The URL can be used to link to this page

Planning, Zoning & Building Transition Committee - 11/01/2002- . j. ~ , i 1. I TO: The Office of the City Manager Spokane Valley City Council Members FROM: Francine Chair; Planning, Zoning and Building Transition Team SUBJECT: Interim Planning and Building Services for the City of Spokane - Valley It is a pleasure to present to you the Planning, Zoning and Building Transition Team report outlining options and recommendations for establishing interim planning and building services for the new City of Spokane Valley. The following report is the compilation of six months work produced by over 30 concerned citizens, business owners and experienced professionals in the areas of land use planning and building construction. This report has been prepared to inform and assist city council members in establishing viable planning and building services for the City of Spokane Valley in order to meet the requirements of Washington State law. This report focuses specifically on options and recommendations for the adoption of required ordinances, codes and maps used for planning and building purposes as interim measures until Spokane Valley can establish their own services, ordinances, codes and maps that reflect the vision and goals for the future of our new City. As you know, the Comprehensive Plan and associated Land Use Map is the single most important regulating ordinance that will establish how our new City will grow physically, economically, and aesthetically over the next twenty years. The City of Spokane Valley has a minimum of three (3) years to develop a Comprehensive Plan that is in compliance with RCW 36.70A, the Growth Management Act. We do not have to be GMA compliant on the date of Incorporation. This is important to remember. Spokane County Comprehensive Plans, both the expired 1981 Comprehensive Plan and the newly adopted 2002 Spokane County GMA compliant Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Maps, are f documents that were prepared to address the needs of our County as a whole including rural areas. They do not address exclusively the specific and unique needs of Spokane Valley and its residents. The City has the exciting opportunity to go back and revisit County plans and maps, and make revisions as needed to accomplish our desires for future growth and development within Spokane Valley. It was immediately found apparent during our research that building and construction services are very important to the new City, both during the initial ' "set-up" stage of city government and afterward. It is no secret that building and construction services will be a major revenue source for Spokane Valley that can be used to finance both building and planning services. There is less concern about which building codes to recommend for adoption than the actual administration of these services. Building codes are not afforded the same flexibility as planning regulations since building codes are established through federal and state mandates and are based on sound scientific engineering practices, and have public safety in mind. Planning is more philosophical in nature and, with a few exceptions, is not based on science. A primary issue surrounding building and construction services is how to expedite the establishment of our own building department so that the City can start receiving, fully, the revenue produced through building permits, revenue which can be used to fund planning and other land use functions. Another issue is the establishment of an enterprise fund for placement of the revenue generated by building services. More detailed explanation and discussion of these and other related issues are provided herein for your review and consideration. (Please see the following Options and Recommendations). If you have any questions or need further assistance, please do not hesitate to call me or any team member. We are available to provide you a presentation of this report and to disclose, discuss and explain the comments and concerns of team members. Finally, in closing, I would like to express my personal pleasure having served as chair of the Planning, Zoning and Building Transition Team and to provide you with this invaluable source of public participation in a very large and complex process. It has been an honor for all of us to participate on the ground floor development of the new City of Spokane Valley. The only thing that is holding us back from emerging as a powerful force in our region and the state of Washington is our imagination. Planning, Zoning and Building Team Unanimous Recommendations Adopt the expired Spokane County 1981 Comprehensive Land Use Plan, Land Use Map and 2001 Zoning Code, prior to the adoption of Phase One Development Regulations, as an interim measure. It is tried, tested and proven effective. Then, take the time to develop a GMA compliant comprehensive plan, land use map and zoning code that specifically and uniquely represents and_ achieves the desires for the future of Spokane Valley. (See Option I) Do not adopt the new 2002 Spokane County Comprehensive Plan, land use map, and Phase One Development Regulations. The Spokane County Comprehensive land use map is overly complicated, exceeds the mandates of the Growth Management Act, RCW 36.70A and creates hardships for certain existing businesses and land uses located along commercial corridors such as Sprague Avenue, Argonne/Mullan, Pines Road and Sullivan Road. • Spokane Valley won't be GMA compliant on the date of incorporation regardless of which comprehensive plan and land use map we adopt during the interim. We cannot simply adopt the work done by Spokane County and expect to be GMA compliant. Spokane Valley must embark on their own land use studies and gather the public input as is required by state law to develop a GMA compliant Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Map. Adopting the new 2002 GMA compliant Spokane County Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Map will not deem the City of Spokane Valley GMA compliant on the date of incorporation. • Adopt all other Spokane County codes, ordinances and maps for planning and building services. These plans basically represent State minimum requirements and have proved effective, for the most part. They may be sufficient without immediate amendments. • Contract for services with Spokane County Divisions of Building and Planning during the interim. However, supervision and policy decision should remain with the City Manager or the Director of Planning. s ` Spokane County staff will be able to finish processing land use. actions c already under their review. In addition, they are the most familiar with laws and regulations (past and present) guiding development within the s Valley. " Expedite the establishment and administration of planning and building departments and services as quickly as possible to better control local land use decision and begin generating revenue. • Revenue from building permits should be put in an enterprise fund rather than a general fund. r I~ 1 Spokane Valley, Washington r Planning, Zoning and Building Transition Team Recommendations Interim Plans to "ULTIMATE GOALS" I■ ■ TABLE OF CONTENTS ■ Page Planning Services: Options and Recommendations V Introduction to Planning ........................................1 Citizen Concerns 2 The Ultimate Goal 5 Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code Options and Recommendation ........6 Other Planning Ordinances Options and Recommendations 10 - Administration of Planning Services Options and Recommendations 14 Hearing Quais-Judicial Land Use Matters Options and Recommendations 18 Other Planning Considerations ...................................21 Expected Workload, Staffing Level and Equipment Needs 24 Building Services: Options and Recommendations Introduction to Building Services 27 Building Codes Options and Recommendations .......................28 Options for Provision of Interim Administration of Services ...............26 Expected Revenue 36 Page i i Interim Planning and Zoning Services Options and Recommendations INTRODUCTION TO PLANNING PLANNING is the foundation of any community. It outlines the community values, goals and objectives specific to regional physical features and requirements. The decisions made in Planning, Zoning and Building processes may have more bearing on the outcome of our new City of Spokane Valley than any other decisions. These processes may control a citizen's property, finances and future. Goals and dreams; business and pleasure; lifestyles and life choices are at the very heart of this process. The primary tools to implement and administer the planning process are: y Growth Management Act of the State of Washington, RCW CH. 36.70A • Comprehensive Land Use Plan and Map • Zoning Code After years of study and expense, our current Comprehensive Plan and revised Zoning Code were adopted county-wide in January of 2002. Although not completely enacted at this time, they are already being amended and facing legal action for property de-valuations, restrictions and the lack of citizen participation. The City of Spokane Valley has, the opportunity and legal authority to adopt an interim plan and code to best serve the actual needs of our new city, to encourage economic growth and development, and to avoid the problems and ! pending legal actions of the new County plan. As a new city, we then have three years from the date of incorporation (until _ February or March 2006) to finalize our own specific Comp Plan and Zoning Code, choosing from the well studied options and pursuant to the more flexible and generalized intent stated in the Growth Management Act. After much in-depth research by a well qualified team of planners, guest - consultants and many citizens, the Spokane Valley Planning, Zoning and Building Transition Team is pleased to present the following unanimous recommendations L and options, weighted with pros and cons. These recommendations address options for setting in place interim land use planning and building services, pursuant to the "ultimate goal" of administering our own Planning, Zoning and Building Departments. November 2002 Page I Ili ~i CITIZEN CONCERNS Throughout approximately six months of weekly meetings, the Planning, Zoning and Building Transition Team heard concerns from many citizens. Primary among these concerns were the needs for Spokane Valley to: 1. Protect the quality of life presently enjoyed in our residential neighborhoods. 2. Adopt a Comprehensive Land Use Plan that encourages economic development in the new city through policies that promote opportunity for all citizens. 3. Recognize the flexibility and general intent of the Growth Management Act applicable to URBAN areas. Although the state mandated GMA allows a great deal of flexibility to meet the specific needs of a community, the currently enacted regional, county=wide Comp Plan and Zoning Code are more restrictive than the GMA dictates. The results are a) inflexibility, inflexibility, inflexibility; b) legal issues from down zoning and property devaluation; c) restricted economic and community development through micro- managed land use; d) lengthy zoning and permitting processes; e) many previously existing businesses are now 'nonconforming' land use areas in our new City. The GMA, when speaking of "'County- wide planning policies" states, "Nothing in this section shall be construed o alter the land-use powers of cities." (RCW 36.70A.210) The GMA regards "cities" separately from "counties." Therefore, please do not fear the decisions necessary to get our new CITY on the road to less restrictive planning that can later be easily adapted to meet the flexible GMA guidelines. 4. Embrace a "new vision" and direction for Spokane Valley. Produce regulations and processes making optimum use of the three components necessary for a healthy economy: Land, Labor and Capital. Our new city is, by definition, an URBAN area. 5. Please ensure consultant duties are directed to "administration" only and do not include "policy development," should the City elect to employ an outside firm to administer interim planning and building services. November 2002 Page 2 f~ We would urge you to enlist the help of the community through public hearings and other processes. We would also urge you to enlist the help of those who have the knowledge necessary to draft ordinances that meet the expectations described above. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS gathered at Transition Team meetings When participants were asked, "What do you really NOT want to see happen?" these were their comments.. • We do not want to see MORE BUREAUCRACY and drawn out processes. We do not want to see LEGAL ENTANGLEMENTS, especially like those facing the new County Comprehensive Plan implemented In January 2002. • We do not want to see UNREASONABLE FEES for reasonable processes. • We do not want to be a carbon copy of Spokane County or west-side cities. When participants were asked to list "What would you really LIKE to see in our new city?" these were some comments. • The ELIMINATION OF "DOWN ZONING" under Phase I of the January 2002 Zoning Code. Allow our CITY the time to review individual properties and produce an "impact analysis" of the 2002 Comprehensive f Land Use Plan. HOWEVER, we recognize the desire of some, to retain the new zones they received. We therefore recommended the "simple administrative process" to be available for two years so that individuals may retain these through a "verified request." • There is great concern that we become ZONING CONSISTENT and competitive with our neighboring cities, notably Spokane on the west and • Liberty Lake on the east. Keeping the County-wide zoning adopted in January of 2002 keeps us operating under more restrictive and less flexible parameters for recruiting businesses. ■ Citizens would like to see a PROACTIVE STAFF that searches for ways to approve projects, as opposed to denying them. • There was an across the board desire to see an EXPEDIENT REVIEW OF PERMITS. • Citizens would like to see LAND USE EFFICIENCY. • There is a desire to see PLANNING SERVICES OPEN TO NEW IDEAS, techniques and philosophies of management, rather than a repeat or rubberstamp of what has occurred in other, west-side communities. • A majority felt there was a real NEED TO RE-IMPLEMENT the 1981-2001 Coma Plan and 1991-2001 Zoning Code because of its proven effectiveness over ten years, rather than the controversy and possible litigation issues facing the 2002 county-wide one. Furthermore, the 1981- November 2002 Page 3 r~ 1 2001 Comp Plan is over 75% GMA compliant and only requires minor revisions to meet the state mandates of RCW 36.70A. C(1 November 2002 Page 4 The Planning, Zoning and Building Transition Team would like to present our ULTIMATE GOAL Fully functioning PLANNING and BUILDING Departments j setting the policies and procedures for the new City of Spokane Valley, Washington RECOMMEDATION: Hire an interim or permanent Planning Director to supervise service contracts and the hiring of subordinate staff to establish a fully functioning planning department. November 2002 Page 5 :I The Unanimous RECOMMENDATION For adoption of interim Comprehensive Land Use Plan and Zoning Code The Spokane Valley Planning, Zoning and Building Transition Team recommends adoption of the Spokane County 1981-2001 Comprehensive Plan, with the 1991-2001 Spokane County Zoning Code and respective Land Use and Zoning maps, with the intent to examine in depth and adopt a GMA Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code and respective maps over the next three years, bringing our CITY into compliance with the Growth Management Act. The Transition Team realizes that in order to adopt the 1981 Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Plan, and 2001 Zoning Code public participation must be solicited. However, public participation needs are minimal and can be accomplished through a series of two (2) public meetings/ hearings conducted by the city manager's office or interim Planning Director and one (1) public hearing conducted by the City Council. Although time and money will be required to gather this very important public participation, it is simply a GOOD INVESTMENT. The Transition Team implores you to adopt the 1981 Spokane County Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Map and 2001 Zoning Code as less people will be adversely impacted by the plan and it will allow the city of Spokane Valley to start down a fresh path to land use planning - to do something other than what has been set in place by the 2002 Spokane County Comprehensive Plan, Land Use Map and Phase One Development Regulations. In recognition of the citizens who wish to retain and be'grandfathered' into their 2002 Zoning, we further recommend a "simple administrative" process be available for two years, during which time those who wish to retain their January, 2002 zoning category may do so through a "verified grandfather request" Pro's Spokane Valley has three years to become GMA compliant with the possibilities of extensions if appropriate progress is being made. This recommendation allows the adoption of a GMA Comprehensive Plan and implementing regulations to be customized to fit the specific needs of November 2002 Page 6 i L, z `I our CITY, Spokane Valley, with public input PRIOR to implementation. It also allows time for an "IMPACT ANALYSIS" which was never conducted on a parcel by parcel basis, but rather implemented for the "COUNTY" as a whole. • Until a GMA compliant plan can be adopted, this recommendation elects to use "tried and proven" laws and regulations that have impacted development within Spokane Valley for over ten years. During this period, newly hired Spokane Valley Planning Director, with public input, can adopt a GMA compliant plan to meet the specific needs of the CM of Spokane Valley. This also allows flexibility for those who wish to retain their 2002 zoning to do so. • The 1981-2001 Comprehensive Plan and 1991-2001 Zoning Code are compatible with one another. They are also much simpler and more flexible than those recently adopted. When comparing the 1981-2001 Comp Plan map with the 2002 Comp Plan map, the number of land use categories increased substantially, from five to twelve. Along with this came an increase in regulatory control and degradation of property rights. The County and development community have a working knowledge of • the 1981-2001 Comp Plan and 1991-2001 Zoning Code making it easy to implement should you choose to contract with the County through a U transition phase. This would prevent a planning or zoning moratorium. L1 The Citizens of Spokane Valley are more familiar with the 1981-2001 Comp Plan and 1991-2001 Zoning Code, making it more practical during the transition phase. In fact, many of the citizens have NO concept of the January 2002 Comp Plan or the impact it has had on their property value. • This recommendation makes us "ZONING CONSISTENT" and economically competitive with our neighboring cities, namely Spokane to the west and Liberty Lake to the east. The January 2002 county-wide plan is much more restrictive than that used by either of these neighboring cities, thus having a negative impact on our attractiveness for recruiting new businesses and keeping those who are already located here. • This recommendation gives our CITY the ability to study, utilize and refine County information developed over eight years and through millions of tax dollars, with input exclusively from Spokane Valley citizens, as opposed to input from the COUNTY as a whole. • As with taxes, it is easier to adapt the 1981-2001 Comp Plan with 1991- 2001 Zoning Code than it is to simplify the more complicated January November 2002 Page 7 ~I ~J 2002 County Comp Plan and Phase I regulations. The 1981-2001 Comprehensive Plan and 1991-2001 Zoning Code are approximately 75% GMA compliant. Only minor revisions need to be made to meet state mandated GMA RCW 36.70A. • Spokane Valley may avoid potential legal liability issues associated with the County's newly adopted 2002 Comp Plan and Phase I Zoning Code by adopting this recommendation, especially with the suggested "verified grandfather request" process for those who wish to retain their new Phase I zoning. Con's • Spokane Valley will not be GMA compliant on date of incorporation. However, the new city has three years to be in compliance with state GMA requirements. • Spokane Valley will not have a Capital Facilities Plan. As a new city, we have three years to develop a Capital Facilities Plan under GMA. The Planning, Zoning and Building Transition Team, after much study and discussion reached these UNANIMOUS RECOMMENDATIONS by means of group consensus. We VOTED! This IS the majority choice. 