes virtually all interests in real and personal property; WHEREAS, the definition of "damaging the use or value" of private property is extremely broad, so as to deprive local jurisdictions, including the City of Tumwater, of the ability to adopt and enforce reasonable land use regulations, including comprehensive planning and zoning to ensure the appropriate location of uscs, and compatibility among uses located in proximity to each other; sensitive areas regulations necessary to prevent environmental harm; and general development regulations necessary to promote the public health, safety and welfare; WHEREAS, I -933 erroneously implies that local jurisdictions have authority to "decide" not to enforce or apply their duly adopted ordinances, regulations and rules, without granting express authority to pay compensation or waive thc enforcement or application thereof and even if the authority to waive the enforcement or application of duly adopted ordinances, regulations and rules were explicitly granted by I -933, the selective application of such waiver would be inequitable and result in inappropriate development and environmental harm; WHEREAS, the cost of processing and paying compensation for the enforcement and application of reasonable development regulations in order to protect the public health, safety and welfare could severely damage the annual budget of the City of Tumwater, crippling thc ability of the City to provide needed public safety, infrastructure and other public services; WHEREAS, the process required by 1 -933 to adopt new ordinances. regulations and rules to protect the public health, safety and welfare would be unduly burdensome, slow and costly; Resolution No. R2006 -013 — Page 1 of 2 WHERESAS, prior to adoption of this resolution, the City of Tu,mwater has given notice of the public hearing at which this resolution was considered, and has afforded equal opportunity at the meeting for any person to express an opposing view. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Tumwatcr, Washington, that the City of Tumwatcr opposes adoption of initiative 933, and urges its rejection by the voters. PASSED by the City Council of the City of Tumwater, Washin September, 2006. ATTE. Sheryle W tt, City !/ erk Resolution No. R.2006 -013 — Page 2 of 2 r 1 Resolution No. 4068 June 19, 2006 Page 1 of 3 RESOLUTION NO. 4 0 6 8 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, WASHINGTON, STATING THE CITY COUNCIL'S OPPOSITION TO INITIATIVE 933 WHEREAS, Initiative 933 would require local governments to compensate the owner of property affected by regulations that prohibit or restrict "any use or size, scope, or intensity of any use legally existing or permitted as of January 1, 1996 "; and WHEREAS, the terms of the Initiative are ill- defined and will be difficult to implement with any fairness, in that, for instance, 1 -933 appears to affect adoption of critical areas regulations by defining damaging the use or value to specifically include "prohibiting or restricting any use, or size, scope, or intensity of any use legally existing or permitted as of January 1, 1996 "; and WHEREAS, there have been cities in this state that have incorporated since January 1, 1996, and the implications to these cities from the initiative are, at the least, uncertain; and WHEREAS, the Initiative also defines damaging the use or value to include "requiring a portion of property to be left in its natural state or without beneficial use to its owner, unless necessary to prevent immediate harm to human health and safety," even though many critical areas regulations prohibit development in certain environmentally sensitive areas, such as steep slopes or wetlands or in buffer areas around streams, so that local governments will be required to compensate property owners before they can apply or enforce such /4 i7LJAAI regulations, regardless of when they were adopted, and regardless of the Legitimacy of their purposes; and WHEREAS, the Initiative would impose upon local jurisdictions that are acting in compliance with the requirements of state law — the Growth Management Act (GMA), the obligation to compensate affected property owners, so that the local jurisdictions are faced with the dilemma of either ignoring GMA requirements (which they may not have legal authority to do) or paying property owners impacted (according to the Initiative) for the local jurisdiction's compliance with GMA and state law; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Auburn, is entitled to express its collective position on ballot measures, in accordance with state law, RCW 42.17.130, including giving persons at the public meeting at which the collective expression is given the opportunity to state opposing views. