The URL can be used to link to this page

2005, 01-25 Regular Meeting MinutesMINUTES City of Spokane Valley City Council Regular Meeting Tuesday, January 25, 2005 Mayor Wilhite called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m., and welcomed everyone to the 59 meeting. Attendance: Councilmembers: Diana Wilhite, Mayor Rich Munson, Deputy Mayor Gary Schimmels, Councilmember Mike Flanigan, Councilmember Rich Munson, Deputy Mayor Gary Schimmels, Councilmember Absent: Steve Taylor, Councilmember Staff: Dave Mercier, City Manager Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney Ken Thompson, Finance Director Marina Sukup, Community Development Director Neil Kersten, Public Works Director Mike Jackson, Parks and Recreation Director Cal Walker, Police Chief Tom Scholtens, Building Official Scott Kuhta, Long Range Planner Greg McCormick, Long Range Planning Manager Sue Pearson, Deputy City Clerk Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk INVOCATION: Pastor Al Hulten, from Valley Assembly of God gave the invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Wilhite led the Pledge of Allegiance ROLL CALL It was moved by Deputy Mayor Munson and seconded by Councilmember Flanigan to excuse Councilmember Taylor from tonight's meeting. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll; all present except excused Councilmember Taylor. APPROVAL OF AGENDA City Manager Mercier brought attention to the added items on tonight's amended agenda: New Business items 3a, 7a, and 12. It was moved by Councilmember Denenny and seconded by Deputy Mayor Munson to approve the amended agenda. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS Mayor Wilhite acknowledged scouts from Boy Scout Troop 404 and Troop 423, and stated the Council's appreciation in having them attend the meeting. COMMITTEE, BOARD, LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS Councilmember Schimmels: reported that he attended the Spokane Regional Transportation Committee meeting a few weeks ago; and also attended the Central Valley Weed and Seed Committee which is considering re- organizing. Deputy Mayor Munson: stated that he attended the Spokane Transit Authority Board of Directors meeting last Thursday where they approved six new larger busses equipped with reading lights and luggage racks for those passengers traveling longer distances; that last week he attended the "Conversation with the Community" and was pleased with the level of participation and enthusiastic comments from the Council Meeting: 01 -25 -05 Page 1 of 9 Approved by Council: 02 -08 -05 audience; and he added that this week he received a telephone call from a citizen expressing thanks for what we are doing and he encouraged all Councilmembers to come to his office to hear the positive message. Councilmember DeVleming: explained that last week he attended the Community Production Awards luncheon at the Davenport; he also attended a Weed and Seed Meeting, two Washington State University Board meetings downtown; and that he gave a presentation to the students at East Valley Middle School last week. Councilmember Denenny: reported that he attended a meeting with the Executive Director and other Board of Directors on the Regional Health District, and they also conducted an executive meeting to review the general agendas and focus for the coming year; that he attended and chaired the first STA meeting for the year where they discussed the actual operation of the extension of paratransits, and where they collaborated with others to come to a solution which will hopefully accommodate the needs of the paratransit riders. Councilmember Flanigan: stated that he was the scorekeeper and announcer for a four -way gymnastics meet at U -High where U -High took second place; he served as a judge for the debate tournament at Lewis & Clark; he attended last week's Conversation with the Community; and also attended the Spokane Valley Chamber Awards Banquet where our the City's First Mayor, Mike DeVleming was presented with the Citizen of the Year Award. MAYOR'S REPORT: Mayor Wilhite reported that during the past week she attended the Spokane Valley Arts Council meeting; she gave a presentation at the Spokane Valley Library in connection with their 50 anniversary; she attended the Northwest Mayor's meeting at Liberty Lake; attended a Comcast facility tour; a farewell reception for former County Commissioner McCaslin; attended the Valley Chamber banquet where Councilmember DeVleming was awarded Citizen of the Year; attended the Conversation with the Community; and was also present at a Spokane Valley Tourism meeting. PUBLIC COMMENTS Mayor Wilhite invited public comments. Tony Lazanis, mentioned the recent fuel spill at a Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway Company facility and that Spokane City Council supported a resolution for an independent analysis of the cleanup as well as the engineering of the facility; and he encouraged the City of Spokane Valley to do the same. Mayor Wilhite indicated she would take the matter under advisement. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Pines /Mansfield Development Agreements — Neil Kersten Mayor Wilhite opened the public hearing at 6:15 p.m. After Mayor Wilhite gave a brief synopsis of the project, she mentioned that in the spirit of open disclosure, she asked each member of Council to inform the public of any contacts they may have had in connection with this topic; and stated that she was an observer of a discussion between Mr. Wayne Frost and Ms. Julie Prafke regarding the Pines /Mansfield area; that she did not join the discussion but merely observed. Councilmember Schimmels said that he spoke with Meg Arpin of Arpin Law Office, that he also spoke to a principal with Inland Construction and also talked with a Mr. John Miller, established under the name of Pinecroft Business Park. Deputy Mayor Munson said that he had a very brief conversation yesterday, perhaps only 15 seconds, with InCyte and Steve Walker their builder, telling them that he (Deputy Mayor Munson) hopes that tonight they can come to a resolution of this situation, but of course, could not promise anything. Councilmember Flanigan stated he had no conflicts. Councilmember Denenny said that he spoke with Ms. Julie Prafke in her capacity as current president of the Spokane Valley Chamber of Commerce, and also as an interested person who potentially will occupy a building in the Mirabeau area. Councilmember DeVleming stated Council Meeting: 01 -25 -05 Page 2 of 9 Approved by Council: 02 -08 -05 that he also had a conversation with Meg Arpin and a principal from Inland Construction and also Tom Hamilton. Public Works Director Kersten explained the project in further detail, adding that these problems were being addressed by the County in 1999, and the issues included intersection problems with Pines at Indiana and Pines at Mansfield. He explained that there were nine property owners in the vicinity who wanted to develop but could not due to the cost of upgrading the intersections; that in 2002 Spokane County and WSDOT applied for a Transportation Improvement Board grant to help pay for the intersection; that the grant was funded and they received $2.1 million; when the City incorporated in 2003, we took over the project and have been working with the County, WSDOT and the developers. Mr. Kersten explained that additional funds were needed and this year the City applied for and received an additional $1.1 million in federal funding from SRTC. Director Kersten said the outstanding issue tonight is to conduct a public hearing on the developer's agreement; explaining that the developer's piece of the total project is approximately $4 million; recapping that there is now the TIB grant of $2.2 million; the City and WSDOT have each budgeted $55,000, and the SRTC award of $1.1 million; and to close the gap all developers must commit to participate in the project and sign developer agreements. Director Kersten also briefly went over some of the aspects of the mitigation agreement, including $303 per trip paid for by each property, the schedule for repayment (20% shortly after the agreement is completed and prior to construction the 80% must be paid); and to ensure there is full funding on the project, that all developers must execute the agreement before the project moves ahead; which has been an issue with some of the developers. Mayor Wilhite announced that the following letters have been received as part of the public record: letter dated January 25, 2005 from InCyte Pathology, letters dated January 25, 2005 from Pinecroft Business Park and Arpin Law Office, and letter dated January 21, 2005 from Centennial Properties. Mayor Wilhite invited public comments. Carlos Landa, 2910 E 13 Avenue: said he is one of the nine developers; stated that he understands that one developer has decided not to sign the agreement; he will be ready to start development in the spring and said that this represents a substantial amount of tax revenue in the form of sales tax for construction; so we have a reason to approve the building permits; that those who are not ready to build are choosing to obstruct the project or not sign the agreement; and that his concern is the "all or nothing" approach jeopardizes his project beyond his or Council's control. Mary Picken, 11703 E Buckeye: said she is in agreement with fixing roads and has no problem in getting land developed; but that she objects to the number of apartments and duplexes that would make this a high density area; that she is concerned about parking availability for the number of outlets, and the area is not big enough. Meg Arpin, 1117 E 35 Ave: (distributed copies of her January 25, 2005 letter) in summarizing her letter, she explained that she represents Qualchan Investments Spokane, Inc. and she is here to urge Council to do what it takes to allow both development and the Pines Mansfield project to move forward; that her client shares the concerns of Mr. Landa that all must sign before any permits are issues; that Qualchan is not listed as a participating developer but they are one of the properties not among those the developer partners tagged a year ago to participate; that she has no objection to participating by approximately $50,700; and that she feels it is imperative for public safety that these improvements move forward; and added that an influx of the revenue stream would more than make up for any revenue shortfall. Dave Hoak, 5102 E Willow Spring Road: said that he is a practicing doctor with and President of the Board of InCyte Pathology at 11604 Indiana Ave; that he feels they are caught in a bind; he wants to build a building in that region, that they have everything in place but cannot