0 0 November 2002 Page 8 Less Desirable ALTERNATIVE CHOICE As a much less desirable alternative, the City of Spokane Valley could adopt Spokane County's 2002 GMA compliant Comprehensive Plan, the 2002 Spokane County Zoning Code, Phase One Development Regulations and respective Land Use and Zoning Maps. Pro's • This plan may provide some GMA compliant elements on the date of incorporation. Utilizes some of the time and money spent creating the 2002 plan. • Those receiving "UP Zones" under this plan would automatically have them. Con's • Spokane Valley still will not be GMA compliant. • The 2002 Comp Plan and Zoning Code are reflective of Spokane County's needs as a whole and are not specific to Spokane Valley's CITY needs. They will need revisions to meet our needs. • The 2002 Zoning Code is too restrictive. It is overly complicated and must be simplified. The "DOWN zoning" under this code has resulted in much property devaluation. • The 2002 Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code have not been tried and tested, and are already facing legal challenges. • GMA prohibits amendments to the GMA Comp Plan more than once a year. This could impede the amendment process required to address the unique constraints placed on the new CITY of Spokane Valley. • Legal challenges may arise over the lack of specific public input from the Valley area. • This will create revisions to laws that are being implemented and may create additional non-conforming land uses and developments once revisions are completed. Variations on these recommendations were considered and rejected as being impractical. November 2002 Page 9 OPTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ADOPTION OF OTHER PLANNING ORDINANCES AND MAPS Recommendation: Adopt by reference current issues of the Countywide Planning Policies for Spokane County, Spokane County Subdivision Ordinance (Title 12), Spokane Environmental Ordinance, Spokane County Critical Areas Ordinance and all critical area maps (Chapter 11.20), Spokane County Shoreline Program and respective shorelines map, 2002 Zoning and Land Use Fee Schedule, and the Spokane County Public Works Application Review Procedures for Project Permits. Adopt by reference County of Spokane, Hearing Examiner Ordinance, if the City employs a hearing examiner system. Pro's • These ordinances are familiar to most land and business owners as well as developers because they have guided development and permitting in the Spokane Valley for many years. • These ordinances have been implemented throughout the years without much controversy. These ordinances generally do not exceed State minimum requirements. • These ordinances are compatible with both the expired and new Comprehensive Plan and Land Use Map. • The ordinances are harmonious with the Growth Management Act. The ordinances will not require immediate updates or amendments. • The City of Spokane Valley will not have the resources immediately available to establish new codes or amend existing codes. • Few, if any, legal issues will be created if these ordinances are adopted. Con's • In a few cases, the ordinances call for more restrictive development standards than what is required by the state of Washington. • Some of these ordinances have not been updated in many years and may not reflect existing conditions or current state guidelines for development. November 2002 Page 10 i i I1 Alternate Option: In place of Spokane County ordinances, adopt the model State Environmental Ordinance and model Critical Areas Ordinance. Pro's These ordinances represent current minimum state guidelines. Con's • The ordinances are "one size fits all" so that they can be implemented anywhere in Washington State. • The ordinances will require work prior to adoption since the verbiage must be added and refined to specifically address the City of Spokane Valley. • They are not uniquely drafted to address the needs of Spokane Valley. Explanation: Although the Planning, Zoning and Building Transition Team feels strongly that Spokane Valley should not be a replica of Spokane County or be modeled after a west side city, we do understand that Spokane County ordinances basically represent the minimum state guidelines for development. ~ Generally speaking, they function well and are not surrounded by controversy like what is currently being experienced with the 2002 Comprehensive Plan Land ~ Use Map and Zoning Code - Phase One Development Regulations. In some instances, such as the case with the Shorelines Master Program/map and the Critical Areas Ordinance, the State will require updates to bring these ordinances into conformance with new state law. It should be noted that the 2002 Land Use Fee Schedule, primarily the criteria for approving/denying waivers or transfer of fees for land use applications, represent a review and public notice process that has not been in effect for over six years (upon the adoption of RCW 36.708). Also, Spokane County requires that the subdivision of residential land into five (5) or more lots be reviewed 3 through a public hearing process. State law allows the division of nine (9) or fewer lots to be reviewed administratively without a public hearing. These needed code amendments are just a few issues that the new city can face once a viable planning department is up and running. However, in the meantime, these Spokane County ordinances are sufficient to cant' us through this time of transition. November 2002 Page 11 Relevant Codes and ordinances: The following list of codes and ordinances will need to be adopted and set in place by the City Council prior to official date of incorporation. Countywide planning policies for Spokane County (Board of County s Commissioner Resolutions 94-1719 and 96-1205): The County-wide Planning Policies provide the direction, process and framework to analyze, propose and eventually adopt Urban Growth Areas (UGAs). Urban Growth Areas are the primary tool to control sprawl and ensure that adequate services and infrastructure are provided to developing areas. The County-wide Planning Policies address four general areas; 1) the specification of minimum levels of service, 2) the planning for utilities, open space corridors, critical areas, natural resource lands and water management, 3) the provision of urban governmental services and public facilities, and 4) the distribution of an future growth and population expected within a 20 year planning horizon. Spokane County Subdivision Ordinance (Chapter 58.17 RCW): The Subdivision Act was enacted to govern platting and subdivisions. The importance of subdivision regulations to planning is that they help implement the comprehensive plan. 0 U Ell Spokane Environmental Ordinance (The State Environmental Policy Act/ Chapter 43.21C RCW): The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) was enacted to provide state and local agencies with the authority to consider and mitigate for the environmental impacts of their decisions. Every step of the planning process from adoption of comprehensive plans, and development regulations to project review requires environmental analysis. It serves as a means of examining environmental impacts and is essential to making good planning decisions. SEPA is required to be integrated with the project permitting process. SEPA's primary goal is to focus on the gaps and overlaps that may exist in applicable laws and requirements related to a proposed action. SEPA is not intended to act as a substitute for other land use planning and environmental requirements. Spokane County Critical Areas Ordinance (RCW 36.70A.050 and 36.70A.172(1)/Chapter 365-190 and 365-190 WAC): Critical Area regulations are intended to complement other local regulations, ordinances and plans such as the shoreline management program, zoning code and subdivision ordinance just to name a few. The intent of critical area regulations is to avoid, or in appropriate circumstances, to minimize, rectify, reduce or compensate for impacts arising from land development and other activities affecting wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, geologically hazardous areas, critical aquifer recharge areas and floodplains. November 2002 Page 12 i r Spokane County Shoreline Program (Chapter 90.58 RCW as amended): The Shoreline Management Act (SMA) regulates development of shorelines of the state and shorelands associated with these shorelines. Shorelines of the state include all waters of the state and their underlying lands, except streams with a mean annual flow of less of 20 cubic feet per second and lakes less than 20 acres in area. The SMA requires that local governments adopt Shoreline Master Programs (SMP), which tailor the state policies to their particular circumstances. In effect, the SMA and the SMP is a land use statute for shorelines and their associated shorelands. SMPs are required to be approved by the Washington State Department of Ecology and are required to be integrated with the comprehensive plan as the 14"' goal of the Growth Management Act. .2002 Zoning and Land Use Fee Schedule (Board of County Commissioner Resolutions 85-0332 and 96-0174): The fee schedule is adopted for the purpose of defraying a portion of the costs to the City regarding the various and numerous types of land use actions. They are reflective of the costs that can be expected to be incurred by City staff for the processing, reviewing, determining, conducting public hearings, notifying and appealing of land use actions. Spokane -County Public Works Application Review Procedures for Project permits (The Local Project Review Act/Chapter 36.708 RCW): The Local Project Review Act requires the City to combine permit review and environmental review and to consolidate administrative appeals of permit and SEPA decisions. Project review requires a determination of completeness, notice of application and a notice of final decision within 120 days of the determination of completeness. Local project review should analyze for consistency with applicable development regulations and the comprehensive plan. Four factors in the analysis include type of land use allowed, the density allowed, adequate infrastructure availability and the degree to which the project conforms to L specific development regulations or standards. Under GMA, project review for new development starts with decisions already made for the comprehensive plan - and development regulations. Certain issues need consistency discussion and cannot be reexamined during the permit or appeals processes for a project. County of Spokane, Hearing Examiner Ordinance (Chapter 35A.63 RCW and Chapter 58.17 RCW): The Spokane County Hearing Examiner Ordinance establishes the rules and regulations governing the authority of the hearing examiner and defines the procedures and standards the must be followed by the hearing examiner. November 2002 Page 13 r 1 OPTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION OF PLANNING SERVICES Overview: The Transition Team believes that one of the primary reasons Spokane Valley incorporated is to give the citizens of the Valley more control over local land use decisions. To achieve this, it is strongly recommended that the City hire its own Planning Director and immediately work toward the ultimate goal of hiring its own permanent staff. Due to budget constraints and timing considerations, contracting out may be the only feasible option for establishing functional planning services on the date of incorporation. Contracting with Spokane County appears to be the most sensible and practicable interim solution for implementing current planning services. County staff is familiar with and experienced in implementing County land use 4! ordinances, the adoption of which the Transition Team is also recommending as an Interim measure. The County has the current permit records for land in the Valley, and has the staff available to provide current planning services. The Transition Team did discuss the option of contracting with the City of Spokane, but did not consider this a realistic option based on the lack of available staff. In addition, City staff is unfamiliar with the property and land use issues in the Valley, and the City does not have current permit records for land in the Valley r like the County does. Option One and Team Recommendation: The Transition Team unanimously recommends that the City of Spokane Valley hire an interim or permanent Planning Director to administer contracts for services and hire subordinate staff to establish a fully functional Planning Department. The Transition Team also unanimously recommends that the City contract with Spokane County for current planning services, on an interim basis, until a full complement of permanent staff can be hired. This is subject to the City, through its planning director or city manager, supervising the process and reserving the right to make all policy decisions. The contract should designate specific, qualified County staff to work exclusively on City matters to assure a timely and coordinated review process for the citizens, landowners and businesses of the city. Because Spokane County has no long range staff that can be made available to j assist the City, the Transition Team recommends that the City contract with a private consultant, hire its own staff or contract with the City of Spokane for long range planning services, in a descending order of preference. Long range i r November 2002 Page 14 S planning includes updating the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code and other development regulations initially adopted by the City, to comply with the State Growth Management Act. Pro's • County staff is most familiar with initial land use ordinances likely to be adopted by the City. • County staff is most familiar with properties and current land use issues in Spokane Valley. • The County has the records for pending and past land use actions in Spokane Valley. • County staff can continue to process "permits in progress" with little disruption of services. • The County currently has the space available and office equipment to provide current planning services. • Potential for permanent hires from County staff, with opportunity to review quality of work. Con's Potential for inequitable sharing of permit fees with County. • Perception that "status quo" is being retained in permit review process through the use of County staff. • County has no long range staff available, and the County's current planning services are presently understaffed. • Potential jurisdictional conflicts with County on certain land use issues. • County matters may be given priority over City matters, unless staff is specifically designated to the City. November 2002 Page 15 I Alternate Option A for Planning Services: Contract with a private consultant for current and/or long range planning services, under supervision of the City Planning Director. Pro's • No jurisdictional conflicts. Unbiased approach to permit review and decision-making. ' City will have more direct control over decision-making. More flexible, can contract on need, and can be used to provide long range services. • No need for City to provide office space and equipment for consultant staff. Con's Potential conflicts of interest, if firm has represented other parties in land U use actions or other jurisdictions. F City will not receive all fees paid to review permits, etc. Limited availability L~ Two transition phases will be necessary for current planning services, the first from County staff to the consultant, and the second from consultant staff to permanent City staff. • Consultant staff may be less experienced in implementing County land use ordinances and in public planning processes. Alternate Option B for Planning Services: Hire permanent staff for current and/or long range planning services, under supervision of the City Planning r i Director. Pro' ,i Quicker transition to implementing City permanent staff. All fees paid will be kept by the City. No need to contract for services. November 2002 Page 16 i • No jurisdictional conflicts, all land use decisions will be controlled by City staff and officials. Con's • Funds needed immediately to acquire and establish office space and equipment for permanent staff. While feasible, places considerable burden on interim or permanent City Administrator to select, train and house permanent staff in time to process permits and applications on the date of incorporation. • Must implement review process in mid-stream for those permits and applications already in the system. 7 Alternate Option C for Planning Services: Contract with City of Spokane for current and/or long range planning services, under supervision of the City Planning Director. Pro's r City of Spokane functions are more similar to City of Spokane Valley. City of Spokane planning structure may be more similar to permanent planning structure desired for City of Spokane Valley. has indicated a willingness to provide long range planning services, as City* well as current planning staff. Con's • City of Spokane staff are unfamiliar with County ordinances that may be adopted by City of Spokane Valley, and with land and current land use issues in City of Spokane Valley. Potential for inequitable sharing of permit fees with City of Spokane. Perception of control by City of Spokane over land use processes. • Potential jurisdictional conflicts between the City of Spokane and Spokane Valley on certain land use issues. • City of Spokane matters may be given priority over City of Spokane Valley, unless staff specifically designated for City of Spokane Valley. • City of Spokane does not currently have staff available to provide planning services for City of Spokane Valley permits, and would have to hire and train new staff on a temporary basis. i November 2002 Page 17 i OPTIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR HEARING QUASI-JUDICIAL LAND USE MATTERS Overview: "Quasi-judicial" land use hearings involve the adjudication of land use applications such as a rezone, preliminary subdivision, conditional use permit, variance and shoreline permit; as well as the appeal of administrative determinations such as short plats decisions, environmental determinations and administrative interpretations. They do not include hearings on legislative actions, such as adopting or amending a comprehensive plan, zoning regulation or other development regulation. Non-charter code cities such as the City of Spokane Valley generally have two F options for hearing and deciding quasi-judicial land use matters, a board of adjustment or a hearing examiner system. If a board of adjustment is formed, the City must provide for its membership, terms of office, organization and Li jurisdiction. This usually consists of a volunteer committee of appointed citizens, each with some background in land use matters. If a hearing examiner system is formed, the city council appoints a hearing examiner, typically an attorney with experience in land use matters. If the code city forms a planning commission, the planning commission may hear and decide rezones, but not other quasi- judicial matters. The city council must specify by ordinance the legal effect given to a decision by the board adjustment or hearing examiner, or planning commission. The decision may be given the effect of a recommendation to the city council; the effect of an administrative decision appealable within a specified time to the city council, based on the record established below; or the effect of a final decision of the city council, appealable to court on the record established below; provided, the decision on a rezone must be made subject to appeal to the city council, based on the record established below. Most counties, cities and towns, and all the newly formed cities in Washington State, have opted to adopt a hearing examiner system. This is driven by recent developments in Washington land use law. Statutes prohibit local governments from holding more than one open record public hearing in a quasi-judicial land use matter, increasing the need for a professional decision-maker to provide a proper record for appeal, and sustainable findings of fact and conclusions of law to support a decision. Land use regulation has become increasingly complex, particularly with the implementation of the State Growth Management Act. Federal and state law have broadened the exposure of local governments to j- liability and damages for wrongful land use decisions. Spokane County, the City of Spokane, the City of Liberty Lake, and most or all November 2002 Page 18 other cities and towns in Spokane County employ a hearing system. Interlocal agreements for hearing examiner services have been executed between Spokane County and the City of Spokane, and between the City of Spokane and other cities and towns in the county. These agreements provide for basic hearing examiner services, as well as a substitution of hearing examiners in the event of a conflict of interest. Hearing Examiners may be empowered to hear various other types of quasi-judicial land use matters for a local government. This may include such diverse items as local improvement districts, dangerous dog hearings, adult entertainment ordinance appeals, and any type of administrative hearing that adjudicates the rights of named parties. Approximately one-third (1/3) of the current case load of the County Hearing Examiner involves land within the boundaries of the new city. The County 1 Hearing Examiner has indicated an interest in contracting with the new City for E hearing examiner services, subject to approval of an appropriate inter-local agreement. The transition committee was receptive to such option. Other options include contracting with the City of Spokane or retaining a private attorney. There will likely be insufficient hearing items to support a full-time hearing examiner. The transition committee unanimously recommends the establishment of a hearing examiner system for the new City. I' Sources of Information: In formulating the recommendations and options listed below, the transition committee received substantial input from the County Hearing Examiner (Mike Dempsey), who served on the committee, and other members of the committee directly involved in the land use process. The committee also received input from the planner for the City of Liberty Lake Ll (Doug Smith), private land use consultants (Francine Shaw, Dwight Hume, John Konen), and a consultant retained by new cities (Gregg Dohrn). Relevant RCWs: RCW 35A.63.110, 35A.63.170; Chapter 36.706 and Chapter 35.63 RCW. November 2002 Page 19 1 ~J s! ~ E U U I~ LJ CI ~I Option One and Team Recommendation: The Transition Team unanimously voted to establish a hearing examiner system to hear and decide land use applications, appeals of administrative determinations, and other quasi-judicial land use matters requiring a public hearing under chapter 35A.63 RCW. Pros • Use of a professional (attorney with land use background) to resolve complex legal and regulatory issues Easy to administer, efficient Provides consistency in decision-making Provides flexibility for appeals or recommendations to City Council Cons • May be more expensive to establish initially than board of adjustment Option Two: Establish a board of adjustment to hear and decide land use applications, appeals of administrative determinations, and other quasi-judicial matters requiring a public hearing under chapter 35A.63 RCW. Pros • May be less expensive to establish initially than the hearing examiner system, since members are volunteers . Provides citizen participation due to volunteer membership Cons Requires more assistance from planning staff and city attomey More cumbersome to administer Less consistent decisions over time • Less qualified to handle complex legal and regulatory issues Increased risk of liability November 2002 Page 20 it i Other Planning Considerations Planning can best be described as a process in which community values, needs, goals and objectives are expressed through a comprehensive land use plan. It Is an overall program on how we want our community to physically grow now and into the future. The constitutional basis for planning is provided in the police power provisions of the Washington State Constitution. 