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN, HEREBY RESOLVES as follows: Section 1. The City Council hereby expresses its opposition to Initiative 933 in that it imposes an unfair burden on local jurisdictions who would have to compensate property owners whose property is affected by the Initiative's terms where the local jurisdiction is [merely] complying with the mandates of state law — the GMA — and where the limitations imposed on the owner's property may be the product of legitimate interests that may not (or may be argued to not) meet the standard of "necessary to prevent immediate harm to human health and safety," such as regulations that restrict development in certain environmentally Resolution No 4068 June 19, 2006 Page 2 of 3 1 I sensitive areas, such as steep slopes or wetlands or in buffer areas around streams. Section 2. That the Mayor is authorized to implement such administrative procedures as may be necessary to carry out the directives of this legislation. Section 3. If any portion of this resolution or its application to any person or circumstances is held invalid, the remainder of the resolution or application of the provision to other persons or circumstances should not be affected. Section 4. That this Resolution shall take effect and be in full force upon passage and signatures hereon. ATTEST: t T Dated and Signed this 2/ ----- day of Danielle E. Daskam, City Clerk APP aniel B eid City Attorney Resolution No. 4068 June 19, 2006 Page 3 of 3 FOR MAYOR , 2006. RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OPPOSING INITIATIVE 933, ENTITLED "AN ACT RELATING TO PROVIDING FAIRNESS IN GOVERNMENT REGULATION OF PROPERTY" O WHEREAS, Initiative 933 (1 -933) will be presented to the voters of the State of Washington at the general election on November 7, 2006, with the following official Ballot Title and Description: Statement of the Subject: Initiative Measure 933 concerns government regulation of private property. Description: This measure would require compensation when government regulation damages the use or value of private property, would forbid regulations that prohibit existing legal uses of private property, and would provide exceptions or payments. Should this measure be enacted into law? Yes [ ] No [ ] WHEREAS, by its terms, the provisions of 1 -933 are to be "liberally construed" (Section 6) and its exceptions "shall be construed narrowly" (Section (2)(c), and WHEREAS, 1 -933 would require agencies such as the City Of Olympia to undergo a lengthy and costly pre - enactment process to document potential impacts of new regulations upon the use and value of private property; and WHEREAS, 1 -933 would require the City (if it "decided" to "enforce or apply" any "ordinance, regulation or rule" to private property which would result in "damaging the use or value of private property") to first "pay compensation," as those phrases are defined and used in 1 -933, and WHEREAS, I -933's definition of "private property" includes virtually all interests in real as well as personal property, and WHEREAS, because of the breadth of I -933's definition of private property, and because its definition of "damaging the use or value" of private property includes no minimum threshold for the reduction of use or value, 1 -933 would dramatically lower the threshold for compensation far below constitutional limits because virtually any limitation on the use of any kind of private property could give rise to a claim for compensation for "damages" within the meaning of 1 -933, regardless of the importance of the public protection achieved by such limitation or the uses or values remaining to the property owner; and WHEREAS, the length and complexity of the aforementioned and required pre - enactment process would shift resources and staff time away from reviewing and processing all other permits thus forcing the City to concentrate primarily on 1 -933 claims, pre- enactment analysis and mitigating the City's liability, to the detriment of the City's existing permitting obligations, and WHEREAS, because the broad definition of "damaging the use or value" includes, but is not limited to, prohibiting or restricting any use or size, scope, or intensity of any use legally existing or permitted as of January 1, 1996, 1 -933 would dismantle all post -1996 regulations, including but not limited to development regulations and critical area regulations adopted pursuant to the detailed public participation process required by the Growth Management Act; WHEREAS, 1 -933 would deprive the Olympia City Council of its constitutional authority to adopt and enforce reasonable land use development standards to mitigate traffic impacts, assure appropriate building height and lot coverage