secure a building permit; they have Council Meeting: 01 -25 -05 Page 3 of 9 Approved by Council: 02 -08 -05 VOUCHER LIST DATE VOUCHER Number(s) TOTAL VOUCHER AMOUNT 1 -3 -05 6081 17,878.90 1 -7 -05 6095 -6140 725,299.21 1 -14 -05 6141 -6182 1,704,438.17 GRAND TOTAL 2,477,616.28 been in the area for twenty years; they want to stay here; they provide good jobs with good benefits; that they looked at various sites for their new facility and chose that region as many employees live and shop here; that their lease in their current building ends September 30 and their current building is on the market; that they cannot extend the lease and if they cannot build it will increase the likelihood they will have to move twice, which is expensive and disruptive and could also jeopardize their patient care. He stated they want to be treated fairly like the Fish & Game and he looks forward to finding a solution to be allowed to move forward and build the building. Michael O'Malley, architect for InCyte, 6205 W Selkirk, Spokane: he started by expressing thanks to staff employees Tom Scholtens, Micki Harnois, Dawn Dompier and Rulon Taylor for their assistance in this process and stated that they are a pleasure to work with; he spoke of timelines and showed pictures of the area; and also mentioned that the Fish & Game site has been permitted, as well as the CenterPlace Building; said that he feels a solution needs to be found and doesn't believe the City will say that development cannot take place; and questioned why InCyte Pathology would be treated differently from some other projects which have been allowed to be permitted. Helen Sargent, 11810 E Buckeye: commented concerning the Landa development; said she didn't know he was going to comment on that plot as she understand that a public hearing was set for February 17; and said that if Mr. Landa wants to talk to the neighbors about what he is going to do, they would be willing to talk to him; but they are against having no playground and no place for kids to play; they are a residential neighborhood in Mirabeau Ranch Addition; and that Landa is talking about something on the complete other side of the hill; and that nothing should be settled until after the February 17 public hearing. Mayor Wilhite asked for further public comment. No further comments were offered and Mayor Wilhite closed the public hearing at 6:42 p.m. 2. 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. (Note: Council may entertain a motion to waive reading and approve Consent Agenda.) a. Approval of Regular Council Meeting Minutes of January 11, 2005 b. Approval of Study Session Minutes of January 18, 2005 c. Approval of Payroll of January 15, 2005 of $103,579.80 d. Approval of the Following Vouchers: It was moved by Deputy Mayor Munson and seconded by Councilmember Flanigan to waive the reading and approve the consent agenda. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. NEW BUSINESS 3a. Motion Consideration: Pines /Mansfield Development Options — Cary Driskell Mayor Wilhite asked about the legal options available to Council. Deputy City Attorney Driskell stated that he wanted to clarify an issue raised during the public hearing; that there was a misunderstanding that Council Meeting: 01 -25 -05 Page 4 of 9 Approved by Council: 02 -08 -05 Council had passed a building moratorium in the Pines /Mansfield impact area; and that there was no moratorium. Mr. Driskell explained that the City is required to comply with State laws regarding concurrency, which means that whatever impacts result from development, a city must ensure that those are mitigated within a certain amount of time. That the Pines /Mansfield area is in "F" Status in terms of traffic and we cannot permit additional development there; all of which results in not being able to grant permits; which is not a moratorium but is in keeping with the concurrency law. Regarding options, Mr. Driskell explained that on September 14, 2004, staff provided council with information about what needed to be done concerning the mitigation agreement in the Pines /Mansfield issue. That the Council decided that all the public and private money must be secured prior to the project moving forward because of the financial condition of the city, and from a best practice standpoint on this intersection and on those which will occur in the future. Mr. Driskell said that since then, there have been numerous discussions among the developer parties and the city, and it appears that not all developers are going to agree to sign the Pines /Mansfield Mitigation Agreement; that previous letters of commitment have been received from the nine developer partners which were issued in 2001 and 2002, which state that the developer supports the project and agrees to provide financial commitment to the project. Because of the indication that not everyone agrees to sign at this time, staff has been examining other options. Mr. Driskell explained that another option is to implement a benefit district per RCW 35.72; that the City has defined what the benefit district is, which is the nine or possibly ten properties that would be impacted in this area and would be required to mitigate their development impacts. Under this option, the City would be required to approve an ordinance which identifies the area, and the City would then advance the money and the ordinance adopted therefrom would provide the mandatory payment mechanism. Mr. Driskell mentioned that this option does have some limitations, one of which is that the repayment period is limited to 15 years; so if someone wanted to develop in that area within that 15 year period, they would have to pay prior to issuance of anything more than a grading permit; and Mr. Driskell feels that a grading permit could be issued short of paying the mitigation fee under RCW 35.72, because that does not provide any traffic impacts. He stated that the City is examining if the City would still have to pay the full, up -front costs or collect as much as possible from the private developers and then improve the District on the last remaining ones which did not agree to the mitigation agreement. Public Works Director Kersten added that there has been an expression from a number of the developers regarding the language and that they do not want to sign the agreement; but nothing has been submitted in writing other than the letter from Centennial stating they do not want to sign the agreement. Further discussion continued on assumptions of property values, whether increasing or decreasing; if a new mitigation agreement is needed for all to sign; on the impact of those who have already paid and /or signed; proposed timeframe in implementing such a district and of the need to discuss such option with all concerned; the fifteen year period in regard to the district option; and of the surrounding economic issues. It was then moved by Councilmember Denenny and seconded by Deputy Mayor Munson to instruct staff to create an ordinance to create the assessment reimbursement area. Mayor Wilhite invited public comment on the motion. Michael O'Malley, 6205 W Selkirk Avenue Spokane: asked what does that motion mean to a property owner that is ready to build or has started to build such as InCyte Pathology, Fish & Game, and CenterPlace, and whether those projects would be stopped or continue to be held hostage; and he feels that motion does not resolve the issue for his property, and would like to receive some clarification on this issue. Mayor Wilhite indicated that we would get back to Mr. O'Malley's questions in writing. Meg Arpin, 1117 East , speaking on behalf of Qualchan Investments Spokane, Inc: said that she is pleased with the idea of a transportation benefit district being proposed for this; that it is a great idea but Council Meeting: 01 -25 -05 Page 5 of 9 Approved by Council: 02 -08 -05 staff needs to look at this further as there are more than those nine properties that are benefiting from these improvements, such as her clients on Pines which are also willing to participate; she suggested if such a district is created that it include all the properties that will benefit from this, to allow InCyte and others to move forward, and to develop an agreement that states that they will pay up to what their share would have been under the mitigation agreement; for example her client would have paid $50,700; and state in the agreement that when the district is finally formed, that if that share is actually less than what was paid, which she believes it will be when all benefited properties are included, that that amount be reimbursed; and that would allow all of the benefited properties to be assessed which is not now occurring; and it would allow these projects to move forward. Stan Schultz, 425 S Alpine Drive, Liberty Lake: said he wanted to correct part of a previous statement; he said that Centennial wrote a letter that indicated they are not willing to sign the agreement in part because they don't feel they should be held hostage by one person who decided not to sign an agreement; but he wanted to mention publicly that they tendered a $151,000 check to the City which he feels speaks louder than all of the other agreements, about their intention; that the transportation benefit district is a good idea but would have been a better idea if it had been done earlier; and that delay is killing these people and what needs to happen is that those who have paid need to be able to get their permits; if there is an approximately $400,000 in developer contributions, the developer that isn't going to sign is responsible for $119,000 of that; $50,000 of that is picked up by Ms. Arpin's client leaving an approximate $70,000 shortfall on a several million dollar project; and that the wise choice is to proceed ahead rapidly. Mayor Wilhite invited further public comment; no further comments were offered. Mayor Wilhite asked Deputy Attorney Driskell to address the question raised regarding the Fish and Wildlife and CenterPlace properties. Attorney Driskell stated that the question was raised by the City in taking this position, and because of the concurrency requirements of RCW 36.70A.070(6)(b), the City is required to do this and the funding for the project is incomplete until such time as that is secured, and that we cannot certify the concurrency is met; that the Fish and Wildlife procedural history was examined by staff, and that the appropriate concurrency determination was missed. Mr. Driskell further stated that a question was posed of how can staff allow Fish and Wildlife to have a permit and not allow another development; but that the missed concurrency was not realized until after the fact, and under Washington law, if it is determined that an error has