'Any county, city, town or township may make and enforce within its limits all such local police, sanitary and other regulations as are E _ not in conflict with general laws" Article XI, Section 11. The statutory requirements for city planning are found in the Revised Code of Washington (RCW) Chapter 35.63 (The Planning Commission Act), and Chapter 36.70A (Growth Management Act). The Growth Management Act does not change the method or manner of planning in a local community. The act merely specifies the elements that must be planned and additional criteria to be followed. Planning activity is divided into two categories: legislative and administrative. Legislative actions designate rules, or create maps that are likely to affect all or a significant part of the population. Administrative actions enforce and administer the community's plans, policies and regulations on a case-by-case and site- specific basis. When an administrative action requires a public hearing and a decision based on the record, it is considered ""quasi-judicial." j Comprehensive plans represent a ~J objectives. Development regulations goals and objectives. The following p to the land use planning process in V the basic concepts and provide conte need to consider. community's values, needs, goals and such as a Zoning Code implement those -esents an outline of the state laws related ►ashington State. They are a summary of t for land use regulations the new City will The Planning 'Commission Act (Chapter 35.63 - RCW): The Planning Commission Act permits a city to engage in planning by creating a city planning commission. Once a commission has been appointed, it must recommend adoption of land use regulations and implement a "comprehensive plan." This means that before any regulatory land use rules are formerly adopted, other than an interim basis, they must be submitted to the planning commission. The City of Spokane Valley will be required to establish a seven (7) member planning commission prior to the ability to amend or adopt any land use regulation other than those that will adopted as interim measures only. November 2002 Page 21 Planning Act for Non-charter Code Cities (Chapter 35A.63 RCW): The Planning Enabling Act expands on the Planning Commission Act and provides a specific statutory framework that integrates planning with zoning, platting and other specific land use regulations. The process for adopting official controls such as zoning is found in this chapter. The Growth Management Act (Chapter 36.70A RCW): The Growth Management Act (GMA) expands on the Planning Enabling Act and provides a more detailed framework to manage growth. The City is required to adopt a comprehensive plan based on population projects made by the Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFM) for the succeeding 20-year period. All plans are required to have a land use, housing, capital facilities integrated with the 6-year financial plan, utilities and transportation elements. The plan also designates critical areas, which include wetlands, aquifer recharge areas for potable water, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, frequently flooded areas, and geologically hazardous areas. The City will be required to establish and broadly disseminate to the public a public participation program to help formulate the comprehensive plan. GMA requires development regulations to be consistent with and implement the comprehensive plan. r Other Considerations: • Steering Committee of Elected Officials The Steering Committee of Elected Officials represents Spokane ' County, each of the thirteen cities and towns, junior taxing districts, and utilities. The members of the Steering Committee entered into a interlocal agreement outlining the J cooperative process for developing the County-wide Planning Policies within which each jurisdiction must develop its own comprehensive plan. The Steering Committee continues to meet although the County-wide Planning Policies have been complete for over six (6) years and acts as a board to oversee regional planning issues as they pertain to the 1(! requirements of the Growth Management Act. The mayor and a city council person need to be appointed to the Steering Committee to represent Spokane Valley interests. Critical Area Protection Clarified: The designation of critical areas as defined by GMA requires that best available science is used in developing policies and development regulations. November 2002 Page 22 i a i~ • Public Participation. The City will be required to establish and broadly disseminate to the public a public participation program identifying procedures providing for early and continuous public participation in the development and amendment of comprehensive land use plans and development regulations implementing such plans. • Consolidated Permits: Land use applicants may choose to get multiple permits processed at the same time. An example would be if a conditional use permit were required, it would be processed with the project permit. November 2002 Page 23 I r III 1 Expected Work Load,, Staffing Level and Equipment Needs Expected Work Load • Approximately 50,000 contacts a year with between 75 and 165 contacts per day. This includes telephone calls and walk-in customers. • Based on 2000-2001 estimates, the following number of land use actions were processed by Spokane County which involved land within the City of Spokane Valley. Each type of land use is followed by the total amount of revenue that was generated by the County for review of each type of land use action. o Appeals*: One (1) application - $128.00 total revenue o Binding Site Plans: Six (6) BSP applications - $9,505.00 total revenue S o Certificates of Exemption: Ninety-eight (98) applications - $16,744.00 total revenue o Conditional Use Permits*: Nine (9) applications - $1,880.00 total revenue o Dependent Relative Temporary Use Permit: Four (4) applications- $252.00 total revenue J o Home Profession Permit: Eight (8) applications - $569.00 total revenue o Long Plat (five or more lots)*: Nineteen (19) application- $22,714.00 total revenue o Manufactured Home Park: NA o Shorelines Permits*: NA J o Short Plats (four or fewer lots): Thirty-four (34) applications - $22,403.00 total revenue o Temporary Use Permits: Two (2) applications - $571.00 total revenue o Variances*: Six (6) applications - $2,216.00 total revenue o Zone Changes*: Twenty-five (25) applications - $35,073.00total revenue TOTAL Number of Land Use Actions Processed during the 2000-2001 fiscal year = 209 applications. D TOTAL PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS = Sixty (60) applications TOTAL ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS =One hundred forty-nine (149) applications TOTAL REVENUE _ $112.062.00 NOTE: * represents land use actions which require a public hearing. November 2002 Page 24 I+ ~i s Expected Staffing Level and Respective Salaries • One (1) Director/Office manager at $66,600 a year plus benefits • One (1) Senior Planner/Current Planning/Zoning at $56,460.00 a year plus benefits • One (1) Senior Planner/Long Range at $56,460.00 a year plus benefits • Two (2) Associate Planner/Current Planning/Zoning at $43,051.00 a year plus benefits - • Two (2) Associate Planner/Long Range at $43,051.00 a year plus benefits ~ • One (1) Journey Level Clerical at $28,048.00 a year plus benefits • Two (2) Entry Level Clerical at $24,365.00 a year plus benefits Access to a Graphic Information Specialist and a graphic artist. Expected Equipment Needs_ • One (1) reception area • 10 office desks or 10 cubical work stations with built in desks 10 stenographer desk chairs] l • 10 waste baskets • One (1) conference table with four side chairs • One (1) supply cabinet Book case • City wall maps for public viewing One (1) 4 X 6 white board • File Cabinets • One (1) fax machine • One (1) black and white copy machine • One (1) color copy machine • 10 computers with a centralized network • 10 telephones connected to'a central system • 10 each of the following: stapler, staple remover, scissors, engineers and architect scales, tape dispensers and office caddies. • Two (2) each of the following: three hole punch and two hole punch • One (1) paper cutter • One (1) drafting table, One (1) microwave • One (1) refrigerator • Two (2) tables with chairs for a break room hi l d • c City ve e One (1) assigne November 2002 Page 25 Office Spatial Needs 3,000 square feet should be adequate to house one (1) reception area and 10 (-J cubical work stations, one (1) conference table with four (4) side chairs, drafting room with a drafting table, a conference table and four (4) side chairs and a break room with two (2) tables and chairs. Additional area will be needed to store project files and other records. U I~ H Computer Concerns We strongly suggest that a computer consultant be hired to analyze the exchange of file information from Spokane County to the City of Spokane Valley. A full investigation needs to be done to understand what type of operating system, networking system, and database storage the County is currently using. This information determines what type of computers are needed for staff. Memory size, backup capabilities and networking capabilities are determined by the type of software that is needed. Other concerns that need to be investigated are off-site storage, disaster recovery, and a complete software implementation plan including dates and an effective test plan. Internet connections are necessary for staff. However, the phone line system into the building will determine if modems are required or if a direct T1 line will be provided. All of these concerns should be addressed before the purchase of computers can take place. We recommend that one person be hired to maintain the computer and network system for the entire City staff. This person should come with experience in maintaining large network and certifications of applicable software applications. Page 26 November 2002 Interim Building and Construction Services Options and Recommendations F- -1 INTRODUCTION TO BUILDING SERVICES Washington State law requires the City of Spokane Valley to be a fully j functioning city on the official date of incorporation. One of the primary functions of the new City will be provisions of building and construction services. This report has been prepared to assist the City of Spokane Valley to meet the ! requirements of Washington State law. This report focuses on options and recommendations for the continuation of viable building and construction services to the new City. The Planning, Zoning and Building Transition Team understands that it will take a great deal of time to create and set up the City's own Building Department. So, until this can be accomplished, the following are options and recommendations of the building sub-committee of the Planning, Zoning and Building Transition Team. rf November 2002 Page 27 I~ BUILDING CODES h OPTIONS AND RECOMMENDATION The Sub-committee of Building and Code Enforcement thoroughly investigated all areas concerning the creation of a building department for the new City of Spokane Valley. These areas include, but are not limited to, the following: • Electrical Inspections • Boiler Inspections Elevator Inspections • Establishing a Building Department immediately • Contract for services with Spokane County Division of Building and Code Enforcement • Contract for services with the City of Spokane • Contract for services with a private consultant Building Codes required to be implemented by the City of Spokane Valley on the date of incorporation are set by state and federal mandates. These codes are not afforded flexibility for change and adjustment like the Comprehensive Land f ~l Use Plan and Zoning Code previously discussed in this report. Spokane Valley does have the ability to amend these codes to be more restrictive but that is not supported by the Planning, Zoning and Building Transition Team. ti The following list represent the codes and boards, and services required for implementation of building and construction services. RCW 19.27.037 and 19.27.050 J State Building Code • • Uniform Building Code Uniform Mechanical Code • Uniform Fire Code Uniform Plumbing Code • Permit and Plan Review `J Inspections 1 Code Enforcement • Board of Appeals Unanimous Recommendation: Unless monies can be allocated for the creation of our own Building Department, the new City should contract all plan { review, inspections and permit review to Spokane County with a portion of the fee's to go to an enterprise fund established specifically for the future Spokane Valley Building Department. November 2002 Page 28 -1 OPTIONS FOR PROVISION OF INTERIM ADMINISTRATION OF BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION SERVICES j The main focus of the work produced by the Building Codes Sub-committee was to address options for administration of interim building and construction services. There are three (3) viable options for providing interim building code services for the City of Spokane Valley. These options are listed in order of preference and in descending order. Following the list, each option is discussed in more detail and weighted with Pro's and Con's. Options for Building Services • Contract with Spokane County Division of Building and Code Enforcement • Contract with the City of Spokane Construction Services • Contract with a Private Consultant Option One: Contract with Spokane County Pro's • Staff is experienced in Spokane Valley building inspections and plan review All services are existing and can be provided in the future - no change or transition will be needed • Existing permit review and construction projects already in the County system can remain in the system and be completed without further transition Staff will be assigned to each individual project Staff is available for both commercial and residential projects Pre-development/pre-application meetings available with applicants • Same day inspections available • Week-end inspections available, if necessary • Spokane County Division of Building and Code Enforcement is ranked within the 5% nation-wide November 1002 Page 29 • No need for office space or equipment Con's • The City of Spokane Valley will not receive fully the revenue generated by building permit fees and inspections • The new City will have. less control over building services than if we establish our own building department Perception of Status Quo November 2002 Page 30 i CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON 11 0 Will there be a dedicated staff to the City of Spokane Valley? Spokane County currently funds approximately 12 stoff'positions to the City of Spokane Volley. In your opinion, what would be the fee/percentage charged for department services to Spokane Valley? Our department collects fees based on the 1994 edition of the Uniform Building Code for permitting, plan review, and inspection services. 71.5% of the fee collected is devoted to building permit and inspection ser- vices, plus 22% for a county surcharge collected to reimburse our office for non-fee services (see attached). The remaining 28.5% is allocated to funding both the hearing examiner and a portion of current planning ser- vices (includes 22% surcharge for their non-fee services also). To illustrate: Description Permit Fee Building Portion Planning Portion Building Permit $100 $71.50 $28.50 Surcharge $ 22 $15.73 $ 6.27 TOTAL $122 $87.23 $34.77 The fees ore negotiable and subject to the extent of services provided by the County. However, if we continue provid- ing the some services and collecting in the same fashion that we do now, Spokane Valley would receive full permitting, blan review and inspection services of no cost and, receive the "Planning Portion =the $34.77 shown in the example .lbove-to fund either planning or other permit related services. Building Portion - Where the goes 100% Building PermitlPermit Center 100% Plan Review 100% Field Inspection 100% Code Enforcement 100% Administration 100% Department Liability insurance 20% Public Works Building's Debt Service Payment 10% Public Works Administration 4% of the total Cost Allocation Expenses for General Fund Services Planning or Spokane Valley Portion - Where the goes Based on historical averages, this amounts to approximately $386,000 per year. Following is the allocation of the current planning portion allocated in Spokane County: - 100% Hearing Examiner Deportment Budget - 60% to 6S% of Current Planning Department Budget Alternately, Spokane Valley could opt for other funding mechanisms for planning (user fees, general fund) in which case actual building permit fees would be approximately 71.5% of that charged to County customers. Dependent Sl'OKANI: COUNTY ~I I lil,JlUMNG & (X)DE ENFOIt(' WENT r'1 1 1 16 W BROA17WMAVI:NIA SI*uKANI:, WA 99260 (509) 477-3675 PI IONI: (509 477-4703 FAX November 2002. )Ands L. WNS(m. 1)11u. roll Page 31 upon services provided by Spokane Valley, the percentage of the building permit fee retained b Spokane Valle could be adjusted. The some holds true with the 'non-fee' surcharge. by y fl Will staff be assigned to Spokane Valley? Yes, see #1 above. These staff could work from either the County location or one provided by Spokane Valley. J What is the turnaround time for permits (graduated for project complexity)? Seven to nine days for residential, an average of 34 days for commercial. There are over the counter permits such r as signs, non-structural remodeling plumbing, and mechanical. Will Spokane Valley be added to the compliance section? Generally, yes. We would attempt to gain compliance for any violation of construction codes and ordinances. If for P some reason we were not able to do so, we would refer the matter to Spokane Valley for its attorneys to follow up with legal action. Again, that is subject to negotiation. C Will fees charged to Spokane Valle include surcharge Y s. It depends upon the services provided. If we provide the same non-fee services as we are currently, we would collect the current 22% surcharge on building permits. What would you consider as minimum and maximum contract duration for building depart- ment services? Six months to indefinitely. Fp Can the contract be renewed? h-J Yes-would autornatically renew from year-to-year unless either party gave notice to cancel. Ll Would you consider providing inspection services, with others providing plan review, etc.? Yes, however the benefit to using Spokane County to perform all services is that we have a WSRB protection clossift- cation of 2. !f you use our fill services, Spokane Valley would then have that classification as well. There is no other jurisdiction in the area v 'th as high a classification. This rating class benefits all owners of new construction in their insurance premiums to tie maximum extent possible. Using full services also enhances communication between plans examiners, inspectors, as well as consistency in the application of codes. Would you consider providing plan review with others providing inspection services? y See #9 above. MISSION'STATEMENT Building and Code Enforcement is dedicated to public safety in the built environment through the consistent and reasonable administration of building and site development regulations, the en- honcement of professionalism in staff and facilitating processing projects with a fair and efficient user-friendly process. (t November 2002 Page 32 0 Benefits of Spokane County Permit & Inspection Services i r - o t~ ~o o• o 0 D 5 J All services are provided in-house Project coordinator assigned to all commercial projects Development assistance coordinator available for any major commercial development and construction services Preapplication meetings held with applicant, architect, contractor, and all affected agencies j r: o Senior inspector assigned to oversee commercial project construction and inspection coordination 'o Footing/foundation inspections with only 4 hours advance notice a o Same-day inspections for all other types if called in by 9AM 1o Weekend inspections if necessary ►o Toll-free number: 1-800-27-CODES Es o Inspectors available via two-way radios and cellular phones to Washington Survey and Ratings Bureau rated the Spokane 0 County Building Department within the top 5% of all building departments nationwide, saving new building owners the maximum insurance premium possible for wind/snow and seismic protection Lry Enterprise funded; entirely self-supporting through permit activities, no tax revenues from general fund } November 2002 Page 33 D L City of Spokane Valley Activity Comparison to "All County" 3 year average (1999-2001) U 0 0 0 D U 0 U ~I PERMITS All County Valley % All Building 5,236 2,025 39% Commercial 1,087 703 65% Residential 4,149, 1,322 32% Plumbing 2,077 883 43% Mechanical 4,338 1,51.2 35% VALUATION All County Valley % Total Building $333,504,878 $103,172,771 31% Commercial $136,838,878 $ 64,836,589 47% Residential $196,666,000 $ 38,336,182 19% REVENUE All County Valley % All Building $27449,639 $795,671. 