maxima, provide for the preservation of open spaces and protection of environmentally sensitive areas, and other general development regulations necessary to promote the public health, safety and welfare, thereby supplanting the will of the local community and curtailing the police power authority granted to the City Council by the Washington Constitution (Article XI, Section XI) to adopt and enforce sound land use, zoning, growth management and planning, critical area, water quality and shoreline management and other measures through an open public process; and WHEREAS, the sweeping and detrimental regulatory and fiscal impacts of 1 -933 would be borne by citizens who reside in each of the state's 39 counties, and WHEREAS, the exceptions listed in Section (2)(c) do not list nuisance uses that typically would be precluded from residential neighborhoods, and thus 1 -933 would authorize claims for payment or waiver for city regulations that prohibit a wide variety of obnoxious land 1 I uses and activities that would seriously degrade property values of such residential neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, the only - alternative -to payment of compensation provided by 1 -933 is to issue site - specific waivers from regulations, which may give rise to lawsuits and claims for compensation from adjacent property owners, and WHEREAS, local governments may not have the legal authority to waive certain regulations on a parcel -by- parcel basis in any event; and WHEREAS, 1 -933 will lead to incompatible growth, which would potentially adversely affecting the value and use of adjacent properties and detrimentally affect the City's ability to provide needed infrastructure, public services and public safety which are necessary to promote healthy and prosperous communities, and WHEREAS, the City supports the benefits of balancing public good and private property rights, and WHEREAS, 1 -933 conflicts with the City's and its citizens' core values related to smart growth and does so in a manner that will benefit only a few, and WHEREAS, the waive or pay provision would jeopardize the City's ability to fund public services and public infrastructure, and WHEREAS, the equal application exemption erroneously implies that one size can fit all, and WHEREAS, agencies seeking a remedy under the equal application exemption provision would need to implement regulations that ignore the unique circumstances warranting different restrictions in different areas, and WHEREAS, on August 15, 2006, the Olympia City Council held a public hearing on Initiative Measure 933 pursuant to RCW 42.17.130 (1) which permits a City Council to adopt a resolution in support, or in opposition to a ballot proposition so long as there is notice of the meeting and the public is afforded the opportunity to express opposing views, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Olympia, Washington, that the City of Olympia opposes adoption of Initiative Measure 933, and urges voters to consider rejecting 1 -933 due to -the sweeping and detrimental impacts outlined above. PASSED BY THE OLYMPIA CITY COUNCIL this day of 2006. ATTEST: CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY i� MAYOR • WHEREAS, Initiative 933 (I -933) will be presented to the voters of the State of Washington at the general election on November 7, 2006, with the following official Ballot Title and Description: Page 1 of 3 RESOLUTION NO. 2013 A RESOLUTION of the City of Puyallup, encouraging city voters to carefully read and consider the text of Initiative 933, particularly the provisions that could effectively require the City to waive or pay compensation to private property owners who claim that neighborhood - specific land use guidelines affect their ability to use or build upon their property as they see fit regardless of nuisance concerns or adverse impacts to neighbors, and recommending that voters reject such initiative because of its potentially negative impacts on property values throughout the city if reasonable land use guidelines must be set aside to avoid expensive and unfunded verdicts that could include attorneys' fees incurred by property owners seeking to benefit from the initiative, whether or not they win or lose their claim. Statement of the Subject: Initiative Measure 933 concerns government regulation of private property. Description: This measure would require compensation when government regulation damages the use or value of private property, would forbid regulations that prohibit existing legal uses of private property, and would provide exceptions or payments. Should this measure be enacted into law? Yes[] No[] WHEREAS, the city council is mindful of the need to balance public good and private property rights; and