been made, there is no requirement that the error must be compounded by allowing others to benefit from the same problem. He added that a different concurrency requirement should have been made for Fish and Wildlife but that was not done and he believes we cannot do so at this time. Regarding CenterPlace, Mr. Driskell stated that we are included in part of the mitigation for Pines /Mansfield and have budgeted $55,000 to help defray the mitigation impacts; and in the similar situation of CenterPlace, that permit should not have been issued either. City Manager Mercier mentioned that Council has the two -year old letters of commitment, but not all of those signers are indicating willingness today to sign a mitigation agreement; that Council has a statutory option for this reimbursement area, that two speakers tonight mentioned that delay is a killing defect to their proposed property development. Mr. Mercier stated that he feels there is a point of practicality council needs to measure, which is if Ms. Arpin is correct in that we should broadened the pool of those who will participate, if the two -year old letters of agreement have not led to signed mitigation agreements, he fears the prospect of going to a different formula with a different set of participants and that it might not be the most timely approach for Council. If delay is the problem to avoid, Mr. Mercier said he is uncertain of the introduction of a new concept which might involve the re- creation of discussions that have gone on for some months and years. The issue was further discussed including further defining the area; future similar situations and how they might be handled if the City contributes to the funding shortfall; of the desire to know exactly who would Council Meeting: 01 -25 -05 Page 6 of 9 Approved by Council: 02 -08 -05 be included in such district and exactly what the shortfall would be; and if this district creation would be gladly received, or raise more objections. Vote on the motion to instruct staff to create an ordinance to create the assessment reimbursement area: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. Mayor Wilhite called for a recess at 7:16 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 7:25 p.m. 3b. Second Reading: Proposed Ordinance 05 -003; Area -wide Rezone N Greenacres Area (REZ 17- 04) — Scott Kuhta [closed recordl After Long Range Planner Kuhta gave his overview of the proposal as per the PowerPoint presentation, City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title. It was then moved by Deputy Mayor Munson and seconded by Councilmember Denenny to accept the Planning Commission's Findings and Recommendations and to adopt Ordinance 05 -003. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 4. Proposed Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan — Scott Kuhta a. Second Reading, Ordinance 05 -004, CPA 01 -04 Fclosed recordl Mr. Kuhta gave a brief overview /history of the proposal, followed by City Clerk Bainbridge reading the ordinance title. It was moved by Councilmember Flanigan and seconded by Deputy Mayor Munson to approve Ordinance 05 -004. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. b. Second Reading, Ordinance 05 -005, CPA 02 -04 [closed recordl Mr. Kuhta gave a brief overview /history of the proposal, followed by City Clerk Bainbridge reading the ordinance title. It was moved by Councilmember Denenny and seconded by Councilmember Flanigan to approve Ordinance 05 -004. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. c. Second Reading, Ordinance 05 -006, CPA 03 -04 Fclosed recordl After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Councilmember Schimmels and seconded by Councilmember Denenny, to approve ordinance 05 -006, CPA 03 -04; and accept the Planning Commission's Findings and Recommendations in adopting the ordinance. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. d. Second Reading, Ordinance 05 -007, CPA 05 -04 [closed recordl After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Munson and seconded by Councilmember Denenny to accept the Planning Commission's Findings of Facts and Recommendations and to adopt ordinance 05 -007. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. e. Second Reading, Ordinance 05 -008, CPA 08 -04 Fclosed recordl Councilmember Denenny mentioned he has interest in some property in the area, but it was determined that was no conflict of interest. After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Mayor Wilhite and seconded by Deputy Mayor Munson to accept the Planning Commission's Recommendations and Findings of Fact and to adopt Ordinance 05 -008. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 5. Motion Consideration: S. Side of Broadway Avenue, CPA 04 -04 — Scott Kuhta [closed recordl Mr. Kuhta explained that this proposal was recommended for denial by the Planning Commission as it is out of character with the neighborhood. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Munson and seconded by Council Meeting: 01 -25 -05 Page 7 of 9 Approved by Council: 02 -08 -05 Councilmember Denenny that the council adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions approved by the Planning Commission on CPA 04 -04 that the council accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission and deny CPA 04 -04. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 6. Motion Consideration: East side of Adams Road, CPA 06 -04 — Scott Kuhta [closed record Mr. Kuhta explained that this proposal was also recommended for denial by the Planning Commission as the high density proposal would be incompatible with the area. It was moved by Councilmember Flanigan and seconded by Deputy Mayor Munson to adopt the Findings of Fact and Conclusions approved by the Planning Commission on CPA 06 -04, and accept the recommendation of the Planning Commission and deny CPA 06 -04. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 7. Motion Consideration: Fuel Tax Grant Distribution Agreement with the Transportation Improvement Board for the Pines /Mansfield Project — Steve Worley/Neil Kersten Public Works Director Kersten explained that in 2002, Spokane County received a $2.2 million TIB grant for the Pines /Mansfield project; that the City of Spokane Valley now has responsibility for completing this project; that we recently received a $1.6 million grant from SRTC and the project is now fully funded and we can begin the design phase of the project; but before we can request TIB grant reimbursement for costs, the attached Fuel Tax Grant Distribution Agreements must be signed by a city official. Mayor Wilhite invited public comment; no comments were offered. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Munson and seconded by Councilmember Flanigan to approve the agreement and authorize the Mayor to sign the agreement. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 7a. Mayoral Appointments: Planning Commission Council Liaison; Housing and Community Development Advisory Committee (HCDAC) — Mayor Wilhite [public comment Deputy Mayor Munson, currently on the HCDAC Board, announced that he has scheduling conflicts in attending those meetings. Mayor Wilhite proposed the appointment of Steve Taylor as the City of Spokane Valley's representative on that Board. Mayor Wilhite invited public comments; no comments were offered. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Munson and seconded by Councilmember DeVleming to approve the appointment of Steve Taylor to the HCDAC Board. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. Mayor Wilhite announced that due to a scheduling conflict of Councilmember DeVleming, she proposed to appoint Councilmember Schimmels as the Council Liaison for the Planning Commission. Council concurred. PUBLIC COMMENTS Mayor Wilhite invited public comments; no comments were offered. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS: [no public comment] 8. Sign Regulations — Marina Sukup After Community Development Director Sukup went through her report and explained some of the Sign Committee's recommendations, it was Council consensus to move the ordinance forward on the February 8 agenda. INFORMATION ONLY: Mayor Wilhite reminded everyone of the tentatively scheduled February 14 meeting with the Board of County Commissioners; and Councilmembers were encouraged to communicate discussion topics to her within the next several days. Council Meeting: 01 -25 -05 Page 8 of 9 Approved by Council: 02 -08 -05 i iistineainbridg e, i ty Jerk There being no further business, it was moved by Councilmember Flanigan, seconded, and unanimously agreed upon to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m. aW Lia1,1 Diana Wilhite, Mayor Council Meeting: 01- 25-05 Page 9 of 9 Approved by Council: 02 -08 -05 SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS F FACT AND RECOMMENDATION COMPREHENSIVE PI,:AN AMENDMENT CPA-06-04 WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley, incorporated on March 31, 2003 and adopted Land Use plans and regulations as set forth below; (1) Comprehensive Plan, Capital Facilities Plan, and Maps as the Interim Comprehensive Plan of the City through Ordinance No 52; (2) The Spok.ane County Zoning Code as supplemented and amended by the Phase I Development Regulations as the interim Development Regulations of the City through Ordinance No 53; and (3) The Spokane County Zoning Maps as the Interim Zoning Maps of the City through Ordinance No. 54; WHEREAS, the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) allows comprehensive plans to be amended annually (RCW 36.7OA13O); Wl-IEREAS, amendments to the interim Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan may be initiated by the Planning Commission, the City Council or by the Community Development Director based on citizen requests or when changed conditions warrant adjustments; WHEREAS, the GMA requires comprehensive plans to be implemented with development regulations, including the - zoning of property consistent with land use map designations; WHEREAS, consistent with the GMA. Spok.ane Valley adopted Public Participation Guidelines to direct the public involvement process for adopting and amending comprehensive plans; WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan provides that amendment applications shall be received until July of each year WHEREAS, the owner and or applicant of the property described in these Findings submitted an application to the City to amend the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Maps for the purpose of beneficially using the property described herein; Planning Commission Findings CPA-06-04 Page I of 3 WHEREAS, following the application to the City, staff conducted an environmental review to determine the potential environmental impacts from the proposed amendment; WHEREAS, after reviewing the Environmental Checklist submitted by the Applicant, staff issued a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) for the proposal, published the DNS in the Valley News Herald, posted the DNS on the site and mailed the DNS to all affected public agencies; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a briefing on August 12, 2004, to review the proposed amendment; WHEREAS, notice of the Planning Commission public hearing was published in the Valley News Herald at least 14 days prior to the hearing; WHEREAS, notice of the Planning Commission hearing was mailed to all property owners within 400 feet of the subject property; WHEREAS, notice of the hearing was posted on the subject property; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission received evidence, information, public testimony and a staff report and recommendation at a public hearing on September 23, 2004; WHEREAS, after considering the entire record, the Planning Commission voted 6 -0 to recommend denial of the requested Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendment and Zoning Map Change for the property depicted in Attachment A; NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Community Development staff conducted an appropriate environmental review and all SEPA requirements were met. 2. Spokane Valley followed its Public Participation Guidelines in processing the proposed amendment, including adequate public notice of the Planning Commission hearing. 