32% Commercial $947,024 $471,906 50% Residential $1,502,6715 $323,675 22% Plumbing $179,619 $65,227 36% Mechanical $275,074 $94,827 34% November 2002 Page 34 ~1 City of Spokane Valley Activity Comparison to "All County" 2001 Average All County Spokane Expense budget (million) $ 3.7 1.3 Staffing 44 16 Permits issued 11,200 4,168 Field inspections 35,000 12,546 Complaints/investigations 320 163 Phone contacts 63,277 23;546 Milk-in customers 10,417 4,105 Commercial reviews 1,108 687 November 2002 Page 35 Option Three: Contract with Consultants Pro's • New city can deal with directly the consultant • Less political conflict than if contracting with another government entity ;j • Unbiased approach to permit review and inspections Greater flexibility to contract based on need No need for office space or equipment Con's An additional/second transition will be necessary • Eight week time frame before the consultant could be able to begin permit review and inspections Expected Revenue: A three (3) year average for permit revenue totaled almost one (1) million dollars a year. This is enough revenue to not only staff a department, but to build a reserve for use in providing direct services in the future. Buildina Sub-Committee Members Rod Holmes; Chair Kevin Myre George Watson Penny Myer Don Gorman Ranny Ankerick Joe Thomas Jerry Norman Gene Petefish November 2002 Page 47 s i i ~S ~I L~ -I i~ Option Two: Contract with the City of Spokane Pro's Staff is experienced in Washington State building codes, building inspection and plan review Staff has indicated a desire to contract with the City of Spokane Valley Staff will be dedicated to Spokane Valley assignments • Good turn-around time No need for office space or equipment Con's • No ability to provide enforcement to assure compliance • Potential for piecemeal services • Additional transition time needed to bring staff up to speed with current processes and procedures • Additional staff will need to be hired since existing staff levels at the City of Spokane are not sufficient to handle the workload created by Spokane Valley November 2002 Page 36 City of Spokane Valley Building Code Enforcement- Inspections and Plan Review Questions for the City of Spokane 1. Will there be a dedicated staff to the City of Spokane Valley? Yes. See 3 below. 2. In your opinion what would be the feelpercentage charged for building department services to Spokane Valley? 100% City of Spokane Fee tables. I ?QI fw 44`S 3. Will staff be assigned to Spokane Valley? Yes. Plan Review and Inspection Staff will be assigned. 4. What is the turn around time for permits? (Graduated for project complexity). 2002 Figures (submission to issuance) Residential !Very: 4.62 days average, 2 median, 359 count Target for conlnlents: 3 warkirr days Courrrrercial Remodel: 8.I6 days average, 0 inedia n, 299 count Target for conlrrleuts: S ►v irr days Commercial New: 34.97 days average, 27.5 median, 37 count Target for cournrena: 15 working days F~ L. 5 `y,,~ Will Spokane Valley be added to the compliance section? Yes. Our coulpliance section is'Conrplalnt-driven. 6. Will fee charged to Spokane Valley include surcharges? No s r°charges if limited to Building, Plu„rbing, Mechanical, and Electrical Review. A 16% surcharge ►vill be applied for site plan review including Zf ning, planning, utilities, and the like. _ 104,fCt-41M ,10 i1i, C31 J twicb"-47 7. What would you consider as the minimum and maximum contract duration for building department services? One year, mini rlual and rna vinium. 8. Can contract be renewed? Yea'. 9. Would you consider providing inspection services, with others providing plan review, etc.? Yes. 10. Would you consider providing plan review with others providing inspection services? Yes. November 2002 Page 37 I I. U r CITY OF SPOKANE DEPARTMENT OF CONSTRUCTION SERVICES 808 West Spokane Falls Blvd, Spokane WA 99201-3325 (509)625-6100, FAX 625-6124 L'FRMIT & INSPECTIO ES January 2, 1997 THE BUILDING CODE OF.THE CITY constitutes the Uniform Building Code, 1994 Edition; the Washington State Energy Code, WAC 51-11; and the Washington State Building Code WAC 51-30, both adopted by the State Building Code Council pursuant to RCW 19:27, and amendments contained in Chapter 11.04 of the Spokane Municipal Code. THE VALUE OF CONSTRUCTION for purposes of calculating the amount of the fee is determined by the most current building valuation data from the International Conference of Building Officials as published in "Building Standards." GROSS AREA, when used in conjunction with the ICBO building valuation data to determine valuation of a project, is the total area of all floors, measured from the exterior face, outside dimension, or exterior column line of a building, including basements and balconies, but excluding unexcavated areas. The fee-is based on the highest type of construction to which a proposed structure most nearly conforms, as determined by the Building Official. BUILDING PERMIT FEES: $ Value of Work L) t~ 1 to 500 20.50 501 to 2,000 ...........20.50 2,001 to 25,000 53.50 25,001 to 50,000 281.20 50,001 to 100,000 ..........459.95 100,001 to 500,000 ..........707.45 500,001 to 1,000,000 2,247.45 1,000,001 to 99,999,999 3,897.45 + $25 processing -fee for each permit Fee, in Dollars + 2.20 for each 100 over 500 + ' 9.90 for each 1,000 over 2,000 + 7.15 for each 1,000 over 25;000 + 4.95 for each 1,000 over 50,000 + 3.85 for each 1,000 over 100,000 + 3.30 for each 1,000 over 500,000 + 2.20 for each - 1,000 over 1,000,000 *THE FEE FOR AN EARLY START OR FAST TRACK BUILDING PERMIT APPROVAL IS 25% OF THE BUILDING PERMIT FEE, AND IS IN ADDITION TO ANY OTHER REQUIRED FEE. *THE PLAN REVIEW FEE IS 65% OF THE BUILDING PERMIT FEE, AND MUST BE PAID WHEN THE PLANS ARE SUBMITTED. November 2002 Page 38 Over... EXCEPT: 1. THE PLAN REVIEW FEE FOR A FAST TRACK PROJECT is 100% of the building permit fee. 2. There is NQ~ PLAN REVIEW FEE for: (a) Single family residences, duplexes, triplexes, and. fourplexes which are not part of a- group or planned unit development; and (b) U-1 occupancies. 3. An ADDITIONAL REVIEW FEE is required by changes, additions or revisions is $60.00 per hour, with a one-hour minimum charge. 4 EARLY START AND FAST TRACK APPROVAL: The fee for an early start or fast track building permit approval is twenty-five percent (25%) of the building permit fee, and is in addition to any other required -fees. The plan review fee for a fast track project is one hundred percent (100%) of the building permit fee. PARKING LOT: Same as building permit. SWIMMING POOLS: The building and plumbing permit fee for a swimming pool is $50.00 for those accessory to a• single family residence and $75.00 for all others. Mechanical and electrical permits are additional. ~l BUILDING PERMIT SURCHARGES AND FEES: - Surcharge: Sixteen percent (16%n) of the building permit fee. The surcharge is intended to offset development regulations and other functions for which fees are not specifically charged. State. Building Code Fees: $4.50 for each BUILDING permit. Includes building, grading,,sign, factory-built, demolition, swimming pool, and parking lot and site work permits. In addition, for multi- family dwellings, $2.00 per dwelling unit in excess of one. r L j REINSPECTION: $60.00. INSPECTION- BY ANY BUILDING SERVICES PERSONNEL OUTSIDE NORMAL WORKING HOURS: $60.00 per hour` or fraction of an hour. A minimum of two hours is payable at the time the request is made. INVESTIGATION OF WORK DONE'WITHOUT A. PERMIT: Double the inspection fee, or the permit fee plus $100.00, whichever is the greater. (Effective 4/91) 1 1anrov\prm'insp.foo November 2002 Page CITY OF SPOKANE, DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL MECHANICAL PERMIT APPLICATION/FEE SCHEDULE 808 W Spokane Falls Blvd Spokane WA 99201-3343, (509) 625-6300 FAX (509) 625-6124 WWW. BUILDING SPOKANE. ORG Job Address & PQcoperty Owner's Name ' Description of Work Commercial Residential New Add Remodel ; ( ' ! Contractor's Name & Address +-----------------------------------------------------------------------1------ ' Contractor's Phone Number/Contact Person Mech License # Elec License MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS WHO ALSO HAVE THE APPROPRIATE ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR'S LICENSE MAY USE THIS FORM FOR LOW VOLTAGE HVAC CIRCUITS. AN ELECTRICAL PERMIT APPLICATION AND THE APPROPRIATE ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR'S LICENSE ARE REQUIRED FOR ALL OTHER HVAC CIRCUITS. BOILER PERMIT APPLICATIONS ARE A SEPARATE FORM AND MUST BE USED FOR COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS AND APARTMENT BUILDINGS OF SIX OR MORE UNITS. 4 Fee Qty Am' t ` Processing Fee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.00 1 Fuel Gas Piping, $2 per outlet, minimum $10 . . . . 2.00 Hydronic Piping, $2 p $ per outlet, minimum 10 2.00 Gas Logs, decorative only, no tan. . . . . . . . . . 11.00 Duct Work System, per zone, zemodel only . . . . . . 11.00 Solid Fuel Burning Appliances (wood stoves, inserts) 27.50 } Gas Water Heater less than 200,000 BTU input . . . . 11.00 t Electric Water Heater 11.00 Heating Equipment, Gas Inserts (includes duct work) Up to and inclu ing 100,000 BTU input or 32 KW . . 13.25 Over 100,000 BT input or 32 KW. . . . . . . . . 16.25 Gas Clothes Dryer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.00 1...- Gas Range . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.00 Compressors/Air Conditioners/Heat Pumps Up to and including 3 tons . . . . . . . . . . . . 13.25 Over 3 tons, to and including 15 tons . . . . . . 22.00 Over 15 tons, to and including 30 tons . . . . . . 27.50 Over 30 tons, to and including 50 tons . . . . . . 38.50 - Over 50 tons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65.00 _ HVAC Equipment Circuits, 24 Volts or Less 3.75 Miscellaneous: name fixture(s) Total This Page if total does not meet or exceed $35, the MINIMUM FE E is $35.00. November 2002 Page 40 COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL MECHANICAL PERMIT APPLICATION/FEE SCHEDULE CONT'D Fee Qty Am't Total from previous page j Absorption or Refrigeration System Up to and including 100,000 BTU . . . . . . . . . 13.25 Over 100,000 BTU/500,000 BTU or less . . . . . . 22.00 Over 500,000, BTU/1,000,000 BTU or less . . . . . 27.50 Over 1,000,000 BTU/1,750,000 BTU or less . . . . 38.50 Over 1,750, 000 BTU . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65.00 "1Evaporative Cooler, other than portable type . . . 11.00 )--,Air-Handling Units including attached ducts For each 10,000 cfm or fraction thereof . . . . . 13.25 f THIS FEE SHALL HOT APPLY TO AN ASR-HANDLING UNIT WHICH 15 PORTION OF J 2) A FACTORY-ASSEMBLED APPLIANCE, COOLING UNIT, EVAPORATIVE COOLER OR L ABSORPTION UNIT FOR WHICH A PERMIT IS REQUIRED ELSEWHERE IN THIS CODE. Ventilation Fan connected to single duct . . . . . I 11.00 !Ventilation System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.00 NOT A PORTION OF A14Y HEATING OR AIR C014DITIONI11C .SYSTEM AUTHORIZED DY A PERMTT. Type I Hood per 12' portion of hood . . . . . . . . 55.00 _ INCLUDES DUCT A14D EXHAUST FAN Type II Hood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11.00 114CLUDES DUCT AND EXHAUST FAN Unlisted or Used Appliances <400,000 BTU . . . . . 60.00 Jnlisted or Used Appliances >400,000 BTU . . . . . 110.00 Inspection Outside Normal Working Hours j $60 PER HOUR OR FRACYIO14 OF AN HOUR A HI11IN W 60.00 L . UK OF T O HOURS IS PAYABLE AT THE, TIHH THE REQUEST IS MADE. SUPHRVISOR'S APPROVAL IS REQUIRED. . 1 _J P Total Permit Fee f P I total does not meet or exceed $35, the Minimum Fe e is $35.00. I r -?The Mechanical Code of the City constitutes the Uniform Mechanical Code, 1997 Edition, and related standards as modified by Chapter 11.08 of the Spokane Municipal Code. KOCI IAN I CAI,APO I. DOC I November 2002 Page 41 CITY OF SPOKANE DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT R-3 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE $ DUPLEX BUILDING APPLICATION 808 W SPOKANE FALLS BLVD SPOKANE WA 99201-3343 (509) 625-6300 FAX (509) 625-6124 WWW.BUILDINGSPOKANE.ORG J' PROJECT ADDRESS -1 LEGAL DESCRIPTION i` CURB TO FRONT PROPERTY LINE DISTANCE IF CORNER LOT, CURB TO SIDE PROPERTY LINE DISTANCE Mi IS HOUSE LOCATED ON OR WITHIN 40' OF A SLOPE? YES OwnerlBuilder Name Phone aired rloaress City, State, Zip Code rl Lender Namo Phone ~J Street Address ~-l - U City, State, Zip Code STYLE OF HOUSE (DUPLEX, PLIT LEVEL, RANCHER, ETC.) _ 1STAND 2"a FLOOR AREA jl UNFINISHED BASEMENT AREA + FINISHED BASEMENT AREA + 130NUS ROOM (SHELL) + TOTAL CONDITIONED FLOOR AREA = PARCEL NUMBER FRONT PROPERTY LINE TO BUILDING DISTANCE SIDE PROPERTY LINE TO BUILDING DISTANCE NO IF YES, % OF SLOPE Contractor Name Phone Street Address City, State, Zip Code WA State Contractor's License Bonding Agent Phone Street Address City, State, Zip Code # OF BEDROOMS GARAGE AREA UNCOVERED DECK AREA COVERED DECK AREA CARPORT AREA AIR CONDITIONED AREA BUILDING PERMIT REQUIREMENTS FOR ALTERNATE MATERIALS AND CONSTRUCTION METHODS y IF A FROST PROTECTED SHALLOW FOUNDATION (FPSF) WILL BE USED, SUBMIT DETAIL OF THE FOUNDATION WITH PERMIT APPLICATION. WILL ANY UNCONVENTIONAL CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS OR METHODS (e.g. Foam Form Foundations, Foam Core Panels, otc.) BE USED ON THIS PROJECT? YES NO IF THE ANSWER IS YES, PLEASE EXPLAIN. PLEASE READ THE FOLLOWING LIST CAREFULLY AND PROVIDE ALL REQUIRED MATERIAL WITH YOUR APPLICATION. fI TWO (1) FULL SETS OF PLANS FOUR (4) SITE PLANS WHICH INCLUDE CURB TO PROPERTY LINE DISTANCES ONE (1) LEGAL ADDRESS SLIP FROM ENGINEERING SERVICES ENERGY AND VENTILATION CODE INFORMATION REQUEST ON REVERSE SIDE November 2002 Page 42 CITY OF SPOKANE DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT R•3 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE & DUPLEX BUILDING APPLICATION CONT'D ENERGY CODE INFORMATION & WORK SHEET USE THE TOTAL CONDITIONED FLOOR AREA (TCFA) FROM YOUR SQUARE FOOTAGE FIGURES ON THE FRONT PAGE TO COMPLETE THE . ` CALCULATION BELOW. IF TIE BTUH INPUT OF THE HEATING SYSTEM EXCEEDS THE BTUH INPUT IN THE CALCULATION, PROVIDE THE HEAT LOSS CALCULATIONS FOR THE BUILDING TO SHOW WHY SUCH A LARGE FURNACE IS NEEDED. BTUH INPUT CANNOT EXCEED... TCFA X 25 = BTUH INPUT VENTILATION CODE COMPLIANCE -WHOLE HOUSE FAN W/ FRESH AIR INLETS _ INTEGRATED FORCED AIR SYSTEM SUPPLY FAN SYSTEM WSEC COMPLIANCE METHOD ~i fl L RADON MITIGATION PROCESS PRESCRIPTIVE (PASSIVE) METHOD ACTIVE SYSTEM (DRAWINGS REQUIRED) FOR SYSTEM ANALYSIS OR COMPONENT PERFORMANCE GO TO WWW.ENERGY,WSU.EDUJBUILDINGSI SUBMIT COMPLETED FORM WITH APPLICATION FOR PRESCRIPTIVE PATH, USE FORMULA AND TABLE 6.2 BELOW INDICATE WHICH PRESCRIPTIVE PATH YOU HAVE CHOSEN DIVIDED BY EQUALS TOTAL GLAZING TOTAL CONDITIONED FLOOR AREA TABLC G•2 PRESCRIlrTIVE REQUIliEMENT 5a't FOR GROUP It OCCUPANCY CLIMATt: ZONE 2 GLAZING PERCENTAGE Glazl a Glarl U-Fador Wall waq• Will. Shb4 option Moan . a COOS Ceiling, Vatdlcd Above n1 and Fps on 'l. of Flow Vert)pl Oveytnoadht U•Fae/ar- Ccue Chad. acbw Clow Grado (4;nde Geode 1. 107. 0.41 0.58 p.20 u R- l8 11•30 R-21 R•21 R•12 R-30 R-10 il.• 15% 0.40 0.58 0.20 R•33 R-30 R-19+ R-21 R-12 R-30 R-10 R-5r Ill. 17% 037 05E 0.20 R-3E IWD R•194 R-21 R-12 R-3D R-10. R•5h rv Undimmed 035 0.5E 0120 R-38 R-3D R-21 P,-21 R-12 R-30 R-10 ,l Group R-3 rare Occupancy Onl Rcfcreneo Case 0. Nominal R-values ore for wood frame assemblies only rx rsssenhblies built is aocordaocc wilt Section 601.1. ~l 1. Minjummt rcquircmcnu for each option listed. For example, it a proposed duirti l,as a glaring ratio to lluc canditioncd now f 'area of 13%. it 511211 Comply with all of the tcqu4cur_nts of the 15% Clating option (m l6gher). proposed designs which eartnos mccl tlm specific rcquiscmcnis of & listed option alcove cony calculate coanpliancc by I:haptets 4 w 5 of this Code. 7, Requirement applies to all ceilings uecpt single rafter or joist vaulted ceilings. 'Adv' denotes Advanced Framed Cciling. 3. Requitanens applicable only to single taller or joist vaulted ceilings. 4. Below gmdc walls shall be insulated chhe• an the ex:e:ior to a rainimcm level of R-10, m on the interior to the same IcsXa as walls above grade. Exterior insulation instalied on below Bradt walls shall be a water teiistaut material, manufactured for its • intended use, and installed according to the manufacturer's specifications. See Section 602.2. 5. Floor over crawl spacts or exposed to ambient air conditions. 6. Required slab Imiutcter insulation shall be a water resistant material, manufactured for its intended use, and installed according to manufactures spccilications. See Section 602.4. 7 inn, denotes standard framing 16 inches on center with headers insulated with a raiairnmm of it-5 insulation, S. This wall insulation requirement denotes R-19 wall cavity insulation plus IL-5 foam sltcatung. 9. Doors• including all Cue doors, stun be assigned default U-factors from Tabk 10-6C. 10. Whert a maxirdum glazing nits is listed, the total glazing area (combined vertical plus ovcrtread) as a pereem of gross conditioned floor area shall be less than or equal to that value. Overhead glazing with U-faciorof U-0.40 at less is not included in glazing area limitations. 11. Ovcthcad glazing shall have 11-factors drtt nincd in accordance wiOiNl'RC I00 or as specified in Section 502, 13. November LVUL nd solid thoubcr walls wrath a rnuunmm ovuagc Ihickaesc of 3.5 arc cacmpt from this insulation rquircmcnt page 43 (..1 CITY OF SPOKANE BUILDING DIVISION COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL lI ELECTRICAL PERMIT APPLICATION/FEE SCHEDULE - 808 W Spokane Falls Blvd Spokane WA 99201-3343 (509) 625-6300 FAX (509) 625-6124 WWW.BUILDINGSPOKANE.ORG - ' ; Job Address & Property Owner's Name -i Description of work ; ' ; Commercial Residential. New Add Remodel ' Contractor's Name & Address i•-------------------------------------------------------------------------------' Contractor's Phone Number/Contact Verson License # ; i+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ Fee Processing Fee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Services (New-Alt-Add) 600V or less Amperage 1 - 200 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.00 Amperage 201 - 300 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37.25 Amperage 301 - 400 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43.50 Amperage 401 - 500 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47.25 Amperage 501 - 600 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51.00 Amperage 601 - 700 . . . . . . . . . . . 54.50 Amperage 701 - 800 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58.25 Amperage 801 - 900 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62.00 Amperage 901 - 17 000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 65.75 Amperage Over 1 000 $65.75 + $3.75 per 100 amp over 1000 (Size ) l Light Standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.25 Feeders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.00 J Alarm & Control Circuit Zones . . . . . . . . . J 10.00 Temporary Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.00 Low and/or High Voltage circuits, alter/repair . . . 