WHEREAS, voters are encouraged to read materials prepared by supporters and opponents of the initiative so that they can make an informed decision; information is available on the Internet by using "yes on 933" as a search term for websites supporting the initiative and "no on 933" as a search term for websites opposing it; and WHEREAS, by its terms, the provisions of I -933 are to be "liberally construed" (Section 6) and its exceptions "shall be construed narrowly" (Section (2)(2)(c); and WHEREAS, the provisions of I -933 could require the City to waive or pay compensation to private property owners who claim that neighborhood - specific land use guidelines affect their ability to use or build upon their property as they see fit regardless of nuisance concerns or adverse impacts to neighbors; and RESOLUTION NO. 2013 ,a1,9 6)0 WHEREAS, opponents claim that I -933 would effectively outlaw zoning, because Sec. 2(2)(b) of the initiative defines the term "damaging the use or value" of property to include "prohibiting or restricting any use or size, scope or intensity of any use legally existing or permitted as of January 1, 1996;" and WHEREAS, these provisions could have a significant negative impact on most residents living in the City of Puyallup, where single family residences were permitted in most zones before 1996, meaning that any limitation on the intensity of the use, such as a minimum lot size, maximum density, or size or type of junk stored on a particular site, could have to be waived or set aside to avoid expensive and unfunded verdicts that could include attorneys' fees incurred by property owners seeking to benefit from the initiative, whether or not they win or lose their claim (see Sec. 2(2)(d) of the initiative); and WHEREAS, an analysis dated August 18, 2006 by the Association of Washington Cities has estimated that the state -wide annual administrative costs to cities alone would be between $60 million and $75 million, while the state -wide annual cost to cities for paying off claims is estimated to be between $3.5 billion and $4.5 billion; and WHEREAS, by dividing this state -wide city estimate by the number of households in Washington cities, as set forth in U.S. Census data, it is estimated that the average fiscal impact of 1 -933 on city taxpayers in Washington is between $2,410 and $3,078 per household every year; and WHEREAS, the exceptions listed in Section 2(2)(c) of the initiative do not list nuisance uses that typically would be precluded from residential neighborhoods, and thus 1 -933 would authorize claims for payment or waiver of city regulations that prohibit a wide variety of detrimental land uses and activities that would seriously degrade property values in affected residential neighborhoods; and WHEREAS, the only alternative to payment of compensation provided by 1 -933 is to issue site - specific waivers from regulations, which may give rise to lawsuits and claims for compensation from adjacent property owners; and WHEREAS, local governments may not have the legal authority to waive certain regulations on a parcel -by- parcel basis in any event; and WHEREAS, I -933 could lead to incompatible growth and development, which would potentially affect the value and use of adjacent properties and detrimentally affect the City's ability to provide needed infrastructure, public services and public safety which are necessary to promote healthy and prosperous communities; and WHEREAS, the waive or pay provision would jeopardize the City's ability to fund public services and public infrastructure; and Page 2 of 3 RESOLUTION NO. 2013 1 WHEREAS, the "equal application" exemption in the initiative erroneously implies that one set of zoning rules should apply throughout the city, i.e. that the same rules should apply in a commercial area as in a single family neighborhood; and WHEREAS, agencies seeking a remedy under the equal application exemption provision would need to implement regulations that ignore the unique circumstances warranting different restrictions in different areas; and WHEREAS, prior to adoption of this resolution, the City of Puyallup gave notice of the meeting at which it was considered containing the official Ballot Title of Initiative 933, and afforded approximately equal time for councilmembers and others to express opposing points of view in the course of such meeting; and NOW, 'I'H.EREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Puyallup, Washington, that the City of Puyallup opposes adoption of Initiative Measure 933, and urges voters to reject I -933 due to the potentially detrimental impacts outlined above. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Puyallup at a regular meeting this day of 2006. ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM Barbara Price, City Clerk Gary N. McLean, City Attorney F:\LF.GALICNIL1R,esolutions \Opposition to Initiative 933 v.2.doc Page 3 of 3 Michael W. Deal Mayor RESOLUTION NO. 2013 2006 Estimate Street Fund - #2 Beginning Fund Bal $ 3,900,000 Transfer from General Fund $ 2,000,000 Motor fuel tax/mi isc. $ 2,020,000 $ 7,920,000 Expenditures * $ 3,500,000 Ending Fund Balance $ 4,420,000 Street Fund - Problem Statement #2 July 27, 2007 2007 Estimate $ 4,420, 000 $ 900,000 $ 2,100, 000 $ 7,420,000 $ 4,500,000 $ 2,920,000 * 2006 Tight weather year 2008 Estimate $ 2,920,000 $ 900,000 $ 2,100,000 $ 5,920,000 $ 4,860,000 $ 1,060,000 83 2009 Estimate $ 1,060,000 $ 500,000 $ 2,100,000 $ 3,660,000 $ 5,248,800 $ (1,588,800) 2010 Estimate $ (1,588,800) $ 500,000 $ 2,100,000 $ 1,011,200 $ 5,668,704 (4,657,504) 2011 Estimate $(4,657,504) $ 400,000 S 2,100,000 $(2,157,504) $ 6,122,200 .$S8,279,704) Salaries, Wages & Benefits $286,911 $309,864 $334,653 $361,426 $390,340 $421,567 Supplies $16,950 518,306 $19,770 $21,352 $23,060 $24,905 Other Services and Charges $1,226,080 $633,080 $683,726 $738,425 $797,498 $861,298 Intergovernmental Services Street Maintenance Services $2,473,745 $2,000,000 $1,450,000 $1,566,000 $1,691,280 $1,826,582 WSDOT Street Maintenance Services $350,000 $378,000 $250,000 $270,000 $291,600 $314,928 Capital Outlay $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Interfund Payment for Services $35,000 $37,800 $40,824 $44,090 $47,617 $51,426 Intergovernmental Services $74,686 $80,661 $87,114 $94,083 $101,609 5109,738 Total Expenditure $4,463,372 $3,457,711 $2,866,088 $3,095,375 $3,343,005 $3,610,446 $0 $0 Revenue $6,920,000 $3,000,000 $2,600,000 $2,600.000 $2,500,000 $2,500,000 Street Fund 2007 2008 6 -Year Plan Based on Projected Revenues 20091 20101 2011 2012 !Fund Balance 2008 -2012 2008 -2012 2009 -2012 Other Services:I Street Maintenance:I Street Maintenance:I Restricted 6 -Year Plan - 2. at1 NkA d.� $2,456.6281 51,998,9161 $1,732,8281 $1,237,4531 $394,4481 ($715,99 Delete updating of street condition assessment, pavement management plan and crack sealing work Delete all Pavement Repair & Replacement Only have Snow Removal on arterials and maintenance of signals and signs 9/26/2006 Salaries, Wages & Benefits $286,911 $309,864 $334,653 $361,426 $390,340 $421,567 Supplies $16,950 $18,306 $19,770 $21,352 $23,060 $24,905 Other Services and Charges $951,080 $1,02.7.166 $1,109,340 $1,198,087 $1,293,934 $1,397,449 Intergovernmental Services Street Maintenance Services $1,917,745 $2,071,165 WSDOT Street Maintenance Services $350,000 $378,000 $408,240 $440,899 $476,171 $514,265 Capital Outlay $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Interfund Payment for Services $35,000 $37,800 $40,824 $44,090 547,617 $51,426 Intergovernmental Services $74,686 $80,661 $87.114 $94,083 $101,609 $109,738 Total Expenditure $3,632,372 $3,922,962 $3,449,941 $3,725,937 $4,024,012 $4,345,933 $0 $0 Revenue $6,920,000 $3,000,000 $2,600,000 $2,600,000_ $2,500,000 $2,500,000 Street Fund 20071 20081 2009 6 -Year Plan Based on Projected Revenues 2010 2011 2012 'Fund Balance 2007 -2012 2007 -2012 2009 -2012 $3,287,628 1 $2,364,665 1 $1,514,724 1 $388,787 1 ($1,135,224)I (52,981,157)1 Other Services:I I Street Maintenance:I Street Maintenance Restricted 6 -Year Street Fund Plan -2 - 011 Delete updating of street condition assessment, pavement management plan work Delete all Pavement Repair & Replacement Only have Snow Removal on arterials and maintenance of signals and signs 9/26/2006 Salaries, Wages & Benefits $286,911 $309,864 $334,653 $361,426 $390,340 $421,567 Supplies $16.950 $18,306 $19,770 $21.352 $23,060 $24,905 Other Services and Charges $951,080 $1,027,166 $1,109,340 $1,198,087 $1,293,934 $1,397,449 Intergovernmental Services Street Maintenance Services $1,917,745 $2,071,165 $2,236,858 $2,415,806 $2,609,071 $2,817,797 WSDOT Street Maintenance Services $350,000 $378,000 $408,240 $440,899 $476,171 $514.265 Capital Outlay $0 $0 $0 SO $0 $0 Interfund Payment for Services $35,000 $37,800 $40,824 $44,090 $47,617 $51,426 Intergovernmental Services $74,686 $80.661 $87,114 $94,083 $101,609 $109,738 Total Expenditure $3,632,372 $3,922,962 $4,236,799 $4,575,743 $4,941,803 $5,337,147 $0 $0 Revenue $6,920,000 $3,000,000 $2,600,000 $2,600.000 $2,500,000 $2,500,000 1Fund Balance 2007 -2012 2007 -2012 Other Services:] 1 Street Maintenance:1 Restricted 6 -Year Street Fund Plan -1 2 010 °A-4 Street Fund 20071 2008 6 -Year Plan Based on Projected Revenues 20091 20101 2011 2012 $3,287,628 1 $2,364,665 1 $727,866 1 ($1,247,877)1 ($3.689,679)1 ($6,526,826)I Delete updating of street condition assessment and pavement management plan work Delete all Pavement Repair & Replacement 9/26/2006