3. The Commission considered the goals and policies of the Interim Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, and the proposed amendment is not consistent with the Interim Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan requires the adoption of regulations that establish design standards for multi - family developments to ensure compatibility with existing neighborhoods. Spokane Valley has not adopted regulations that would ensure compatibility between multi - family and single - family developments. Planning Commission Findings CPA -06 -04 Pate 2 of 3 4. The proposed land use and zoning designations are inconsistent with surrounding low density residential land uses. 5. The Commission heard significant testimony from neighborhood residents opposed to the proposal, expressing concern about increased traffic and incompatibility with the existing single - family nature of the area. 6. The proposed amendment would adversely affect the public's general health, safety and welfare. Based on the stated Findings and Conclusions, the Planning Commission recommends denial of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map amendment from Low Density Residential to High Density Residential for the property depicted in Attachment A. RECOMMENDATION David Crosby, Chair Date Spokane Valley Planning Commission Planning Commission Findings CPA -06 -04 Page 3 of 3 ! r•- 11 MB MI* • alinisera giro 111 1111111 t • I moo yo 111 OP ■ wog IU aims ar vinue in miens lli lArianin nreionnu smisrumnn � � III 11111 4- P1 :Jr :WAN milow msmoraMIR Vicinity Map rail NMI 111111111111111111 riervr IMO 111111111111111 Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA -06 -04 August, 2004 4 J f Site Um° N IA 111 Spokan e 4 Mal ley CPA -06 -04 Attachment `A' cnn Spokane Valley SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDATION COM PRE H ENS IVF PLAN AMEINDMENT CPA -04 -04 WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley, incorporated on March 31, 2003 and adopted Land Use plans and regulations as set forth below: (1) Comprehensive Plan, Capital Facilities Plan, and Maps as the Interim Comprehensive Plan of the City through Ordinance No. 52; (2) The Spokane County Zoning Code as supplemented and amended by the Phase I Development Regulations as the Interim Development Regulations of the City through Ordinance No. 53; and (3) The Spokane County Zoning Maps as the Interim Zoning Maps of the City through Ordinance No. 54; WHEREAS, the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) allows comprehensive plans to be amended annually (RCW 36.70A130); WHEREAS, amendments to the Interim Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan may be initiated by the Planning Commission, the City Council or by the Community Development Director, based on citizen requests or when changed conditions warrant adjustments; WHEREAS, the GMA requires comprehensive plans to be implemented with development regulations, including the zoning of property consistent with land use map designations; WHEREAS, consistent with the GMA, Spokane Valley adopted Public Participation Guidelines to direct the public involvement process for adopting and amending comprehensive plans; WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan provides that amendment applications shall be received until July l" of each year; WHEREAS, the owner and or applicant of the property described in these Findings submitted an application to the City to amend the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Maps for the purpose of beneficially using the property described herein; Planning Commission Findings CPA -04 -04 Page 1 of 3 WHEREAS, following the application to the City, staff conducted an environmental review to determine the potential environmental impacts from the proposed amendment; WHEREAS, after reviewing the Environmental Checklist submitted by the Applicant., staff issued a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) for the proposal, published the DNS in the Valley News Herald, posted the DNS on the site and mailed the DNS to all affected public agencies; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission conducted a briefing on August 12, 2004, to review the proposed amendment; WHEREAS, notice of the Planning Commission public hearing was published in the Valley News Herald at least 14 days prior to the hearing; WHEREAS, notice of the Planning Commission hearing was mailed to all property owners within 400 feet of the subject property; WHEREAS, notice of the hearing was posted on the subject property; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission received evidence, information, public testimony and a staff report and recommendation at a public hearing on September 23, 2004; WHEREAS, after considering the entire record, the Planning Commission voted 6 -0 to recommend denial of the requested Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map Amendment and Zoning Map Change for the property depicted in Attachment A; NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Community Development staff conducted an appropriate environmental review, and all SEI A requirements were met. 2. Spokane Valley followed its Public Participation Guidelines in processing the proposed amendment, including adequate public notice of the Planning Commission hearing. 3. The Commission considered the goals and policies of the Interim Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, and the proposed amendment is not consistent with the Interim Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan requires the adoption of regulations that establish design standards for multifamily developments to ensure compatibility with existing neighborhoods. Spokane Valley has not adopted regulations that would ensure compatibility between multi- family and single - family developments. Planning Commission Findings CPA -04 -04 Page 2 of 3 4. The site is accessed via Broadway Avenue, a narrow, two -lane arterial not currently designed to accommodate the pedestrian and vehicular traffic this site would generate if the amendment were approved. 5. The proposed land use and zoning designations are inconsistent with surrounding low density residential land uses. 6. The proposed amendment would adversely affect the public's general health, safety and welfare. Based on the stated Findings and Conclusions, the Planning Commission recommends denial of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map amendment from Low Density Residential to High .Density Residential for the property depicted in Attachment A. David Crosby, Chair Spokane Valley Planning Commission RECOMMENDATION Date -DS Planning Commission Findings CPA -04 -04 Page 3 of 3 CPA -04 -04 Comprehensive Plan Amendment CPA -04 -04 Attachment `A' NAME PLEASE PRINT ADDRESS TELEPHONE 6 it.:, „ # , ,_ -/ 6 1-.413.& � 3 /3, / /J7 et` _ _ „,„ 7 ,' v `.4 -74)‘-& L- f `frame s- f 1 _ - _ . PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET Pines/Mansfield Development Agreements SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE; January 25, 2005 All persons wishing to speak at a PUBLIC HEARING must sign in with your name and address for the record. There may be a time limit for your comments. A copy of any written comments relating to the public hearing subject must be provided to the City Clerk. January 25, 2005 Diana Wilhite, Mayor City of Spokane Valley 11707 E Sprague Ave, Suite 106 Spokane Valley WA 99206 Dear Madam Mayor. Thank you for your consideration of our request. Sincerety, David C. Hoak, MD Board President IN�YTE PATHOLOGY Dias ,,%I.c 1 %ceIInmce InCyte Pathology is an anatomic pathology laboratory currently located within the boundaries of the City of Spokane Valley. We have been in our current location for twenty years. You may be more familiar with our previous name Pathology Associates Inc. PS. We are the largest independent pathology group in the Northwest. We provide medical services to physicians and hospitals throughout the Inland Northwest and even receive patient specimens from California and Alaska. If you have had any sort of biopsy or cytology specimen, it was probably processed and interpreted at InCyte Pathology. We provide stable good paying jobs with full benefits for 100 employees including 20 physicians. In addition, our company is a good oorporate citizen providing charity health care to public health clinics and through Project Access. We recently made the decision to build a new facility and chose to stay within the City of Spokane Valley because many of our employees live and shop in the Valley. Unfortunately, we have been told we will be unable to secure a building permit for our project until all of the development agreements for the Pines - Mansfield project have been signed. We understand that the traffic problems on Pines need to be addressed and we understand that certain state requirements must be met. We have met with various members of the City staff on two occasions and now bring our building project to your attention. City staff has indicated that they cannot offer a solution to our dilemma without direction from the City Council. Our project has been shut down for approximately