3.75 -j New Construction and Additions , use one only 5000 sq ft or less, $3 per 100 sq ft or fraction 5001 to 20000 sq ft - $1.50 + $1.50 per 100 sq ft or fraction Over 20000 sq ft - $375 + $.75 per 100 sq ft or fraction Reinspections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i 60.00 Inspection Outside Normal Hours . . . . . . . . . . 60.00 $60 PER HOUR OR FRICTION OF AN HOUR. A MINIMUM OF TWO HOURS IS PAYABLE AT THE TIME THE REQUEST IS KADE. SUPERVISOR'S APPROVAL. REQUIRED. Total This Page If total ~M9V4M0~eet or exceed $35, ' r-are-I Fee is-'$35.00. Qty Am 't 25.00 Page 44 ~f COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL ' ELECTRICAL PERMIT APPLICATION/FEE SCHEDULE CONT'D Fee Qty Total From Previous Page 1 , Services (New-Alt-Add) over 600V Amperage 1 - 200 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55.75 Amperage 201 - 300 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62.00 Amperage 301 - 400 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68.25 Amperage 401 - 500 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72.00 ` Amperage 501 - 600 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75.75 `j Amperage 601 - 700 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79.50 Amperage 701 - 800 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83.00 Amperage 801 - 900 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86.75 Amperage 901 - 1000 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90.50 Amperage Over 1000 1 $90.50 + $3.75 per 100 amp over 1000 (Size Generators: Emergency, Standby and Resource Recovery { Fee is the same as that for Services and is based on the ( amperage o f the generator. Generators of 50 KW or less ? will be co nsidered equivalent to a 200 amp service. Generator/Amp Generator/Amp Transformers: ~1 Fee is the same as that for Services and is based on the secondary amperage. 1 Transformer/Amp Transformer/Am Annual Electrical Permit Fee For large, single-site complexe s. 1 - 3 Plant Electricians, 12 Inspections . . . 1300.00 4 - 6 Plant Electricians, 24 inspections . . . 2600.00 7 - 12 Plant Electricians, 36 Inspections . . . 3900.00 13 - + Plant Electricians, 52 Inspections . . . 5200.00 The above fee will entitle the nu mber of inspections shown for a one year period after the permit date. Total Permit Fee Am't `i The electrical code of the city is the National Electrical Code, 1990 Edition, as modified?~6ff 11. 05 of the Spokane Municipal Code. Page 45 ~1 CITY OF SPOKANE'DEPARTMENT-OF BUILDING AND CODE ENFORCEMENT COMMERCIAL & RESIDENTIAL PLUMBING PERMIT APPLICATION/FEE SCHEDULE 808 W Spokane Falls Blvd Spokane WA 99201-3343 (509) 625-6300 FAX (509) 625-6124 ivgW.BUILDINGSPOKANE.ORG Job Address & Property Owner's Name ; Description of Work ' Commercial Residential New Add Remodel I Contractor's Name & Address Contractor's Phone Number/Contact Person License ; Fee Qty Am't Processing Fee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25.00 Kitchen Sink . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.00 Dishwasher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.00 „ Garbage Disposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.00 I 111 Clothes Washer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.00 Lavatory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.00 Water Closet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.00 athtub . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.00 Shower . . .I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.00 Floor Drain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.00 Water Softener . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.00 Backflow Prevente for lav.m sprinkler or other use 10.00 Sewage Ejector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.00 Vacuum Breaker . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.00 Laundry Tray . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.00 Bar Sink 10.00 ~ Drinking Fountain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.00 J Urinal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.00 1 Roof Drain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10.00 Misc., i.e. mop sinks, etc. . . . . . . . . . . . 10.00 r Re-inspection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60.00 Inspection Outside Normal Working Hours . . . . . . 60.00 $60 PER HOUR OR FRACTION OF AN HOUR. A OINIMUM OF T470 HOURS IS PAYABLE AT THE TIME THE REQUEST IS MADE. SUPERVISOR'S APPROVAL REQUIRED. Total Permit Fee If total does not meet or exceed $35, the Minimum Fee is $35.00 'he 1111061fty Co.fo t the City e-netitotep tit Ifittorm Pl~fag Code. 1991 Edition, end related standard :ale. s[tsellve 0710-90 plu ba epOl. s en mdltted by Chapter 11.09 of the Spokane Municipal November 2002 Page 46 f TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction Page 3 General Overview Page 4 Recreational Programs Page 4 Mirabeau Point Page 5 Special Use facilities Page 6 Level of Service Page 6 Vision Statement Page 7 Recommendations Transition Phase Page 7 Mid-Term Phase Page 8 Long-Term Phase Page 9 Estimated Costs Page 10 Potential Funding Sources Page 11 Appendix Page 13 #1 General Parks Description 42 Map of Parks in City of Spokane-Valley #3 2002 Operating Statistics for Swimming Pools #4- Newspaper article on Mirabeau Point ownership #5 Mirabeau Point Trails & Major features #6 Metropolitan Parks District Option #7 Parks Cost Review and Analysis #8 - 21 Individual Parks and facilities Descriptions 2 I. Introduction The purpose of this report is to provide information and recommendations to the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley to enable knowledgeable decisions regarding Parks and Recreation facilities/programs in the new City.. Many hours of research, study and discussion went into this report from the members of the Parks and Recreation Study Committee: Sara Learning, Ana Matthews, Angie Davis, Ben Wick, DeeDee Loberg, Don Gorman, Eric Sawyer, Sandy Cozzetto, Hal and Gae Moffitt, Irene Anrode, Jim Haley, Jim Huttenmaier, John Sisser, Kay Bryant, Lois Harger, Norma Barrett-Lincoln, Norma Ventris, Pat Ewers,.Peggy Doering, Rico Reed, Chris Polito, and our Chair Glenn Clapper. This report was prepared by: Jim Huttenmaier, 1306 S. Virginia, Spokane, «TA 99216. Phone: Home - 922-2049 or Work-742-9358. A special word of appreciation must be expressed to the staff of the Spokane County Parks and Recreation Department for their sharing of detailed information, including Director Doug Chase, and Maintenance Supervisor Bob Hughes. The recommendations contained in this report are divided into three major action-plan categories: Transition Phase (the first 6 monihs); Mid-Term Phase (from 6 months to year) and Long Range Phase (1 year and beyond).. 3 11. General Overview There are a total of eight (8) community parks, three (3) public swimming pools, one (1) regional park, three (3) special use facilities, and one (1) natural area defned within the boundaries of the City of Spokane Valley. Totaling 164.6 acres, all are currently maintained by the Spokane County Parks, Recreation and Golf Department. In addition, approximately seven (7) miles of the Centennial Trail are within the new City boundaries. While the County Parks and Recreation Department has maintained these seven (7) miles, the Centennial Trail is actually owned by Washington'State Parks Department. In addition to the parks, the facilities include swimming pools at Park Road, Terrace View, and Valley Mission Parks; Mirabeau Point is classified as a Regional Park; Opportunity Township Hall,.the Valley Senior Center and the Western Dance Center are described as special use facilities, and Myrtle Point - adjacent to the Spokane River and through which the Centennial Trail runs - qualifies as the natural area. A description of the. parks and other facilities, along with a map, has been included as Appendix #'s 1 and 2. Individual parks and facilities descriptions are included as Appendix #'s 8 to 21. The Spokane County Parks and Recreation Department, with the assistance of landscape architects T.C. Sherry & Associates, has estimated that park property/facility replacement value is $17,845,000. Very visible facilities such as Plante's Ferry Park and Plante's Ferry Regional Sports Complex, just north of Trent Avenue, and the Dishman Hills Natural Area, immediately south of Appleway Avenue, are not included ,A ithin the boundaries of the new City. III. Recreation Programs Spokane County Parks, Recreation and Golf currently provides organized Recreation Services in three areas within the boundaries of the City of Spokane Valley - aquatics, adult sports, and Senior Center. Aquatics services include both swimming lessons and public swimming at the three- identified pools. While these are "user pay" services, the total 2002 revenues were $34,234 compared *to tota1.2002 operating costs of $148,547, meaning Spokane County subsidized these aquatics services by a total of $114,313. See Appendix # 3. The County Adult Sports program includes softball, basketball; and volleyball. In 2001, there were a total of 242 softball teams, 129 basketball team's, and-216 volleyball teams ,,vith participants coming from all corners of the County, as well as neighboring Counties. In softball, four (4) of the 29 fields utilized are at community parks within the newv City boundaries - Terrace View, Browns, Valley Mission and Edgecliff. The basketball and volleyball programs utilize school gymnasiums in the Mead, Central Valley, East Valley, and West Valley School Districts. Spokane County is planning to continue to operate these adult sports programs after the new City is incorporated. 4. IV IV. Mirabeau Point Mirabeau Point is a multiuse regional park campus being developed for public recreational, educational and cultural activities. The 82 acre site was donated by Inland Empire Paper Company. Approximately 24 of these acres were given to the Washington State Parks for the Centennial Trail, approximately 10 to the YMCA, and the remaining 48 acres to Mirabeau Point, Inc. The Spokane. County Commissioners, later, purchased an additional 6.5 acres (located at both the south and north ends of the campus) to firm up the boundaries. By request of Mirabeau Point, Inc., Spokane County Parks has provided regular maintenance of park related improvements - water falls, picnic shelter, trails, etc. General oversight is provided by Mirabeau Point, Inc., a non-profit organization composed of a Board of Trustees, which is chaired by Greg Bever. Spokane County has recently taken possession of the land. This was necessary to finalize a $2 million Washington State grant, which will be spent to build the 10-acre Mirabeau Meadows and complete design documents for CenterPlace. The County anticipates going to bid on both of these projects in early - January/February 2003. Further detail is provided in a newspaper article attached as Appendix #4. Infrastructure work, such as extension of water and sewer lines, the laying of fiber-optic cable and the construction of Mirabeau Parkway - which loops from Pines Road to Indiana Avenue - has been completed. The YMCA opened May 1, 2000, on about 10 acres of land within the Mirabeau Point development. In the heart of Mirabeau Point is Mirabeau Springs, a 40-foot waterfall cascading into a pond surrounded by a boardwalk, picnic shelter and a fishing dock. A main feature at Mirabeau Point will be CenterPlace.- Preliminary designed as a 38,000 square foot facility with three wings: a senior center, an educational and business center, and a cultural center. The senior center wing will replace an aging senior center facility currently in operation on Mission Avenue, adjacent to Valley Mission Park. This wing is. planned to support arts and crafts, a wellness center, dining, games, and other activities. . The education and business 'wing is envisioned to provide space for adult education classes, workforce. development/training, and include an 108-seat high-tech lecture hall to be used for both business training and educational classes. In the cultural and performing arts center, theatre, dance, story-telling, music and the arts can be showcased in a community center setting. Full kitchen facilities will be designed to accommodate large meetings/events, and provide senior meals. Other features are: a 10 - acre Mirabeau Meadows, designed as a popular site for family picnics, outdoor concerts, Valleyfest, corporate outings, or a farmers market; Mirabeau Courtyard featuring a youth leadership wall, a pond for.seasonal activities such as ice skating, and areas for nighttime star gazing; and a Children's Universal Park where all children, regardless of physical limitations, can play and learn. A Mirabeau 'rails Map that delineates major features is included as Appendix # 5. V. Special Use Facilities The Valley Senior Center with both social and recreational opportunities for this segment of the population has been operated by Spokane County for approximately thirty (30) years. Employees include a half-time Coordinator, a part-time Bus Driver, and a part- time Custodian. The subsidy provided by Spokane County to operate the Senior Center totaled $37,202 in 2002,, inclusive of wages and maintenance and operation. The Senior Center is scheduled to move to CenterPlace in Mirabeau Point, when that building is completed. Opportunity Township Hall was acquired by Spokane County in 1990 and in 1996 was established as an Historic Landmark. As an historic landmark the building is subject to the U. S. Department of.Interior's Guidelines for Historic Buildings. Between April, 2000, and November, 2002, the County had a signed lease agreement for a private business. That lease has been terminated. The Western Dance Center at Sullivan Park has been leased from the County by the Western Dance Association since 1971. In 1999, the County negotiated a new lease agreement, which calls for a payment of $500 per month and requires the lessee to pay all, utility costs, along with being responsible for building supplies, janitorial services, kitchen facilities and similar uses. VI. Level of Service The National Recreation and Park Association recommends that a park system, at a minimum, be composed of a "core" system of parklands with a total of 6.25 to 10.5. acres. of developed open space per 1,000 population. Establishing park guidelines helps to evaluate the relative value and public benefits of potential acquisitions. 'Guidelines can, be used to screen out properties with excessive problems or insufficient public'benefit. Spokane County has set a goal of obtaining a level of service for community parks that equals 1.4 acres per 1000 population inside the Urban Growth Area and for regional parks that equals 11.7 acres per 1,000 population outside of the UGA boundaries. Based upon a population estimate of.81,000 and a total of 165 acres of park land within the boundaries of the new City of Spokane Valley, the current level of service is 2.04 acres of developed open space per 1,000 population. 6 VII. Vision Statement The City of Spokane Valley Parks and Recreation Department enriches the community by acquiring, enhancing, operating and protecting a diverse system of recreational, cultural, historical and natural sites. The Department fosters parks and recreation programs to provide enjoyment. connect people to place, generate economic and community development, and improve.the community's health and quality of life, while building a legacy for future generations. As you will recognize in our recommendations, we believe that public involvement in the new City's parks and recreation program is vital in order to: • Engage'residents as stewards to help preserve the legacy of parks and recreation'for future generations; • Educate the public and governmental leaders about the value, benefits and condition of the parks system; • Give life and beauty to the parks system; • Collaborate and partner with public and private agencies to advance parks and recreation; • Remain flexible and responsive to the changing demographics and the emerging trends in recreation; and • Increase the proportion of citizens who participate in active and passive forms of recreation'helping to build a healthy and enriched community. VUL ' Recommendations Transition Phase - the first six (6) months: A. The City Council should seek ownership of the parks, swimming pools and special use facilities within the boundaries of the City of Spokane Valley from Spokane County. While provision ofparkv and recreation activities is not required under Washington State law, we believe the citizens of the new City expect the continuance of such facilities and services under local jurisdiction. B. The City Council should contract with the Spokane County Parks and Recreation Department for maintenance and operation of these facilities for the initial 12'month period of time,. with an option to renew for a second 12 month period. The Study Committee recommends this-option as being the most cost effective during this initial transition phase. While providing a smooth transition, it allows time for a study on cost comparisons with other contracted service providers and the potential of the City providing service. 7 C. The City Council should establish a budget for Parks and Recreation that is equal to five percent (5%) of the total City budget. The Study Committee believes this is a minimum budget to not only maintain the present level of services, but also to grow to a level of service that is much closer to the recommended standard referenced earlier. :These initial budget dollars allow for the City to complete proposed capital projects at Ba four Park and Park Road Swimming Pool, along with maintenance and operation: of facilities being completed at Mirabeau Point (Mirabeau Meadows and others). And, it will allow both the hiring of a full-time Parks Director as well as the compilation of the City's own Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan. Setting aside this 5% of the City budgetfor the Parks Department establishes a commitment to the citizens of the new City that there is and will continue to be a consistent commitment to parks on an annual basis and that quality of life in the new City is important. D. The City Council should adopt the Spokane County Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan - 2002. By adopting this Plan, the City of Spokane Valley may immediately compete for grants from State and Federal sources that may be used for both acquisition of land and improvements of existing facilities. The City can develop our own Plan during the first year of existence with significant citizen input. E. The City Council should include recognition/requirements for green space, parks, and open space as )Land Use Ordinances and City Building and Zoning Codes are being formalized and adopted. A complete Parks system must plan for and ineet the growing needs of an increasingly urbanized area. Land Use Ordinances, City Building and Zoning Codes. can include such options as dedication of land, donated labor/equipment/materials, or negotiation on payment of a fee for establishment of such parkfacilities within a designated area. Mid-Term Phase - from 6 months to 1 year A. The City Council should hire a full-time Parks Director. In research, the Study Committee could f nd no city of similar size that did not have a Parks Director and, in most cases, several other full-time staff for program operation and maintenance. The responsibilities of the Parks Director could include: coordination of maintenance'and operation contract with Spokane County; research and apply for possible grant funding; study and prepare a report on cost of park maintenance; work with an appointed Parks Advisory .Board on determining level or service expected by residents of the City; and much more. 8 B. The City Council should form/appoint a Parks Advisory Board. As envisioned by the Study Committee, this PAB would be composed of a cross- section of nine (9) residents of the community - including at least two youth - who serve uncompensated staggered terms of'3 to 4 years. Each Council member could appoint one individual, with the Mayor appointing the two youth representatives. The PAB responsibilities would include: advising the Parks Director and the City Council; conducting a series of public meetings and surveys to determine what level of services residents of the City expect; to help prepare the City's Parks Plan; and be a general sounding board throughout the community. C. The City Council should compile a 5-year Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan for the City of Spokane Valley. Similar to the County Plan, but focused on the new City, this Plan not only sets direction for the Parks Department, based on citizen input, but.also continues to position the Cityfor both state and federal grants in the arena of parks and recreation. The Parks Advisory Board can assist in compiling this Plan. D. The City Council should begin the review of plans for construction and/or replacement of Valley Mission Pool. Spokane County recently declined