a month now and it is unclear when we will be able to secure a building permit and proceed with the project. A utility and grading permit was issued to us previously. We were able to secure a foundation and footing permit after signing a mitigation agreement with the City. At this lime, we are unable to proceed any further with our building project. As we understand it, our project could be held up if one developer fails to sign a developer agreement. This seems unfair as developers will have differing motives and timelines for developing their parcels of land. What has been frustrating for us is watching other projects at Mirabeau Point proceed. The Department of Fish & Wildlife building has proceeded, as has Center Point, which is owned by the City of Spokane Valley. We have not received a specific reason as to why these projects are proceeding and ours is not. We are now concerned about the negative impacts of not being able to secure a building permit. Our original timeline for the project included a completion date of August 2005. The lease on our current building terminates on September 30, 2005 and the building is for sale. It is possible that the building will be sold and we will be forced to move to another location before our new building is complete. Moving a medical laboratory is a complicated proposition. Forcing us to move twloe could jeopardize our ability to provide services at ow current level. We are open six days per week, 24 hours per day. Because of the type of service we provide and the regulations that we must adhere to, we are limited in the locations that we oould move lo. Any delay or disruption in our service could be detrimental to patient care. We are appealing to you regarding our inability to secure a building permit. If we are not allowed to continue with our project, there may be negative outcomes for the community and for us as a business. We provide vital medical services to the community and in order to meet the standards of care that the community expects from us, we need to be able to provide uninterrupted service to the citizens of this region. We need to be able to proceed with our building project as soon as possible in order to minimize the operational and financial impact on our laboratory. c -277 -r — Terri A. Montano Chief Operating Officer 11604 E Indiana Spokane. WA 09206 Phone: (5091892-2700 Fax: (509) 892 -2740 Website: www.incyteiaathdosT.uom Mailing address: P.O. Box 3405 Spokane, WA 99220 -3.05 RECEIVED JAN 2 5 2005 City of Spokane Valley l J �> 12 0 -' 1/i January 25,2005 Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Spokane Valley 11707 E Sprague Avenue Spokane Valley, Washington 99206 Dear Mayor and Members of the Council: Re: Mitigation Agreement SR 27 Pines /Mansfield Road Construction Project inecroft BUSINESS PARK I The City of Spokane Valley submitted Lumber Yard Investments LLC and Pinecroft LLC with a Mitigation Agreement for the above referenced project. We understand that the Mitigation Agreement is scheduled to be discussed at the Council Meeting tonight. All of the managers of Pinecroft LLC and Lumber Yard Investment LLC are out of town and unable to attend the council meeting tonight. As a manager of both entities I present this letter in lieu of presenting my thoughts in person. We have been working with Spokane County, Washington DOT and the City of Spokane Valley since 2000 in order to meet the traffic mitigation requirements of our projects located on Mirabeau Parkway in the Pinecroft Business Park. To date we have spent in excess of $250,000 widening Pines Road and building the intersection of Pines Road and Mirabeau Parkway. We generally support the Pines /Mansfield Corridor Project. However the Mitigation Agreement presented is incorrect and needs modification. Pinecroft LLC now owns all of the land formerly owned by Lumber Yard Investments LLC, Parkway Investments LLC and BSA Properties. In addition Pinecroft LLC has purchased additional property from Inland Empire Land Company (now Centennial Properties). Changes to the agreement should be made to reflect the current ownership. These properties include all of the land south of Mirabeau Parkway from Pines to the new Mirabeau Park except the EDMO Building and property as well as land north of Mirabeau Parkway. The proposed mitigation fees of $55,533 for Pinecroft LLC's contribution for all land including the EDMO building and property south of Mirabeau Parkway between Pines Road and Mirabeau Park and the mitigation fees of $96,383 for Pinecroft LLC's contribution for all land north of Mirabeau Parkway included in Parcel #45033.9121 are acceptable. However the Agreement as written holds Pinecroft hostage by not allowing building permits for projects on Pinecroft property if other property owners in the area do not join in the Agreement. We have no control over others and find this to be unacceptable! 12310 E Mirabeau Parkway, Suite 150 • Spokane Valley, WA 99216 • 509.927.7400 • Fax 509.927.5939 • www.PinecroftBusincssPark.com 1 1 Mayor and Members " ,ity Counsel January 25, 2005 Page 2 of 2 Pinecroft LLC is continuing to market the Pinecroft Business Park and add to the tax base of the City of Spokane Valley. We will be applying for a building permit for the new world headquarters for ITRONIX in March. As stated in the Mitigation Agreement, if other parties do not sign the Agreement we will be unable to obtain the necessary building permits for the ITRONIX project. Is this truly what the City of Spokane Valley intends? The ITRONIX building is a $10,000,000.00 project that will bring approximately 500 new high paying jobs to Spokane Valley within one year. This project alone should greatly stimulate Spokane Valley and add hundreds of thousands of dollars in tax revenues to the city treasury over the next several years. Do you truly want to hold up a permit on a project of this magnitude because other parties may not have signed the Mitigation Agreement? Is it possible to allow those property owners who are ready to develop their property to pay their mitigation fees in order to proceed and allow payment by others at a later date when they too are ready to proceed with any given project? There are other properties in the "Impact area" that are not involved as the Agreement is currently written. Should not all property owners be responsible for their fair share? Since the managers of Pinecroft LLC are out of town and unable to sign the Mitigation Agreement or pay the proposed fees and there are so many unresolved issues concerning the Agreement, we request that the date for final acceptance or payment be extended. At this time Pinecroft LLC cannot sign the Agreement as currently presented. The managers of Pinecroft LLC will be in Spokane the first week of February and are available to meet to resolve these issues. Ve y tr yours, ,Pinecroft LLC tl John 3 Miller, Manager cc: David Mercier, Spokane Valley City Manage Neil Kersten, Spokane Valley Public Works Director Steve Worley, Spokane Valley Senior Engineer Susan Go!man, Spokane Valley Assistant to City Manager and Mayor Robert Bonuccelli, Pinecroft, LLC Susan Miller, Pinecroft, LLC Wayne Frost, Centennial Properties Homer Tollenaere, DIVCON, Inc. Properties January 21, 2005 Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Spokane Valley 11707 E. Spra Ave. Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Re: Pines (SR27)/Mansfield Corridor Congestion Relief Project Dear Madam Mayor and Members of the Council: I have been informed that the City Council will be considering the above referenced project at its January 25, 2004 meeting. Unfortunately, T will be out of town and unable to attend so, in my absence, please consider this letter as our comments on the Pines/Mansfield Corridor Project. The first and main point, about which there should be no misunderstanding, is that we have been and still are, supportive of this project. Commencing in 2000 we have worked with Spokane County, the Washington State Department of Transportation, and since incorporation, the City of Spokane Valley on this project. In August of 2002, we committed to paying up to $151,729.00 as Mirabeau Point's contribution toward this project. The City has in its files our letter of August. 27, 2002 and a table which shows how our contribution was derived. Since that time, we have been actively marketing our property with some success. We gifted a large portion of Mirabeau Point to the Inland Northwest :Land Trust to allow the Mirabeau Point Trustees to plan and implement what is now known as CenterPlace and Mirabeau Point Park. This land is now owned by the City of. Spokane Valley. We sold a large parcel on the north portion of Mirabeau Point which is all the property located north of Mirabeau Parkway. We obtained approval of a "Binding Site Plan" (BSP- 01 -04) from the City and we sold a parcel in that Binding Site Plan to lncyte Pathology. The City has all appropriate maps in its files for your reference. The result of these marketing efforts is that our ownership in Mirabeau Point is significantly less than it was in 2002. Other landowners and developers, over which we have no control, now will be generating vehicle trips from Mirabeau Point. In fairness, these new landowners and developers in Mirabeau Point should be making a contribution to the Corridor Project and our contribution should be reduced accordingly. In some cases, as with lncyte Pathology, we have retained responsibility for traffic mitigation. Centennial Properties By letter dated December 21, 2004, the City staff presented us with a "Mitigation Agreement." On January 4, 2005, we responded by letter asking for several clarifications and changes. The Mitigation Agreement and our January 4, 2004 letter are attached. In general our problems with the Mitigation Agreement are: • The Agreement references property we no longer own and fails to reference all of the property we do own in Mirabeau Point. • The Agreement fails to reduce our contribution in accordance with our reduced ownership. • We believe that there are other landowners who should be contributing to the Project and the agreement does not adequately address the area of impact. • The Agreement adds conditions to our previous commitment to contribute by making the agreement contingent on all other "developer parties" signing the Agreement. With regard to the last point, we are convinced that not all the proposed "developer parties" will sign the Agreement. Our commitment to contribute to the Project, as evidenced by our August 27, 2002 letter and by the Decision of the City approving BSP- 01-04, never included a condition that our ability to get building permits for our property would be dependant on other developer parties signing