to move forward with plans to replace the aging Valley Mission Pool and deferred such a decision to the new City Council. However, the County did set-aside approximatelv.S1.6 million for construction of this new family oriented facility and will make those funds available to the City of the Spokane Valley whenlif we decide to move forward on this project. The Study Committee recommends early action on this issue, not knowing how long the County intends to hold these monies in a set-aside mode. It is also well known that the current Valley Mission Pool facility will require a minimum of $40, 000 to S50, 000 in improvements to make it operational for the 2003 season. The County has authorized this work to be. completed using a portion of the set-aside funds. How long before the next . .hand-aid is needed on this aging facility is anyone's guess. Doing this study and compiling information would be one of the first responsibilities of the new Parks Advisory Board Long-Range Phase - 1 year and beyond A. The City Council should consider establishing a Metropolitan Park District. A JWPD. is a municipal corporation that may manage, control, improve, maintain, and acquire parks, parkways, and recreational facilities. The MpD boundaries may include portions of one or more cities and counties and is created by a vote of the residents living within the proposed boundaries. The Study Committee suggests two options for a JWD - one for the future development of iVirabeau Point (in cooperation with the County) and the second to remove funding for 9 parks and recreation activities from the general fund budget of the City (as the City of Pullman has accomplished). See Appendix #6jor more detail. B. The City Council should initiate discussions with Central Valley School Board on potential surplus property for recreational purposes. Within 3 to 4 years, Central Valley School Board will declare as surplus the old University High School property, the Keystone Elementary School property, and possibly the North .Pines Junior High School property. All of these school properties have already developed extensive play and athletic fields that could be used to increase the availability of such facilities to residents of the City, along with creating a regionally recognized recreation center for a variety of sports. Acquiring these already developed properties could be cost effective. C. The City Council should initiate discussions with existing Water Districts and other similar utilities about using property for smaller "pocket". parks. "Pocket" Parks can best be defined as a small area, usually one or two lots in size within easy walking distance of a neighborhood. "Pocket" Parks might be simply open, green space where children congregate for activities or they might have one or two pieces of play equipment that children and their parents can use. The goal of the Study Committee is to create a network of "pocket" parks in residential neighborhoods throughout the City so that no park/activity area is more than a five (5) minute walkaway. D. The City Council should establish a "Friends of our Parks Foundation". While parks are supported by tax dollars, often individuals, businesses, service clubs and private foundations want to contribute private support for enhancements and/or scholarships. A separate 501(c)(3) non profit foundation with its own board of directors could work closely with the Parks Department on specific projects such as.iWirabeau Print or to.find scholarship dollars needed to fund swimming lessons or other activities. The possibilities are endless and the effect-is to leverage available dollars to their utmost potential. IX: Estimated Costs Spokane County's park maintenance, operations and manpower needs are fimded from the County's general fund budget. Monies for the,general fund come primarily from property takes and retail sales taxes. The Parks Department must compete annually for these allocated dollars along with many other County departments- Sheriffs Office, Assessor's Office, Auditor's Office, County Prosecutor, etc. General fund allocations budgeted to. the County Parks Department has risen from S1.1 mullion or 1.3% of the General fund in 1966 to $3.3 million or 2.7% of the General fund in 2000. In 2002, the County Commissioners allocated $2.7 million or 2% of the General fund to the Rarks Department. Capital investment dollars used to purchase park property, • 10 major pieces of maintenance equipment, and to replace playground equipment were allocated by the County Commissioners from other funding sources, such as real estate excise tax and surplus funds. As furnished by Spokane County in June of 2002, estimated annual expenses include: Maintenance & operation of park property/facilities Administration Utilization of County services Aquatics services TOTAL EXPENSES Spokane County also furnished estimated annual revenues: Lease -for Splash Down at Valley Mission Park Opportunity Township Hall Lease Western Dance Hall Lease Park Road Pool User Fee Terrace View Pool User Fee Valle), Mission Pool User Fee TOTAL REVENUES See Appendix # 7 for individual park expenditures $472,576.00* 92,515.00** 59,902.00*** 148,547.00 $773,540.00 $ 30,000.00 8,400.00 6,000.00. 8,921.00 14,311.00 11.002.00. $ 78,634.00 * Maintenance and operation includes: utilities, parts & supplies, equipment replacement, and personnel (wageslbenefits). Administrative expenses-are a percentage of wages/benefits for Park Director, Recreation Coordinator, accounting, etc. ***Utilization of other County services includes: purchasing, liability insurance, Treasurer, Auditor, Human Relations, Assessor, County Attorney, etc. These expense and revenue figures were provided by Spokane County for discussion purposes only and do not reflect a more complete review currently underway by the County Parks and Recreation Department and the County Commissioners..The-Study Committee was told this more complete review might detail actual expenses that are higher than those used in this report. X: Potential Funding Sources Most'approaches to acquire, develop, and maintain parks and open spaces will require the expenditure of public funds. To-leverage these public dollars to their fullest advantage, gran ts from state or federal sources can-be sought and utilized for this purpose. Because of increasing competition for these scarce resources, exclusive reliance on this type of 11 funding sources will-not succeed. The new City of Spokane Valley will need creative approaches to locating the needed funds. Among the sources that may be considered arc: Impact or mitigation fees. The authority to impose fees to mitigate the impact of development is set forth in the Growth Management Act and in the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA). The ability to impose impact fees would require the new City to adopt a specific impact fee ordinance. Once collected; such funds may only be used in a manner which will mitigate the identified impact. If funds are collected to meet the demand created for recreational opportunities, they may then be used as part of an overall funding strategy to acquire, preserve or protect parks and open space. Mitigation funds may be used as a local share to leverage funds from other sources. > Grants or loans from foundations. Many foundations are dedicated to environmental stewardship, including the acquisition or conservation of parks and open spaces. Foundations may be established as independent organizations or as a charitable extension of a corporation. ➢ Dedicated revenues from local taxes and fees. Sometimes subject to the approval of voters, the City may authorize the use of local taxes to pay for the costs associated with acquiring or conserving parks and open space. Some examples: o Property or Sales Taxes. The new City may use these funds through the annual budgeting process to pay for the acquisition,: development, or maintenance of parks and open space. Such funds may also be used as a local share to leverage funds from outside sources. o Real Estate Excise Tax (REET). The acquisition and improvement of parks and open space through purchase or easement is an eligible activity for funds fYom this source. o The Real :Estate Environmental Endowment (TREE). This program, which would require approval of voters, permits the assessment of an additional one (1 percent tax on real estate transactions, with the • proceeds of the tax to be used for acquisition or conservation of lands. o Bonds. The proceeds of a bond sale may be used for the acquisition or improvement of land, for the purchase of easements,.or for other related uses. The bonds are repaid over time from revenues generated through taxes or other sources. o Voter-approved Property Tax Levy. The City could request a voter- approved property tax levy increase in a specific amount that would be effective for a specified period of time.. The revenues could be used to either retire the bond specified above or to augment existing funds. o User Fees. Some 'specialized facilities may charge a fee for their use. The collection of a user fee is a commonly-acceptdd method to help pay the . costs of high-maintenance facilities - such as- golf courses, ski slopes and swimming -pools. 12 APPENDIX 13 Spokane County Parks Within Spokane Valley Incorporation Boundaries n 0 N / N v m C Y M a Y ` y 0 C CL E c 3 € Q N ' u. ' w a 0) .(yi a 0 9 O v a a a N Q c ~ O u 0 0 = 6 O " 0 E Q ti m 0 a o 0 N W o w C E £ o V ` N c y o. « N PARK NAME a O O a m o Y a g (x N T C n i U) ix U) c LL Balfour cp 1 2.8 2.8 35 1 0 1 Y 0 Y 1 1 volleyball Brown's cp 3 8.2 8.2 83 4 1 1 Y 1 1 1 Buttercup cp 3 10.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Castle cp 1 2.7 2.7 0 1 0 Y 0 0 0 Edgecliff cp 1 4.8 4.8 35 3 1 1 Y 1 2 1 tennis basketball Mirabeau* cp/rp 2 16 54.5 15.0 0 0 0 0 Y 2 2 pond Myrtle Point n.area 2 31.0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 centennial trail Opportunity Township Hall su 0 0.2 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Park Road Pool su 0 1 2.0 2.0 Y 0 0 0 Y 0 1 1 pool Sullivan cp 3 10.3 5.0 37 0 0 1 Y 5 Y 3 1 square dance Terrace Vie 3 9.1 9.1 ] Y 1 1 1 Y 0 Y 2 1 pool Valley Mission E 6 .20.0 20.0 3 1 1 Y 1 2 2 pool arena Valley Mission Pool 1 2 7.2 7.2 Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 pool Valley Senior Center 0 1 2.0 2.0 0 0 0 0 2 2 Centennial Trail estimated 7 of 13 miles located within new city boundaries Totals 41% 1164-61 'Of the 54.5 acres, 6.5 are owned, and transfer of ownership for the remaining 48 acres is currently in progress 00 'a CD G2. >C Parks in Spokane Valley i` L:1 eilesley Lr- Myrtle Point] ~iver r Mvabesu Vale 1,mt1 lon Party J d POW i ianbf Gntar Sullivan ent ~ Opptr»I~TprItld Mia ~a,taur Shellev Lake EdgsclKT j •J f~tiscv Nam 6 Pogl ~ 6r 2 0 2 4 Miles i Appendix I2 Operating Statistics for Valley Pools Valley Mission Revenue $11,002.00 Wages $25,40600 utll tlee 54,417 OO Miscellaneous $8,564.04 Adman & Maint Safari $13,787.00 costs: . $52,147 DO ! l mvenues, Total } , $11,002.00 Revenue Wages Utilities Miscellaneous Total revenues Terrace View $14,311.00 $21,496-00 $4,640.00 S7,627-00 $13,787.00 $14,311,00 Adrriin 3 Mm~r# sale 4 29% wn" Mle arwou4 4S% 10% sl♦ Olson ammunumous 0 AdrT4 n a Mont secerras N07i_: mvenues covered 3l% cd operating cosft1hr Ef !A pod Park Rd. Pool Park Rd. Pool Revenuer $8.921.40 Wages 520,11$_(}0 Admin & MWM Utilities $7,+450,0 01 S-igerkm Miscellaneous $7,500.1x0 26% "x I■Utllltbe Admin & Maint Salaries $13,787.00 FlMlsr liaixwus Nrl sus t ""olsl casts: 348,850,00 Nw ~iDAdHn b Mehl Salaries 1 Total revenues'. $$,021.00 15% 3A NOTE. rn 2002, turn s cowered 26% of Wrong is hw this PGd Wages: Includes IPteguards and swim lrnsbvc vr$ U8111 1es: Indudes gas, 6ectricity, and water. Includes chemicals, telephone, main%nance supplies, cash receipts, and transmit4ail6.. tion S Maintenance Salaries: Includes % of Recreation Program Coordinator, C]fice Aswatant 4, Tech 4. Trades Spacia3!st aria Maintenance Extra Help. _ C4t'm fed taai 2002 operating casts: $148,547.00 gCornbine+d total 2002 revenues: -S34,234_00 Estimated "Actual" Operating Costs to Spokane Cou* for 2003: $114,313-00 *NOTE. Rever+uastypically very 10.20% per year, up or do", dependarft apoo weather rsf Valley Mission Pdarnn i1, tlah 5u€a++-~es a;. 1+VA" 0% Mfw-. 3r'Llt ma Ul1lIJcl 8% ■ wam I ~ rdfeceitaneaue LDM7n d Mslnt NOTE' jr? 2002, revenues cavemd 22% of operating costs for fts poW Terrace 'dew Spokane,.Wash. Coeur d'Alene,'tclaho 1 + • .i ~ _h"~'.~.-t^.tw.. - ....r _ i - a'_• 5. _ Wit...:.,. _ 'al6a' t t~ex:rt .i hr a ! _ rr r; ' ib a i itt ~ f' ~ i ~ ; 1 f. ;i, A , r_ ; r L 1 w~.. V>. ti r c t A ~P'> , ti Y „ ~ • ~ ~ - yY ! ~ a j' i f rr S T f JtS~ ~ • t . ljj~f;~, . r ~ .-0, 2- ~ 5 ,-r w « 'Fi R4 cJk.r' ?r h~ia2?~7 `s r ~~eR•rr R: `'S-4v ,v+~C}; .~1~~' lYT L l+,:rv r# ~ 4. 4 y Fo~n eau. _ • n ' h By Sara jleamirig r, ~eoome fi*d cro jewel _of the'Valley ; tirne,and coinimrt so,much to a.project; as Land transfer ll * [ $lQNlT1C% r', The :county`.agrced';co ,step rn.'as' '.ourtrustees liavedorie,its.rea yreward-' - g. final ly;sec it commaao.fruitic~n" -~keyin,obtaming..- surrogate•'•leaders of the:h4iralieau •prcr, in nd, - I. ,~pUkanetVll~ res~dents.lust acquired `ect:in. May,. Statt?'grant, 'a-new;park,.,: ' 4 a , S okaiie'UaIIeVLdec des thfafe of he,: secluhrenoD thet$2 m Ilion Irani aw ird~ d`.to ' ~hq project; Other SpoF:ane Count}`,ciininrs5fon~rs have aunty: parks witlrn the; newly inccyrpor the-prolectb} t)ie sfate last year,%F3e3er r~.i►,~ ;patois will'; taken:possession of-1\tr~abe~tu;I'giitt,ahe :dted boundaries:' :said: planned 8o=acre com,vunitvfComplex rn, eventually ~`jf seemed like the logical thtnb to d' s : 7lre Brant iti a~i; extensiori,of a. reyious'' u : go. the S S.ane.:ValIcy.; p .5 million'grant. awarded in 1996; Ua : c pei ince the new. City:really isn't that orga=o to new,eity, a;CommiSsieriers signed papeiwnrk- that.,,..' nindI'ec,.l Commis5toner K to McCaslrn. ri'' The, land had to he in the hands of t~ j,~ transferred ownership•of the land to°the r. , said Fridgy:. _..governnierit agency, in "oid~> for t;the ar~unty iVov 15 l:;AicCashn'saidKthe eovtity`hopes even , .m0ncy to 6etdi~bursed y '11ie'9and:"= 'donated by she' Inland ,~;tiially fo:,transfe'r the_prunerty;-algnor 'over.-,the, prstew m6fiths, ; cq;lnty, Ernpiie Pdper'Co ~in'•1999 „:.'%"vas'being: 'the a2'oth~r patk5, twe'r;to thc.city, , officials were working with A e, state=to.. held fbr the nonlirofit Mirabeau Pointe . ror_M rabeau trustees; the.land trans write ar contract thatrwould;sccure- the t. rci'ect+;bo~>ril' of, tri~stecs ,;tiy:'; iriland' 'fer is' roof thatdespiteprevious sturrt- 2:millioii,~and case fears':rhat the moncy.-` ~a[4~; ' liwest I nd Trust flilin blocks ehe piolucfinally-is,makung later,woirld be lostao louming construe-. - 4s r Flo,, "We..have n.g'reat deal°Afrpridelm; that progress; . } r « tron•deadlii 'g~"`'' - w*evverc atiloto holdbnto,ih+s land;".said "Its been,ia !nng ha I sand, C'rrr * 1~h'iS grant has kind of bceri the first' Chris 17e~orest executrvc`ciirector of the,' r 13ever;:p`residenti of tkz;Miribeau Point! :domino in ,the pro~ect,:'said Doug.C hase yy ;land. trust- I 'really. think its 'going to ,,truStEi.ti: "When;you•`dediuitc~ tlus¢'mucti tourity parks''ditd.t ,It also Establishes- 'b b (D t~ k~ •A S6.daj,-Novvn.b i 24,2002' Page-B3 c ` • C r - 1 s - ~ '.Y j t r LQkt mot- Y' r r O -the paraincters,related to usingthe`gant rnor cultural aiiil 'eilucahon center: ~ dallars Giadirig weirk oniMiis For mpnth5<Ghe Mtralieau FointJtriist- was scheduled I-fci'begin'"thj ,fail' =:eee were operiting.uitder the.belief that. ,:epbineersad~~isedagainstdotng•ariy.w'ork. . -::they had to sperid the mane before;the _eod i Ohe fiscal biennitini to Jiine 2003.. unytl: the spring~;• Cbase'said.; r• Tiut.countyjofficials vrere 3f;1e to deter- : The. project will - go 'out for' bid in _ mme'•ttiat the -Mir abeau trustees :have January or hebruery, wit}i, grading:be;iri spent,or'raised rnore than.enougli match; riing'sometiinc in•the spring,--Q ase.said, ing money a requirerncnt of the grant 1, ever said i~lirabeau trUStees will:meet - to receive all of :e;4tint.dollars -wit h~Countty Cgmmiskiori_'e6 vf6n&3,, th We've,NOri ~d awful hartl and really ,t.rt`setttng'pnonties far fiituTe prgicm ; 'ling to,get this,'ddne, and 1 thinl: we Ira~c rand:.allocating money for,tliose plain:: .~firiall} ~m~ide tle' latit tiur'dle, ' titiid Gary;` , • : • • , , ' Tuber„ fauhties` director fa ::Spokane, ra a are going to,continue: to work and. " . County:.'•'I uhdf. helped.. vnte ;the grant move•.the. protect forward;"- F3ever: saiQ. ' - " between lhhe state and'=t_he county Wupefully; we, arc going to start to have IM6 $2•million will be used to-build thy, some fun. now PO-acre "mir<ibeau Meadows of thc,norfh The rnland Empire Taper Co ispIUV iid end of the ppark,,and finish design docu.by: Cciwles`.,PubliShing Co,-•'w~ich•.at5u mcnts` for,(, nter ace,.a conibiired se ownS;Th' Spokesman-Review ' MIRABEAU TRAILS NATURAL AREA Trail Name Mirabeau -Z North Trailhead ° Mirabeau P Meadows -p G _ P 4 27 Mirabeau Trails Natural O Area t3 DF 2 ` ® D 6 DF' IN 12 11 RR Mirabeau South Trailhead 1. Mirabeau Discovery Trail 2. Mirabeau Woodland Trail 3. Meadows Loop Trail 4. Riverview Trail 5. Fort Mirabeau Trail 6. Coyote Trail 7. Shortcut Trail 8. The CanyonTrail 9. Red-Tail Trail 10. Rocky Top Trail 11. Two Pines Lookout Trail 12. Balsamroot Trail 13. Going to the Y Trail Trail Surface O Paved 1:1 Gravel Q Bark Aooofl Place QQ 13 Mirabeau Springs Gneiss Valley © The Canyon CenterPlace QD MCA 1-7 Drumming Circle RR Restroom q DF Drinking Foutain d U O C Donations for trail maintenance and operation are gratefully accepted by: Mirabeau Point Inc. Mansfield clo Madsen Mitchell Evenson Conrad Ave 216 M Howard St. Q Spokane, WA 99201 For more information e-mail: discoverCmirabeaupoint.org Courtesy of Mirabeau Point Design Consultant f Q DAVID EVANS ANOASSOCIATES mc. NJest 510 Cataldo Spokane Washington 99201 Phone: 509.327.8697 Appendix #6 Metropolitan Park Districts (MPD) Formation As An Option History First class cities in Washington State were first authorized to create Metropolitan Park Districts (MPD) in 1907. The MPD statutes were reenacted in 1943. In 2002, the Legislature amended the statutes to make it practical for cities and Counties, or a combination of them, to create MPDs. The Legislature also added "recreational facilities" as permitted use of MPD funds. Previously, MPDs were limited to the acquisition and management of parks, parkways, and boulevards. The first MPD was formed by Tacoma voters in 1907. The second MPD was formed in Yakima around 1945 and functioned until 1969. On September 17, 2002, residents in Pullman approved forming a .MPD by a 60% approval margin. The Pullman City Council placed the MPD on the ballot due to a $1.7 million shortfall in the City's General Fund, a portion of which was used to fund Parks and Recreation activities. In their resolution placing the MPD on the ballot, the Pullman City Council declared "Pullman Parks and Recreation are an essential element to the livability, public health, safety and welfare of Pullman residents. In order to provide and maintain the Parks and Recreation facilities and services an additional source of funding is necessary." A copy of the resolution is attached. Purpose A metropolitan park district may be created for the management, control, improvement, maintenance, and acquisition of parks, parkways, boulevards, and recreational facilities. Function and Powers of Metropolitan Park District List of District's Powers • May purchase, acquire and condemn lands within or without the boundaries of park district • May issue and sell warrants, short- term obligations, or general obligation bonds • May issue revenue bonds • Can petition for the creation of local improvement districts • May employ counsel, provide for park police officers, secretary of the board, and all necessary employees fay establish civil service for employees % Has power to regulate, manage and control, improve, acquire, extend and maintain, open and lay out, parks, park-ways, boulevards, avenues, aviation landings and playgrounds, within or without the park district, Has power to authorize o conduct and manage the letting of boats, or other anusement apparatus, o the operation of bath houses, o the purchase and sale of foodstuffs or other merchandise, o the giving of vocal or instrumental concerts or other entertainments, o the management and conduct of such forms of recreation or business as it shall judge desirable or beneficial for the public, or for the production of revenue for expenditure, for park purposes; May sel1, exchange, or otherwise dispose of surplus property Can annex territory Formation of Metropolitan Park-District A metropolitan park district may include territory located in portions of or all of '-one or mpre'cities or counties, or one or more cities and counties, when created or enlarged. There are two ways to initiate the formation of a park district; by petition and by a resolution of the governing body or bodies within which the district is to be located. (RCW 35.61.020) Local Government Resolution Method: A city or county may initiate district formation by adopting a resolution submitting a proposition for its formation to voters within the proposed district boundaries- If the district includes area within the county or other cities and counties, the legislative body of each city and/or county which includes a portion or all of the area in the district must adopt a resolution submitting the proposition to the voters. Citizen Petition Method: A metropolitan district may be initiated if a petition proposing its creation is submitted to the county auditor of each county in which all or a portion of the proposed district would be located, signed by at least fifteen percent of the registered voters residing in the area to be included. Where the petition is for creation of a district in more than one county, the petition shall be filed itli the county auditor oftlie comity having the greater area of the proposed district; and a copy fi led with each other count} auditor of the other counties covering the proposed district. Petition or l esoIutian Contents: The petition proposing the creation of a metropolitan park d (strict, or the resolution submitting the question to tlne voters, shall indicate the choice and describe the ccinposit-3 on of the initia] board of commissioners of the district that is proposed under RC 35. 