an agreement. We submit that requiring such a condition is unwise and unfair. There is no question that the City and State have identified an existing public safety problem in the Pines/Mansfield corridor. Based on the proven existence of that public safety problem, the City has been able to procure several million dollars in grant funds to remedy the problem. The City desires to acquire approximately $500,000.00 from developer /landowners who may, through development of their properties, contribute to traffic issues in the Corridor. By requiring that all of these landowners sign the Agreement as a condition of the Project going forward, the City has, in effect, abdicated its responsibility to correct an identified public safety problem to a group of private landowners. In other words, if one of the identified landowners does not sign the Agreement, the Project will not go forward and the landowner who did not sign the Agreement effectively made that decision, not the City Council. Those of us who have committed to make a contribution to the Project did so with the understanding that if we paid our money, the City would issue permits for the development of our property. If the City conditioned other developers land use approvals in a similar fashion, soon the City would have all of its required funds. We believe that when we make our contribution to the Project, the City is obligated to issue permits for the development for our property. This obligation is not dependant upon whether some third party decides to sign an agreement. Centennial + Properties Accordingly, for the reasons identified, we decline to sign the Mitigation Agreement as proposed by the City. We will however, stand by our original commitment to contribute up to $151,729.00 to the Project. Enclosed with this letter is a check for $151,729.00 that we hereby deposit with the City with the following understandings: (1) that when the appropriate reduction is determined due to our reduced ownership, the City will return the appropriate balance to us; (2) that upon deposit of these funds with the City, the City will issue a building permit for the Incyte Pathology building in fulfillment of the conditions of approval of PSP- 01 -04; and (3) that the Mirabeau Point project will be deemed to have mitigated its traffic impacts on the Pines/Mansfield Corridor. Thank you for your consideration of this matter and please advise if you have any questions. Sincerely Way A_ Frost, P.E. General Manager Mayor Diana Wilhite City Council Members Spokane Valley 11707 E. Sprague Avenue. Spokane Valley, WA. 99206 Re: Qualchan Investments Spokane, Inc. Pines/Mansfield Mitigation Agreement 1)car Mayor and Council Members: Apd..4 J?G L 0 #ice 1117 East 35' Avenue Spokane, Washington 99203 (509) 838 -9066 Fax: (509) 838 -9051 January 25, 2005 1 represent Qualchan Investments Spokane, Inc. ( "QIS "), which owns property at the southeast corner of Pines Road and Grave Avenue. The parcel number for this property is 45102.9011. My client has a sale pending on its property to Pinehurst Development, I..L.C., which proposes to construct 270 affordable multi - family housing units on the site. We are writing to comment on the proposed Pines/Mansfield Mitigation Agreement and to urge the City Council to support bridging any funding gap necessary for the Pines/Mansfield Road Project to move forward. As you are aware from previous correspondence, the majority of this property was rezoned from Agricultural to Multiple Family Suburban in 1985, crossing over to UR -22 in 1991. The remainder of the properly was rezAmcd to UR -22 in 1999. The approved development plan for this property proposes a multi- family development with 270 units. The property owner went through the environmental review process mandated by the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) in connection with both of these applications. That review included evaluating the impacts of the Project on Pines Road, at which time Spokane County determined the transportation facilities adequate. The only possible mitigation measure was future channclization at the intersection of Grace and Pines Road to restrict movements at that intersection to right-in/right-out. With that condition and others. my client received approval to construct 270 apartment units on the property. Over the last six months, my client and representatives of Pinehurst Development have had several meetings with City staff regarding its Project We have also had the pleasure of meeting with a couple Council members regarding Pinehurst's development plans and its concerns regarding the Mitigation Agreement. While not currently a participant. my client and Pinehurst have both indicated that if they are otherwise able to obtain a building permit for its project. they would participate in the Pines/Mansfield Road Project. That contribution. according to the formula established by Stair, is approximately $50,700. However, we share the concerns of a number of the other development partners regarding the Agreement itself. The primary concern relates to the requirement that all Developer partners sign the Agreement prior to the release of any permits. This was troubling in the abstract when it was not known whether all parties would sign the Agreement. However, it is now apparent that at least one of the partners will not execute the Agreement. thus preventing any permits from issuing under the current terms of the Agreement. We would ask that the Council not place the fate of one property owner's project in the hands of another developer. Especially in Tight of the fact that a number of the developer partners are building the same product (i.e. apartments). We believe that each developer should be allowed to proceed once it has paid its proportionate share to the Project. in addition. we submit that it is unwise for the City to place the fate of a public project, which is necessary for public safety, to be placed in the hands of a private entity. The Pines/Mansfield Road Project is necessary for public safety and to allow any growth in this area of the City. Further, any future expansion of the City will be prohibited until this issue is addressed. City Staff has done an outstanding job of securing more than $3.3 million in public funds for the Project. It would be devastating to the economic health of the City to allow these funds and the Project to be lost because one or two developer partners decline to sign the Agreement. Finally, I would like to comment regarding previous statements indicating a preference to go to the development community to make up any shortfall. First. i believe the Council should take notice of the fact that the problems along this transportation corridor are not the result of any of the projects proposed by the developer partners. The Road Project is necessary regardless of whether these developments come to fruition. Further, there are several other properties which will benefit from the Road Project which are not conditioned to participate in the Project. Therefore, we believe that the Council should resist thc inclination to go hack to these developers for additional contributions. All of the above being said, we want to reiterate our support for the Pine's/Mansfield Road Project and applaud City Staff for their efforts in bringing all the funding sources together. We know this has not been easy. However, we feel that the City nerds to move forward with the Pmjcct, with or without all of the developers signing the Agreement. The influx of the dollars associated with Pinehurst's project and all of those which have been on hold for more than tree years will have a significant impact on the local economy. The increase in property taxes associated with the properties and the City's share of the sales taxes and other taxes generated by the developments w i l l have a tremendous positive impact on thc City's revenue stream. The City needs the economic development associated with these and other projects. The City needs the improvements to the Pines Road corridor. We ask that the Council take any and all action necessary to allow both to occur. • Thank you once again for your consideration of our Project and your continued service to the City of Spokane Valley. As always, if you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. cc: David Mercier Neil Kerstcn Cary Driskell Bryan Stone Jim Rivard Mike Craven Darin Davidson Dave Guthrie Washington State W® Department of Transportation Sid Morrison Secretary of Transportation August 26, 2002 Mr. Ross Kelley Spokane County Division of Engineering & Roads , 1026 W. Broadway Ave. Spokane, WA 99260 -0170 Eastern Region • 2714 N. Mayfair Street Spokane. WA 99207 -2090 (509) 324 -9000 REC AUG 2 7 alz72 ye izsir RE: Participation in Spokane County's Corridor Congestion Relief Program Application for the SR27/Mansfield Project Dear Mr. Kelley: I am writing on behalf of the Washington State Department of Transportation Eastern Region to offer our support of Spokane County's efforts in the SR27/Mansfield Avenue project and grant application for the Transportation Partnership Program.. Over the last several years, traffic delays and congestion along the Pines Rd. (SR27) corridor have significantly increased, particularly in the vicinity of Interstate 90. To further demonstrate our support, we will contribute up to $55,000 toward the match funds for this rant application. This commitment is made with the understanding that the 'financial aspect is subject to WSDOT programming and budgeting action. I look forward to the continuation of this partnership and the improvements that will be provided to the. public as a result. Sincerely, .C. LEN Regional Administrator CC: Mike Frucci, Project Development Harold White, Program Manager Keith Martin, WSDOT Local Programs • BLAND EYE LAND COMM1 ANY August 27, 2002 Scott Engelhard Spokane County Engineers 1026 W. Broadway Ave. Spokane, WA 99260 -0170 RE: . Participation in Spokane County's Transportation Partnership Program Application for the SR27IMansfield Avenue Project Dear Mr. Engelhard: Sincerely, WayWe D. Andresen President 3320 'iv: Argonne Road Spokane, WA 99212 (509) 999 -1009 (509) 927 -8461 FAX RECEIVED AUG 2 72002 SPOMNE COM ENGINEER Over the last several years, traffic delays and congestion along Pines Road, (SR 27), corridor have significantly increased, particularly in the vicinity of Interstate 90. We support Spokane County's efforts in the SR 27/Mansfield Avenue project and the funding application for the Transportation Partnership Program. To demonstrate our support, we will agree to contribute up to $151,729 toward the match funds should Spokane County be successful in the application. Please contact either Wayne Frost or me should you have any questions or require additional information regarding this commitment. 