1.0 0 and shall list a name for the district. (RCW 35.61.030) Three Alternative Governing Body Forms The resolution or petition submitting the ballot proposition shall designate the composition of the board of metropolitan park commissioners from among three alternatives. Metropolitan park districts created by a vote of the people prior to June 2002 may not change the composition and method of selection of their governing authority without approval of the voters. o Five Commissioners - Elected At Time of Formation: • :Five commissioners of the district may be selected at the same election at which the proposition is submitted to the voters as to whether a metropolitan park district is to be formed • The election of park commissioners shall be null and void if the metropolitan park district is not created. • Candidates shall run for specific commission positions. • No primary shall be held to nominate candidates. • The person receiving the greatest number of votes for each position shall be elected as a commissioner. • The staggering of the terms of office shall occur as follows: • (a) The two persons elected receiving the two greatest numbers of votes shall be elected to six-year terms of office if the election is held in an odd-numbered year or five-year terms of office if the election is held in an even-numbered year; • (b) the two persons elected receiving the next two greatest numbers of votes shall be elected to four-year terms of office if the election is held in an odd-numbered year or three-year terms of office if the election is held in an even- numbered year, and • (c) the other person elected shall be elected to a two-year term of office if the election is held in an odd-numbered year or a one-year term of office if the election is held in an even-numbered year. • The initial commissioners shall take office immediately when elected and qualified, and for purposes of computing their terms of office, the terms shall be assumed to commence on the first day of January in the year after they are elected. • Thereafter, all commissioners shall be elected to six-year terms of office. • All commissioners serve until their respective successors are elected, qualified, and assume office in accordance with RCW 29.04.170. • Vacancies shall be filled as provided in chapter 42.12 RCW. o. District Wholly in City or in County: In a district wholly located within a city or within the unincorporated area of a county: ■ The governing body of such city or legislative authority of such county may be designated to serve in an ex officio capacity as the board of metropolitan park commissioners, provided that when. creation of the district is proposed by citizen petition, the city or county approves by resolution such designation. o One or More Cities or Counties: Where the proposed district is located within more than one city, more than one county, or any combination of cities and counties: • Each city governing body and county legislative authority may be designated to collectively serve ex officio as the board of metropolitan park commissioners through selection of one or more members from each to serve as the board, provided that • When creation of the district is proposed by citizen petition, each city governing body and county legislative authority approve by resolution such designation. • Within six months of the date of certification of election results approving creation of the district, the size and membership of the board shall be determined through interlocal agreement of each city and county. The interlocal agreement shall specify the method for filling vacancies on the board. Election to Form District Where No Boundary Review Board The ballot proposition authorizing-creation of a metropolitan park district shall appear on the ballot of the next general election or at the next special election date specified under RCW 29.13.020 occurring sixty or more days after o the last resolution proposing the creation of the park district is adopted 0 or the date the county auditor certifies that the petition proposing creating the district has sufficient valid signatures Where a petition is filed with two or more county auditors, the county auditors shall confer and issue a joint certification Where Boundary Review Board Exists • Where the proposed district is located wholly or in part in a county where there is boundary review board, notice of the proposal shall be filed with the boundary review board • A special election is held on the date specified under RC~V 29.13.020 that is sixty or more days after proposal is approved or is deemed to have approved by boundary review board City Exception The creation of a metropolitan park district is n t subject to review by a boundary review board if the proposed district only includes one or more cities Passage of Proposition If a majority of the voters voting the creation of the metropolitan park district, the metropolitan park district, shall be created as a municipal corporation effective immediately upon certification of the election results and its name shall be that designated in the ballot proposition. (RCW 35.61.040) Governing Body See Three Alternative Governing Body Ems under Formation for details o The metropolitan park board may be composed in any of the following alternatives: • Five commissioners may be elected at the same election creating the district; • For a district located entirely within one city or the unincorporated area of one county, the legislative authority of the city or county may act as the metropolitan park board; or • For a district located in multiple cities or counties, each legislative authority may appoint one or more members to serve as the board. o The governing structure of an existing (before June 13, 2002) metropolitan park district may not be changed without the approval of the voters Adding Area - Enlargement Territory by virtue of its annexation to any city that lies entirely within a park district shall be deemed to be within the limits of the metropolitan park district. Such an extension of a park district's boundaries shall not be subject to review by a boundary review board independent of the board's review of the city annexation of territory. (RCW 35.61.020) The territory adjoining a metropolitan park district may be annexed into the district upon petition and an election. o The petition shall define the territory proposed to be annexed and must be signed by twenty-five registered voters, resident within the territory proposed to be annexed, unless o The territory is within the limits of another city then it must be signed by twenty percent of the registered voters residing within the territory proposed to be annexed. (RCW 35.61.250) Dissolution A district may be dissolved by a majority vote of members. Upon dissolution the district's liabilities are prorated, and turned over to the city and/or county to the extent the district was respectively located in each, when: o (1) Such city and/or county, through its governing officials, agrees to, and petitions for, such dissolution and the assumption of such assets and liabilities, or, (2) Ten percent of the voters of such city and/or county who voted at the last general election petition the governing officials for such a vote. (RCW 35.61.310) Disincorporation of district located in county with a population of 210,000 or more and inactive for five years, see Chapter 57.90 RCW Not an official copy. City of Pullman RESOLUTION NO. R- -02 A RESOLUTION PROVIDING FOR THE SUBIMISSION OF A PROPOSITION TO THE QUALIFIED VOTERS OF THE CITY OF PULLMAN AT THE SEPTEMBER ELECTION, FOR THEIR APPROVAL OR REJECTION, PROVIDING FOR AUTHORITY TO CREATE A METROPOLITAN PARK DISTRICT PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 35.61 RCW TO BE GOVERNED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PULLMAN SERVING AS THE EX OFFICIO BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF SAID METROPOLITAN PARK DISTRICT; SETTING FORTH THE BALLOT PROPOSITION; AND DIRECTING THE FINANCE DIRECTOR TO CERTIFY TO THE COUNTY AUDITOR A CERTIFIED COPY OF THIS RESOLUTION; DECLARING AN :EMERGENCY AND PROVIDING FOR OTHER MATTERS PROPERLY RELATED THERETO. WHEREAS, the city of Pullman is an Optional Municipal Code City, located in Whitman County, Washington, duly organized and existing pursuant to the laws of the state of Washington; and, WHEREAS, Chapter-35.61 RCW authorizes a city to create a metropolitan park district wholly within its boundaries; and WHEREAS, the City's General Fund is facing a shortfall in excess of $1.7 million for calendar year 2003; and, WHEREAS, across-the-board reductions in expenditures paid from the General Fund could require a 15% or larger cut in individual departments or services; and, WHEREAS, Parks and Recreation derives substantially all its funding from the General Fund. Additional funding is received in the form of gifts and user charges, and, WHEREAS, the City Council has taken steps to increase user fees and charges for facilities and services provided by Parks and .Recreation; and, WHEREAS, in order to minimize the impact of cuts in services to people using Pullman Parks and Recreation facilities and services the City Council has directed City staff to prepare a proposition to be placed on the September 2002 ballot authorizing the creation of a metropolitan park district pursuant to Chapter 35.61 RCW; and, WHEREAS, a metropolitan park district has additional and independent authority to tax property to raise funds restricted to parks and recreation purposes provided for in Chapter 35.61 RCW; and, WHEREAS, Pullman Parks and Recreation are an essential element to the livability, public health, safety and welfare of Pullman residents; and, WHEREAS, the City of Pullman does not have available sufficient moneys to sustain and maintain the facilities and services of Parks and Recreation departments of the City; and, V4-EEREAS, in order to provide and maintain the Parks and Recreation facilities and services an additional source of funding is necessary; and, WHEREAS, it is necessary that the funds needed for such expenditure be raised by Tdib~T5'T'al • S levied in accordance with the law; now, therefore, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Pullman: 1. Election. The City Council herein calls a special election within the city on Tuesday, September 17, 2002, for the purpose of submitting to the qualified electors of the City, for their approval or rejection a proposition to create a metropolitan park district with the authority to levy a general tax on property within the boundaries of the district as provided in RCW 35.61.210. 2. Ballot Proposition. The proposition to be submitted to the electorate of the City of Pullman shall read substantially as follows: METROPOLITAN PARK DISTRICT CITY, OF PULLMAN Pursuant to Resolution No. R- -02 passed on June 2002, by the City Council of the City of Pullman, shall a metropolitan park district co-extensive with the limits of the City of Pullman as now or hereafter established be created and governed by the City Council of the City of Pullman as the ex officio Board* of the metropolitan park district commissioners to support the aquatics, parks and recreation programs? INSTRUCTIONS TO VOTERS To vote N FAVOR of the foregoing Proposition, mark a cross (X) in the "FOR THE FORMATION OF A METROPOLITAN' PARK DISTRICT TO BE GOVERNED BY TIC CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PULLIMAN AS THE EX OFFICIO BOARD OF THE METROPOLITAN PARK DISTRICT, YES" square. To vote AGAINST the foregoing Proposition, mark a cross (X) in the "AGAINST THE FORMATION OF A METROPOLITAN PARK DISTRICT, NO" square. FOR THE FORMATION OF A METROPOLITAN PARK DISTRICT 9 TO BE GOVERNED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PULLMAN AS THE EX OFFICIO BOARD OF THE METROPOLITAN1 PARK DISTRICT, METROPOLITAN PARK DISTRICT, YES AGANST THE FORMATION OF A METROPOLITAN PARK 9 DISTRICT, NO 3. Polling Hours. The special election will be held on Tuesday, September 17, 2002. Polls will open at 7:00 o'clock a.m. and will remain open until 8:00 o'clock p.m., when they will close. 4. Polling Places. The location of the polling places shall be determined by the Whitman County Auditor, as ex officio Supervisor of Elections for the City. 5. Emergency. The Council hereby finds and declares that an emergency exists, due to the need for parks and recreation facilities and services. Said emergency requires the City to conduct a special election at the next election *date, and requires the submission to the qualified electors of the City for their ratification or rejection at said special election, of the proposition as set forth above. The Finance Director or his designated representative of the City is hereby authorized and directed to deliver a copy of this Resolution to the Whitman County Auditor, as the City's ex officio Supervisor of Elections, at least 45 days prior to the election date. 6. County Auditor. The Whitman County Auditor, as the City's ex officio Supervisor of Elections is hereby- requested to also find the existence of such emergency and to deem the same to exist acid to call and conduct said special election on Tuesday, September 17, 2002, and to submit to the qualified electors of the City the proposition as set forth herein. 7. Notice. The Whitman County Auditor shall cause a notice of special election substantially in the form attached as Exhibit "A" to be published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation within the City. Such publication shall take place not more than ten days nor less than three days prior to September 17, 2002. 8. Canvas. The Whitman County Auditor, as the City's ex officio Supervisor of Elections, shall conduct the election, canvas the vote and certify the results in the manner provided by law. 9. Effective Date. This Resolution shall be in full force and take effect immediately. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Pullman at a regular meeting held on the day of 92002. DATED this day of , 2002. Mayor CITY OF PULLMAN Whitman County, Washington NOTICE OF SPECIAL ELECTION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a special election will be held within the City of Pullman, Washington (the "City"), on SEPTEMBER 17, 2002 between the hours of 7:00 o'clock a.m. and 8:00 o'clock p.m. on said date, for the purpose of submitting to the qualified electors, for their ratification or rejection, the proposition, all as more fully set forth in Resolution No. R- -02, adopted by the City Council of the City on , 2002, to levy a permanent regular property tax of $.50 per $1,000 of assessed valuation over and above the statutory limit for parks and recreation facilities. The proposition shall be substantially the following form; PROPOSITION' NO. METROPOLITAN PARK DISTRICT CITY OF PULLMANN Pursuant to Resolution No. R- -02 passed on June , 2002, by the City Council of the City of Pullman, shall a metropolitan park district co-extensive with the limits of the City of Pullman as now or hereafter established be created and governed by the City Council of the City of Pullman as the ex officio Board of the metropolitan park district commissioners to support the aquatics, parks and recreation programs? INSTRUCTION'S TO VOTERS To vote IN FAVOR of the foregoing Proposition, mark a cross (X) in the "FOR THE FORMATION OF A METROPOLITAN PARK DISTRICT TO BE GOVERNED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PULLMAN AS THE EX OFFICIO BOARD OF 11IE METROPOLITAN PARK DISTRICT, YES" square. To vote AGAINST the foregoing Proposition, mark a cross (X)'in the "AGAINST THE FORMATION OF A METROPOLITAN PARK DISTRICT, NO" square. FOR THE FORMATION OF A METROPOLITAN PARK DISTRICT TO BE 9 GOVERNED BY THE CITY COUINCIL OF THE CITY OF PULLMAN AS THE EX OFFICIO BOARD OF THE METROPOLITAN PARK DISTRICT, METROPOLITAN PARK DISTRICT, YES AGAINST THE FORMATION OF A METROPOLITAN PARK DISTRICT, 9 NO Said election will be held on Tuesday, September 17, 2002. The polls will be open from 7:00 o'clock a.m. and will remain open until 8:00 o'clock p.m., when they will close. The location of the polling places shall be as follows: Precinct Location DATED as of , 2002. WHITINIAN COUNTY, WASHI.NTGTON David G. Repp, Auditor, as ex officio Supervisor of Elections for the City of Pullman. Appendix 7 Spokane Valley Tnaorpora ion .f eview and Analysis for pof ane County Department of Parks, Recreation and Golf Prepared.. MaV 30tt 2002 Updated June 9; 2002 Maintenance Annual. estimated Expenditures for Maintenance and Operations of Park Prope.Wes and r'aclllfies within the boundaries of the future. City of Spokane Valley- Park Property: Classification: Acres: E51mated M&Q Costs_ Balfour Corn- Park 2.8 $ 37,304.06 Brciwn's Cam. Park 8.2 43L391-20 Buttercup Corn. Park 10.0 500.00 Castle Com. Park 2.7 $ 16,620,28 Edgedi#f om, Dark 4-8 39,084,85 Mirabeau Corn. & Reg. 6.5 owned - total = 54.6 72,885.00 Myrtle Point Natural Area 31.0 1,550.00 Opportunity Township Speciat Use 0-2. - 100-00, 'Dark (toad Pool 5peciRl Use 2-0 $ 19,982-72 Sullivan Corti. Dirk 10-3 49,168-29 "Terrar,e View om- Paris 9-1 5IJ,472.21 s ailley Mission Valley Mission South Cam. Park 27.2 1lailey Senior Center - Special Use 2.0 Centennial Tr-at[ Trail 7 linear miles TOTAIL: 'Subtract utilities for aquatics Estimated Administration Ma. Fstimated 20% Cost Allocation $9,90'1.80 Grand Total: . 640,980.87. "Total 2002 Cost Alocation for Parks & Recreation Department = $299,509-00- Currently, oast allocation funds provide the following servioes which support Park & Reareatian operations- Equipment depredaton, i$O, MR; Liability Insurance, Administrative Services. Asseseor, Auditor, Commissioners, Proaec=r, Treasurer, Purchasing, and the St Exarniner. For discussion purposes, It is estirnaL-d that 209 of the cost allocation is used t~ provide park and recreall1an services located within the new city The $488,563.90 is broken down as follows; Qnllars Percents 6- Estimated Parts, Utilities, Supplies: $ 136,9 9.00 28% Estimated Equipment Rapla r€Ment: 118,040.53 24% Estimated Personnel I Wages: 233,594.40 48% 488,563.93 100% 79, 903.32 $ 37,872 ..