1 8 M 04/16/1996 06:32 m o © I 1 0 l s I i! Dear Scott: ohn G. Miller 50S -465 -9916 3B YA RDJNVEST MENT S, LLC P.O. Box 18708, Spokane; Washington 99228 Phone: 09j:466-890o Fax: (509) 466 -8916 Mr. Scott Engelhard Spokane County Division of Engineering & Roads • • 1026 W Broadway Avenue Spokane, WA 99260 -0170 Re: Participation in Spokane, Courity's Transportation Partnership Program Application for the SR27 /Mansfield Project • • Over the last several years traffic delays. and congestion along the Pines Road (SR27) corridor have significantly increased; particularly in the vicinity of Interstate 90. I am writing to offer our support of Spokane .County's efforts in the SR27 /Mansfield Avenue •project and their application for the Corridor Congestion Relief Grant Program. As a partner in this project, Lumber Yard Investments, LLC will contribute $55,533 . This project will be a great benefit.:to those who live, work and shop in the Pines Corridor area. I look forward: to a' favorable response on your application. If you should have any questions -or need'anything from me, please call. ry truly yours, ber )4,ard,fir]zae tryfrSts, LLC DIVCON INC PAGE 01 August 29, 2002 AUG -29 -2002 THU 03:05 PM A &A CONSTRUCTION & DEV FAX NO. 5096241255 A & A CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT; INC. 202 East Trent Avenue; Suite 400, Spokane, Washittgivn 99202 (50.9) 624- 1170far (50.9) 624 -1255 August 26, 2002 Scott Engelhard . Spokane County Engineers 1026. W. Broadway Avenue Spokane, WA 99260 -0170 RE: Participation in Spokane County's Corridor Congestion Relief Program Application for the SR27 Mansfield Project Dear Mr. Engelhard: Bill Lawson, Tom Hamilton and I own property east of Pines Road near Mansfield in the Spokane Valley. We have attempted to develop this over the past several years and have cone.ucted several traffic studies. We also own a number of apartments in the area and are aware of the traffic problems there. We have worked hard to find an appropriate remedy to the traffic problems and have come to realize that none are easy. We are very much in support of the County's application for the Corridor Congestion Reliof Grant. We will contribute the sum of S119,866.00 to be used as a local match on behalf of the five p ::.reels that we own and that are listed in any earlier correspondence to you dated August 23, 2002. We understand that we will need to enter into a Developer's Agreement with Spokane County once the grant has been approved. We would expect the conditions set forth in our August 23rd letter to be part of that Developer's Agreement. We are very excited to see progress finally being made toward resolution of this difficult traffic problem. Please contact nee on behalf of our partnership if I can be of any further assistance. Very Tnil}u rs, Christopher R. Ashenbrener CRA:sf cc: Greg Figg Bill Lawson Tom Hamilton P. 02 C.c.vtr.,rtc,r's lic. n.us Aks.fra AA20704 Atha rw 1249S0 Cnlikc ^ria 761)705 4,1tgon eg66,4 Ulan (Y)004S 113() lSir Ut fc:�.gr1CGCatin?1134 AUG -25 -2002 THU 03:05 PM A &A CONSTRUCTION & DEV FAX NO, 5096241255 A & A CONSTRUCTION & DEVELOPMENT, INC. 202 East Trent Avenue, Suite 400, Spokane, Washington 99202 (509) 624 -1170 jar. (509) 624 -1255 August 23, 2002 Scott Engelhard Spokane County Engineers 1026 W. Broadway Avenue Spokane, WA 99260 -0170 Greg Figg WSDOT 2714 N. Mayfair Spokane, WA 99207 RE: Updated SR27 Corridor Project Participation Lawson / Hamilton / Ashenbrener Parcel Conrrorter'sLiceruer AlarkarL420704 Arr:ana 124930 California 760705 Oregon 6666e. Utah 0000431 130 Wa.hington,ACUND`4LE 3. The satisfaction of traffic mitigation and.impact fees shall preclude the necessity of any further traffic studies or analysis with regard to these parcels for the same six years from payment of our money and the award of bids as set forth in Paragraph 1 above. P. 03 Dear Scott & Greg: This letter is in response to your request for participation in the SR27 Corridor Congestion Relief Participation Project. Bill Lawson, Tom Hamilton, and 1 have reviewed your suggested breakdown from the various private parties which was faxed to us on August 23, 2002. A copy of your suggested contribution schedule is attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein. The breakdown suggests the contribution from our project in the amount of $119,866.00. We agree to commit to payment of that amount toward matching funds for the grant on the following conditions: 1. This amount will satisfy all traffic mitigation and impact fees with regard to the following parcels. 45103.0205 45103.0206 45103.0208 45103.0210 45103.024 The amount that we pay as satisfaction toward our participation in the grant will satisfy all traffic mitigation for WSDOT and the County (except for frontage improvements) for site development up to a total of 395 peak hour trips, irrespective of any final use to which we are entitled. We acknowledge that the duration of this comniitment by the County cannot be open -ended and we agree_ to reassess traffic mitigation n the event that we have not obtained a building permit within six years from the date of the award of the bids for the actual construction of the traffic improvements and the date which we are required to pay our share of the money. RU'J- 2J -2UUZ '[HU U3: U5 FM A &A CONSTRUCT' l ON & DEV 4. Satisfaction of the traffic mitigation and impact shall include any perceived impact upon Trent Road, and Pines Road (Hiighway 27) and shall satisfy any and all prior agreements discussed or verbally agreed upon. 5. The payment of the amount referenced in the first paragraph above shall not be due until the grant is awarded and bids for irnprovements are sought. 6. Payment of the 5119,866.00 is based on 395 peak hour trips only, and such mitigation shall apply to any usage to which the above five parcels shall be put ac.d shall satisfy traffic mitigation for zone changes, binding site plans, subdivision, and building permits within six years from the award of bids for the actual improvements and the payment of our money. We understand and acknowledge that our activities can possibly trigger other or additional SEPA review and although we will be required to sati:rfy any and all other legitimate SEPA requirements, the payment of our $119,866.00 will satisfy all traffic mitigation (except for frontage improvements), for up to 395 peak hour trips for the six years set forth herein. 7. In the event we exceed 395 peak hour trips, additional traffic information and mitigation may be necessary. We are excited about the possibility of this grant and look forward to assisting you in any manner possible. Very Truly Yours, Christopher R Ashenbrener CRA:sf Enclosure cc: Bill Lawson Tom Hamilton FAX NO. 5096241255 P. 04 aQ \ug -26 -O2 10 :44A VILLAGE SQUARE REALTY 509 -924 -9734 P.01 i n • Iv ■ o II . IR Ro • ert A. Bonuccelli FAX TRANSMi$5ION Robert A. Bonuccelli P.O. Box 141449 Spokane, Washington 99214 509- 924 -9730 Fax: 509 -924 -9734 To: Scott Engelhard Date: August 26, 2002 Spokane County Engineers Fax #: 477 -2243 Pages: ONE, including this cover From: Robert A. Bonuccelli sheet. Subject Traffic Mitigation Pines & Mirabeau Parkway BSA Properties, a Washington general partnership, and Ivory Investments, a Washington general partnership, are in agreement with the attached Corridor Congestion Relief Participation Breakdown for SR 27 @ Mansfield Avenue and Mirabeau Parkway Avenues in Spokane, Washington. Said partnerships would be agreeable to entering into a binding agreement for payment of the S96,383.00 plus $25,000.00 credit for right of way dedication on the 35approx. acres owned by said partnerships. Said agreement for payment would be conditioned on the following: 1. No further traffic mitigation or studies would be required on the 35 approx acres by the County of Spokane or the State of Washington based on uses permitted in the I - 2 zone. No traffic tnitigation includes any adverse effect on Trent Avenue or the Evergreen Interchange from development of said properties. 2. The owners application for a binding site plan or subdivision of the 35 acres will require no further traffic mitigation. 3. Said $96,383.00 is based on a peak hour traffic usage of 400 trips. 4. Spokane County Engineers conditions of approval regarding street improvements required of said 35 acres on ZE 94 -84 shall be considered satisfied. Aug -26 -02 1O :44A VILLAGE SQUARE REALTY 509 -924 -9734 P.02 FAX 'I'RAN$1YiIS3ION Ro• -rt A. Bonn eccanaging partner BSA Properties Ivory Investments Robert A. Bonuccelli P.O. Box 141449 Spokane, Washington 99214 509 -924 -9730 Fax: 509- 924 -9734 To: Scott Engelhard Date: August 26, 2002 Spokane County Engineers Fax #: 477 -2243 Pages: TWO, including this cover From: Robert A. Bonuccelli sheet. Subject Letter of support for SR27/Mansfield Corridor Congestion Relief Grant BSA Properties, a Washington general partnership, and Ivory Investments, a Washington general partnership, are in agreement with the attached Corridor Congestion Relief Participation Breakdown for SR 27 @ Mansfield Avenue and Mirabeau Parkway Avenues in Spokane, Washington. Said partnerships would be agreeable to entering into a binding agreement for payment of the $96,363.00 plus right of way dedication valued at S25,000.00. Our contribution of 5121,383.00 is contingent upon the satisfaction of conditions stated in my October 18` and 19 2001 correspondence . 0t{ /26/2002 13:46 FAX 3246190 F RD's : er*p i t gr i rte s THOMAS D. HAALLTON P.O. BOX 14686 SPO AKM, WA 99214 Phone: 504 -924 -7811 Pax: S09- 924 -1441 August 26, 20Q2 Scott Engelhard & Gregg Fagg Spokane Coanty Engineers WSDOT 1026 W. Broadway 2714 N. Mayfair Spokane, WA 99206 -0170 Spokane, WA 99206 FAX 477 -2243 PAX: 324 -6190 Rc: Updated SR27 Corridor Project Participation Dear Sirs, This letter is in =pans: to your request fbr participation in the SR27 Corridor Congestion Relief Participation project. Hume reviewed your suggeesed breakdown from the various private poetics dated August 23, 2002. A copy of year sruggented oontn' iution schedule is attached hereto and by this refernebe incorporated herein. Tho breakdown suggests the contribution from my project in the amount of 82.8.523.00. I agree to commit to payment of that amount toward matching funds for the grant on the following conditions: I tun excited abont the possibility ethic grant and look forward to assisting you in any manner pouribie. PLANNING- TRAFIC fa 02 FAX NO. : 5( 524144i Sep. 8c 2888 82: 312rtt P1 1, This amount will satisfy all traffic mitigation and impact fees with regard to parocl 45102.9046,1unsed on 94 peak hour trips. The amount that I pay as satisfaction toward my participation in the grant trmst sslisfy . . all truffle mitigation and impact irrespective of any final use to which I am emitled, unless the final use has less traffic for which there would be a credit due me. 2. The sa lathetion of tr ffi.c mitigation and impact fees shall prolusic the =miry of any .tither traffic studies or analysis with regard to this parcel. 3. Satisfaction of the traffic mitigation and impact thaIl also include any perceived impact upon Trott Road, Pines Road (lighway 27). 4, Tbo payment of the amount referenced in the first paragraph above shall net be due until the grant is awarded and prior to bid. 5. ?i yment of the 528.525.00 is based on 94 peak hour trips, end such mitigation shall apply In any usage to which the above parcel shall be put and shall satisfy traffic mitigation for zone changes, binding she plans, subdivision, building permits and arty other trigggering within 6 years frorn the date the grant for this improvement is awarded and permitted voitaiLUUZ 1S:44 rM 4Z401:1u August 23, 2002 .Mr. Gregg Figg Department of Transportation 2714 N.. Mayfair St. Spokane, WA, 99207 Re: Pines Road, Hwy 27 Mitigation Proposal Dear Mr. Figg: In regards to View Ranch Estates File No. PE- 1760 -94. As owner /developer of this 46 lot single family residential project I would like to offer my support of your current Pines Road mitigation proposal. Please contact me at (509)926 -3533 or (509)710 -1016 if I can be of further assistence. Thank you. YL.A:In lilt; -'11<M 1 C UOL :c7h} : "i I i?,r.3EEAU CHRPEL 9vtirabeau Cliapet August 28, 2002 Mr. Scott Engelhard Spokane County Engineers 1026 W. Broadway Avenue .Spokane, Washington 99260 -0170 RE: Letter of support for SR27/Mansfield Transportation Partnership Program Grant Application. Dear Scott: We are in agreement with the attached Transportation Partnership Program Breakdown for SR27/Mansfield Ave. Project. It is also our understanding that the amount of S1,821.00 will replace the bond of $6,600.00 which we now have with WSDOT. Please call my office to confirrn cc: Greg Figg A 7oursgua,z CAu ch 3001 J nes Rd Sgokg.ae, W..'� 99206 PHDNE N0. . Pfine 509.928.7600 www_mirabecucicpef..ms Aug. 29 2002 04:37PM P2 FRom : M 1 RSEAU CHAPEL PHONE NO. : rkSJPI : E lerk,Pi1griR.9 FA?; NO. :�592 e A�r- }� n r " Sep. E'S 22E� i8:4�44 p_, -202 0_ ! o P�f A&A CONSTRUCTION & DEV 0/1/10/2002 33:e3 FAX 31481$0 RK Na 56 %�l255 Ofl putnpq SR27AOa, Avs. pro elon d leor�rr.n4 �C'K Al�tr�i Mamert .1 lw aur4 _o.r l = 1 T Eire VC WI Ago v . e e, Megd i! o d limn tkrei a aeT3a8 Eudd ire tie err 6 7pe,0Ea 'teat RiW d ski s 15.03, Taig sitoa0as a a,t0asne `iag Atdah 6 068,794 P+l3is 6WMft 3 gam= gftago icfottet 8 •04105 TOAIAJOItegall C z I$4% Tgpt I. 40g altos Poo le Maim Part!* 1 MU Rail figalwa Cara t Imwd Ova pow Mama Ma e suet War fa avtt e e& L aroaar La areal trall 7 Rah EiNuaill 9 am. I ,..R iaa rgtce otwaae• ApIlL • mat aria VIw 1OrO1 QR 1D Fbv awe Oeaelr' 11 ears Mew d Marrs u Dan ztioIP vrWIMO St Call caretailaa a d P o 1L al Jaw Taal asst a1.alaar !Jan TO GartbA111im Cady a 3,8200 $ =PO 1 SS XCI li ELAM - ii Mat $ Soo A % $ t51.7ra $ T31.3 a 1Lfl10 133 '1t1I $ 35.533 8 33.E1= ma 916 SLOES $ MC= IS mom 803 23.23% II 121-M 3 S]3mEZ) 1133 4131 w a.7tx s ash a ee,tiS 11 MU fe 3J$% 3 1a,6f8 6 isms. s barb s 1.0 6 last is 2 . aee tC AXE. 8 Cass a 1.331 5 1.121 9LItd 17 1.03% 3 a le! a a.aa 1337 rms away untiant amregrare n ss7.es • mama d t v tat are Ws d to was as Ain Mar. 7D aso saelatrTh W MA; al laxly a ran- aid ire! 343 tip Irma tl4S /ms& d 12 Cost Rorer trine D'- m Pas ird eae.83i afatt for *rid dt•dt 3.2333:3a@E.'3o0oat Imas stdetea gatart WilI= 3 161. tae 6 MAST Pus. 23 2002 64 :3SPM P3 P. 03 RI 0 9 • • 8 -28 -02 Spokane County Engineers 1026 W. Broadway Avenue Spokane, WA 99260-0170 • Attn: Scott Engelhard Ref: TPP Participation Program Pines Rd. 1-90 Mansfield Dear Scott: I have reviewed the cost participation breakdown from WSDOT and 1 hereby affirm that we will provide our allotted share of S1 821.00 as indicated on the aforementioned document. .4 Ted Gunn ng, developer of 10 uni /ddition on Mansfield .. vi 4,./i Lvv< LUZ Vr7: 43 August 27, 2002 Dear Scott: Kindest personal regards, TOMLINSO rAA. DUd GZZ .»1141 1UMLINSON BLACK C O M M E R C I A L 107 Sourb Howard. Suite 500 Spokane, WA 99201 Scott Engelhard Spokane County Engineers 1026 W. Broadway Ave. Spokanc, WA 99260 -0170 Re: SR27 / Mansfield Avenue Projcct I've reviewed the preliminary data provided to me on the above proposed project and discussed it with my partner. We own the SE corner of Mansfield & Wilbur at Montgomery. We are in support of your concept and eagerly await the opportunity to discuss more of the details in the near future. This appears to be a very viable solution to the traffic congestion we are currently experiencing on Pines Road immediately north of I -90. Let me know when we can discuss this further. BLACK 1MERCIAL, INC. ,(,, J. Grant Person 1j 002/002 509- 623 -1000 Fax: 509 -622.3 RCW 35 . 72 C1- IAPTE_R RCW SECTIONS RCW 35.72.010 Contracts authorized for street projects. [1983 r 126 § 1.1 RCW 35.72.020 Reimbursement by other property owners. (3) Did not contribute to the original cost of the street project; and [ 1983 c 126 § 2.1 Chapter 35.72 RCW CONTRACTS FOR STREET, ROAD, AND HIGHWAY PROJECTS 35.72.010 Contracts authorized for street projects. 35.72.020 Reimbursement by other property owners. 35.72.030 Reimbursement by other property owners -- Reimbursement share. 35.72.040 Assessment reimbursement contracts. 35.72.050 Alternative financing methods -- Participation in or creation of assessment reimbursement area by county, city, town, or department of transportation -- Eligibility for reimbursement. The legislative authority of any city, town, or county may contract with owners of real estate for the construction or improvement of street projects which the owners elect to install as a result of ordinances that require the projects as a prerequisite to further property development. The contract may provide for the partial reimbursement to the owner or the owner's assigns for a period not to exceed fifteen years of a portion of the costs of the project by other property owners who: (1) Are determined to be within the assessment reimbursement area pursuant to RCW 35.72.040: (2) Are determined to have a reimbursement share based upon a benefit to the property owner pursuant to RCW 35.72.030: (4) Subsequently develop their property within the fifteen -year period and at the time of development were not required to install similar street projects because they were already provided for by the contract. Street projects subject to reimbursement may include design, grading, paving, installation of curbs, gutters, storm drainage, sidewalks, street lighting, traffic controls, and other similar improvements, as required by the street standards of the city, town, or county. http: / /www. leg. wa. gov /rcw /index.cfm ?fuseaction= chapter &chapter = 35.72& RequestTimeo... 1/18/2005 RCW 35 . 72 CHAPTER RCW 35.72.030 Reimbursement by other property owners -- Reimbursement share. The reimbursement shall be a pro rata share of construction and reimbursement of contract administration costs of the street project. A city, town, or county shall determine the reimbursement share by using a method of cost apportionment which is based on the benefit to the property owner from such project. [ 1983 c 126 § 3.] RCW 35.72.040 Assessment reimbursement contracts. Page 2 of 3 The procedures for assessment reimbursement contracts shall be governed by the following: (1) An assessment reimbursement area shall be formulated by the city, town, or county based upon a determination by the city, town, or county of which parcels adjacent to the improvements would require similar street improvements upon development. (2) The preliminary determination of area boundaries and assessments, along with a description of the property owners' rights and options, shall be forwarded by certified mail to the property owners of record within the proposed assessment area. If any property owner requests a hearing in writing within twenty days of the mailing of the preliminary determination, a hearing shall be held before the legislative body, notice of which shall be given to all affected property owners. The legislative body's ruling is deterrninative and final, (3) The contract must be recorded in the appropriate county auditor's office within thirty days of the final execution of the agreement. (4) If the contract is.so filed, it shall be binding on owners of record within the assessment area who are not party to the contract. [ 1988 c 179 § 16; 1983 c 126 § 4.] NOTES: Severability -- Prospective application -- Section captions -- 1988 c 179: See RCW 39.92.900 and 39.92.901. 444 RCW 35.72.050 'Alternative financing methods -- Participation in or creation of assessment reimbursement area by county, city, town, or department of transportation -- Eligibility for reimbursement. (1) As an alternative to financing projects under this chapter solely by owners of real estate, a county, city, or town may join in the financing of improvement projects and may be reimbursed in the same manner as the owners of real estate who participate in the projects, if the county, city, or town has specified the conditions of its participation in an ordinance. As another alternative, a county, city, or town may create an assessment reimbursement area on its own initiative, without the participation of a private property owner, finance the costs of the road or street improvements, and become the sole http: / /www. leg. wa .gov /rcw /index.cfm ?fiiseaction= chapter &chapter= 35.72 &RequestTimeo... 1/18/2005 I RCW 35 72 CHAPTER Page 3 of 3 beneficiary of the reimbursements that are contributed. A county, city, or town may be reimbursed only for the costs of improvements that benefit that portion of the public who will use the developments within the assessment reimbursement area established pursuant to RC\V 35.72.040(1). No county, city, or town costs for improvements that benefit the general public may be reimbursed. (2) The department of transportation may, for state highways, participate with the owners of real estate or may be the sole participant in the financing of improvement projects, in the same manner and subject to the same restrictions as provided for counties, cities, and towns, in subsection (1) of this section. The department shall enter into agreements whereby the appropriate county, city, or town shall act as an agent of the department in administering this chapter. [1997c 158§ I; 1987c261 § 1; 1986c252 § 1.] http: / /www. leg. wa. gov /rcw /index.cfm?fuseaction= chapter &chapter =3 5.72 &RequestTimeo... 1/18/2005