$39,750. $ '488,563.93 (25,988.21) 462,578.72 92,81 5.94 Misc. AnnuaJ General Fdrid a ks.Reventre curses located within future city- _ Splash Down Lease. $30,000.00 0pporturfity Township Hall $8,400 Appendix #8 BALFOUR PARK Site Information Location: Balfour and Main Acquisition Date: 1951 Sub-Area: West Valley Urban Parking: 35 Spaces Size: 2.8 Acres Improved Area: 2.8 Acres Facilities Restroom (ADA) . Fence Play Ground Equipment Portable Picnic Tables Drinking Fountain Pathway -7 Auto Irrigation Volleyball Court History Balfour Park, Spokane County's first park, is located within the urban core of the Spokane Valley surrounded by commercial and high-density residential development. Fire District #1 deeded the land to Spokane County in 1951. The land was originally donated by William Balfour to be used as a park. The Opportunity Recreation Council was the driving force responsible for the park's beginnings. The group solicited funds and labor, eventually installing a softball diamond and raising enough money, with the endorsement of the school district to provide a summer recreation program. The park was officially dedicated on June 14, 1953.. In 1984, increasing budget problems forced the Park, Recreation and Golf Department to consider selling Balfour Park. Deed restrictions limited the sale to the west half only, which was sold to Spokane Transit Authority (STA) for the development of a transfer center and these proceeds were used to'fund development of the remaining portion of the park. Park improvements were made in 1985 and included a new barrier free access restroom, play equipment, and a volleyball court. Area residents and visitors to the commercial strip along Sprague Ave heavily use the park. This has caused some overcrowding during the high use periods. The ball field no longer exists and the playground equipment has been replaced. In 2001, Spokane County entered into a 10-year lease with STA and plans to obtain title to this property within the lease period. Future plans for this land include developing it with new lawn, irrigation, shelter, vegetation and pathway. The Parks Department will install all of the above improvements, except the shelter in 2002. Spokane County Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan - 2002 54 0&113/02 Appendix 99 BROWNS PARK Site Information Location: S 3019 Pines Rd Donation Date: 1975 Study Area: West Valley Urban Parking: 83 Spaces Size: 8.2 Acres Improved Area: 8.2 Acres Facilities Restroom Shelter / Picnic Tables Ball Field Parking Lot (2) Irrigated Lawn Drinking Fountain Volleyball Courts (4) Play Ground Fenced History Browns Park, located on the northeast corner of 32"d and Pines, consists of over eight acres of mostly level land, marked by a small group of Douglas Firs. The areas to the north, east and west have developed into primarily single-family dwellings. Chester Elementary School, Horizon Junior High and the new University High School are located to the south. Louise and Lowell Brown donated the site to the Spokane County Parks Department in 1975. The Kiwanis Club of University City East was involved in development of the park, donating both money and labor to provide athletic facilities. The current field was completed with the addition of a backstop in 1979. Restrooms were added in 1986. Additional parking and volleyball courts were added in 1988. Trees and new irrigation were added in 1994 and 1996. The Spokane Water District #3 has installed a pump house on the portion of the park in exchange for free water service. Proximity to the three schools and a small commercial area attract a variety of users to the park. Spokane County Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan - 2002 56 o6/131M i_ i f~ 0 O J l ` - Appendix #10 BUTTERCUP PARK Site Information Location: 12'b and Eastern Acquisition Date: Study Area: West Valley Urban Parking: Size: 10 Acres Improved Area: 0 Acres Facilities History Buttercup Park is undeveloped land owned by Spokane County Engineers being considered as a location for a future dog-oriented park. Spokane County Parks is coordinating with Spokane County Engineers, City of Spokane Parks and Recreation, and Spokane Humane Society to develop a dog-oriented hiking park. Spokane County Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan - 2002 57 06113/02 Appendix #11 CASTLE PARK Site Information Location: S 3145 University Rd Donated Date: 1972 Study Area: West Valley Urban Parking: 10 Spaces Size: 2.7 Acres Improved Area: 2.7 Acres Facilities Sports Field Irrigated Lawn Picnic Tables Informal Picnic Area History Castle Park is located in the southem portion of the Spokane Valley and is surrounded by residential developments. The park is open except for evergreen trees adjacent to a centrally located storage building. • Originally the site of a small sewage treatment plant serving the area, the land was deeded to the Spokane County Engineering Department in 1972 by the developers. Maintenance was provided by the County Parks Department and an in-ground irrigation system was installed in 1974. The County Parks Department suspended full maintenance in 1982 due to budget cuts. Minimal maintenance was continued, aided by a neighborhood fund raising drive in 1987. The treatment facility was dismantled in 1988 with connection of the surrounding areas to the Valley Sewer System. The property was subsequently transferred to the Parks Department, which brought in fill materials and re-contouring of the site was completed. Installation of an irrigation system and seeding were completed in 1989. Spokane County Parkes, Recreation and Open Space Plan - 2002 60 06/131)2 l 1, r LJ ~ J 01 0 z J n ~J ~J r`1 ~J .J r~ . J ,J . Appendix #12 EDGECLIFF PARK Site Information Location: S 800 Park Rd Acquisition Date: 1956 Study Area: West Valley. Urban Parking: 35 Spaces Size: 4.8 Acres Improved Area: 4.8 Acres Facilities Restroom Shelter Playground Equipment Sports Field Irrigation Basketball / Tennis Courts Picnic Area Fencing Drinking Fountains History Edgecliff Park is located at Park Rd, between 6t' and 81' Ave. within an older established residential community in the Spokane Valley. There are residential developments on three sides of the park. Spokane County acquired the land in 1932, which was intended for doctor's homes in conjunction with the Edgecliff sanitarium. The property was transferred to the County Parks Department in 1956. The Edgecliff Park Board accomplished early development of the park, with support from the East Spokane Township. Softball diamond and picnic areas were completed the first year. Water supply and restrooms were added the following year. The Edgecliff Park Board donated the land and the park was formally dedicated in 1960. The Edgecliff Park Board ceased to be active with the gradual demise of townships in Washington State. The 1988 Park Bond dollars provided renovation of the restroom, irrigation, picnic tables and fencing. Recent development in the area has been towards the higher density retirement lifestyle. Recent park improvements include paving the parking lot in 1995, new play equipment installed in 1996, and new roofing on the shelter and restroom were completed in 2001. Edgecliff Park is intended to provide for the recreational needs of the surrounding unincorporated area. Spokane County Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan • 2002 61 06/13/02 i ' I_ rr~ I r~ J 1 jrJ ~J J L.,J r` r~ f~J _J ~J Appendix #13 t AURABEAU POINT- REGIONAL PARK Site Information Location: E. 13500 Euclid Acquisition Date: Lease 195310wned 2000 Study Area: NE Valley Urban Parking: Size: 54.5 acres improved Area: 15 acres Facilities Restroom Drinking Fountains Pond Centennial Trail Head Boardwalk/Pathway 40-foot waterfall Shelter Dock History Mirabeau Point is a regional park in the development stages along the south bank of the Spokane River, east from Pines Road off Euclid Avenue. The park is being constructed in phased projects to create a $26 million multi-use community campus for public recreational, educational and entertainment activities. The park was originally named after Count de Gabriel Honroe Riquette Mirabeau who organized the-Frendh National Guard's storming of the Bastille in Paris that started the French Revolution. The park was renamed in 1987 to Fred P. Hahn Mirabeau Park. The original Mirabeau Park was developed with a Use Permit granted to the Rotary Club of the Spokane Valley by Inland Empire Paper Company for 5-acre parcel to be used as a community park. The club added fireplaces, a restroom-storage room and voluntarily contributed to maintaining the park. When the adjacent Walk in the Wild Zoo relocated to North Idaho, a group of citizens organized a non-profit organization and worked with the Inland Empire Paper to donate the property for the creation of a public recreational destination facility. The first phase called Mirabeau Springs was a $500,000.00 project that includes a man made pond surrounded by a boardwalk, picnic shelter, observation deck and a 40-foot high waterfall. The next phase will be a $7 million project with a 38,000 square foot complex called the Mirabeau Point Center Place and will include a senior activity center, a cultural center, and an educational complex. Donations and matching funds have been raised and construction is expected to begin in 2002. Spokane County purchased three parcels totaling 7.3-acres to contribute to the project. The north parcel is being used to connect one of the two Centennial Trailheads found at Mirabeau. The trailheads serve as rest areas for biking and hiking enthusiasts and contain restrooms and drinking fountains. When Mirabeau Point is completed, it will serve as an excellent example of public involvement to create parks and it will serve as the crown of the Spokane County Park system. Spokane County is negotiating to acquire an additional 44 acres of land to accommodate the above facilities. Spokane County Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan - 2002 83 06/13A2 Appendix # 14 N MYRTLE POINT NATURAL AREA Site Information Location: 0.5 mile west of Plante's Ferry Park Parking: None Study Area: NW Valley Urban Acquisition Date: 1991 Size: 31.0 Acres Improved Area: 0.0 Acres Facilities I mi. of Centennial Trail History The Myrtle Point Natural Area site is located in the Spokane Valley, along the south bank of the Spokane River. To the north of the park is the Spokane River, Plantes Ferry Regional Park and primarily vacant undeveloped land while south of the site is an industrial area. The Myrtle Point property is a 40 acre-flat natural area purchased to carry the Centennial Trail across the Spokane River. A bridge was constructed to form a vital link in the trail by connecting the north and south- trail sections along the riverbanks. The Centennial Trail, running through the entire length of the property, is the only access to this site. There are no plans in the near future to make improvements to this property. Spokane County Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan - 2002 9o 06/13/02 1I ~J ~i Appendix #15 OPPORTUNITY TOWNSHIP HALL Site Information Location: ' 12114 E Sprague. Donated Date: 1975 Study Area: West Valley Urban Parking: 25 Spaces Size: 0.2 Acres Improved Area: * 0.2 Acres Facilities Restroom Large Meeting Room (2,500 SF) Kitchen 25 Parking Spaces History The Opportunity Township Hall was constructed in 1912 in a Spanish Colonial Revival style building that evolved from the California Mission influence of the time. The building is associated with the development of the Township of Opportunity and stands as a reminder of the birth of the community. The community used'the site as .d meeting place to form Opportunity Township for an irrigation project community. The township purchased the land from Modern Irrigation &'Land Company in 1910 and constructed the building in 1912. This historical significance has qualified the property to be placed on the Register of Historic Places. The Spokane Valley experienced a burst of growth brought on by the agricultural development of the area and the Township Hall quickly became the central focal point and gathering place for the community. The area at Sprague and Pines became the busiest haven of activity in the area with the Hall serving as the home for the township government and the center of community activities. Residents used the Hall as a meeting place for their clubs and organizations committed to lending a helping hand to their neighbor, recognizing neighbors were their only hope in the event a disaster should strike. The Township Hall was home to the first library in the area and was the meeting place for many churches, various civic and social groups, silent movies, rummage sales, dances, bingo and receptions. Townships, as a form of local government were dissolved in 1972, and Opportunity is now a part of Spokane County government, which now owns the building. The building must be maintained as a historic landmark, which places limits to the changes made to its exterior. Spokane County entered into a 5-year lease with a private party in 2000, and the building is now used as an art gallery. Spokane County Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan - 2002 113 06/13102 ~.O J J 1 ~J ~.J O O O O O O O r~ O J O O O l_ J ~J O `J J 1 ` I i e Appendix 9 16 N PARK ROAD POOL PARK Site Information Location: 906 N. Park Rd. Donated Date: 1967 Study Area: West Valley Urban Parking: 50 Spaces Size: 2.0 Acres Improved Area: 2.0 Acres FaciliNec Swimming Pool (A,DA) Picnic Area Drinking Fountain Restroom (ADA) (Inside) Irrigated Lawn History Park Road Pool Park is located in the southwest area of the Spokane Valley adjacent to the Centennial Middle School. The area consists of older established mixed-uses with residential, commercial and some industrial activity in the vicinity. The land was deeded to Spokane County in 1967 as surplus property by the West Valley School District. Construction on the site was undertaken in June of 1968, concurrent with the development of Terrace View Pool. In 1981, the pool was being considered for closure after budget reductions. The area citizens responded by forming the Park Road Pool Association. They engaged in fund raising efforts that kept the pool opened. In 1988, bond dollars fmanced the renovation and repair of the pool and its mechanical and electrical systems. These measures and revenue from the Splashdown concession at the Valley Mission Park removed the threat of closing the pool. The pool received major renovations in 1995 with the assistance of Community Block Grants with improvements made to the locker rooms, restrooms, the pool entry was made handicapped accessible and connected to public sewers. While the Park Road Pool site is limited in size, it does have room for additional facilities such as picnic tables. Automatic irrigation was added to the lawn area in 2001, but the park needs a redesign and renovation. Many of the park activities are planned in conjunction with the West Valley School District and the Red Cross, which uses the pool for swim lessons. ,Spokane County Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan - 2002 fig 06✓13102 J Appendix #*17 SULLIVAN PARK Site Information Location: N. 1901 Sullivan Acquisition Date: 1957 Study Area: NP. Valley Urban Parking: 37 Spaces Size: 16.1 Acres (Includes 5.8 acres owned by Washington State Parks & Recreation) Improved Area: 5.0 Acres Facilities Restroom Shelters (5) Western Dance Center Trails River Access Drinking Fountains Picnic Area Radio Controlled Car Track ' Play Ground Equipment History Sullivan Park is located on the north side of a 5.8 acre parcel owned by Washington State Parks & Recreation, along the bank of the Spokane River, and west of Sullivan Road in a predominately industrial area. The site includes the Western Square Dance Association located on leased land from the County. The land to the north of the park is owned by the State and used by the State Highway Department. The county-owned portion of the park was acquired in two separate transactions. The original 4.5 acres were received from Washington State in.1957.. In 1960, the State added a small three-quarter acre piece on the north. Five additional acres were made available by the Inland Empire Paper Company through a use permit granted to the Spokane Valley Woman's Club and connect the park to the Spokane River. Under the sponsorship of the Spokane Valley Women's Club, the picnic and play equipment were gradually put in place. In 1960, the Western Dance Association built the Recreation Center. The Dance Center is heavily booked and open to other dance organizations. A riding ring was built in 1964, but was removed in 1986 after the facilities deteriorated. A new sidewalk along Sullivan Road, parking barricades, irrigation and a. remodeled restroom were added in the late 1980s. The park is considered a trailhead for the Spokane River Centennial Trail. Spokane County Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan - 2002 74 06/13M2 f li ~N ~J. f J) `j J ~J f-~ ~J n r~ l'~l _ l Appendix #1.8 TERRACE VIEW PARKIPOOL Site Information Location: E. 13525 24th Ave. Acquisition Date: 1963 Study Area: East Valley Urban Parking: 100 Spaces Size 9.1 Acres Improved Area: 9.1 Acres Facilities Swimming Pool Restrooms Irrigated Lawn Picnic Area Sports Field Playground Equipment Basketball Court Drinking Fountains History Terrace View Park and Pool is located at the intersection of Blake and 240 Avenue and was purchased in 1963. The park has a large number of mature trees and is one of the most scenic facilities in the county system. The Spokane Valley Jaycees and the Terrace View Park Association provided volunteer labor to help clear and clean the park. The Pine Terrace Garden Club contributed support as well. The park was officially dedicated with a community celebration on June 3, 1967. The County Commissioners exercised an option to purchase 2.39 acres of adjacent land. Located to the east of the park, the acquisition provided space for construction of a swimming pool. In 1968, the pool and bathhouse were completed and opened to the public. It was threatened with closure in 1984, but the neighborhoods responded by organizing the Terrace View Pool Association and they leased the pool from the County. The pool was renovated in 1988, when.the county resumed maintenance responsibility. New restrooms, drinking fountains, and an improved irrigation system were installed in 1989. The swing.set received a revamped containment area in 2001. Terrace View Park is heavily used and is home for the Valley hest Event drawing 25,000 people annually. The parks' swimming pool is 32 years old with repairs made in 1995, but is need of extensive renovation or replacement. Spokane County Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan - 2002 76 Of/13,t72 Appendix 919 N VALLEY MISSION PARK VALLEY MISSION SOUTH PARK Site Information Location: E. 11407 Mission Acquisition Date: 1958, 2000 Study Area: West Valley Urban Parking: 117 Spaces Size: 27.2 Acres Improved Area: 20.0 Acres Facilities Swimming Pool Restrooms Tennis Courts Shelter Sports Fields Horse Arena Basketball Court Playground Picnic Area Senior Citizen Center Irrigated Lawn Drinking Fountains Water Slide (privately owned) Horse Stables/Corral History Valley Mission Park is located in the Spokane Valley, south of Interstate-90 and north of Mission Ave. at Bowdish Road This is an older established residential area. The original three acres of Valley Mission Park were owned by the Opportunity Township and served as the Opportunity Landfill. The Valley Park Association, organized in 1957, encouraged conversion of the land to a park and in 1958 it was purchased by Spokane County. The siie was bulldozed and filled with dirt, and lawn installation/landscaping took place. In 1969, restrooms and a drinking fountain were added.- Donors included the Mirabeau Garden Club and the Athena Junior Women's Club. The park underwent a major expansion in 1969 when the County Road Department vacated a former gravel pit to the east of the original park site. A swimming pool was added in 1971 with federal grant dollars ($254,000 in Federal Gravel Pit Reclamation monies) secured to develop this Park. The gravel pit was the first surface mined area in the country to be successfully reclaimed. In 1973, a tennis court, basketball court, new restrooms, irrigation, shelter, play equipment, and horse corral stables were added. The Valley Senior Center was added in 1975. Three and one-half acres on the northwest comer of the park are leased to a private concessionaire, Splashdown, Incorporated who constructed a giant water slide that opened in 1983. Spokane County added 7.2 acres of land across Mission Ave. and south of the park in two separate purchases completed in 2000, for the purpose of replacing the old swimming pool. This property is currently undeveloped, however, the pool is expected to open in 2003. Spokane County Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan - 2002 76 061? 3/D2 Appendix #20 SPOKANE COUNTY VALLEY SENIOR CENTER Site Information Location: 11423 E. Mission Ave. Donated Date: 1975 Study Area: West'Valley Urban Parking: 75 Spaces Size: 2.0 Acres Improved Area: 2.0 Acres History The Spokane County Valley Senior Center is located in the mid-Spokane Valley adjacent and to the east of the Valley Mission Park. This area has experienced rapid growth with medium to high-density residential and commercial developments occurring along Mission Ave., Pines Rd. and north of Interstate 90. This facility is the result of many hours of volunteer labor and donations from many businesses as well as the Rotary Club and a . personal donation from Hank Grinalds. The Spokane County Park, Rec. and Golf Department manages the Center, but. an elected -Senior Citizen Advisory Board oversees the daily coordination of the functions and activities. Activities offered vary throughout the year but include ceramic classes, low-impact aerobics, pool tables, snooker and billiard. Bingo and card games were the primary reason for the center. Bazaars, dancing and sing-a-longs are also popular. The building has barrier free access and is rented.to groups for anniversaries, weddings receptions, birthday parties, etc. The Center also provides van services for pick-ups and return trips. The Center is in poor condition with structural cracks and settling foundations. The Proposed Amendment to Capital Facilities Element of the Spokane County Capital Facilities Plan contains a provision for infrastructure improvements to the roads, utilities and access improvements to facilitate future construction of a county park and Senior Citizens Center at Mirabeau Point. Spokane County Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan - 2002 114 06/13/02 (D ~J J .J r r~ r~ W Appendix #21 CENTENNIAL TRAIL Site Information Location: W of City of Spokane Improvement Date: 1989 I?, to Idaho State Line Parking: 200 spaces Study Area: West Valley and East Valley Metro Size: 13 mile paved trail (ADA) and trailheads Facilities Mirabeau Park Pit Toilet Shields Park Pit toilets and asphalt parking, Plante's Ferry Bridge: Pit toilets and asphalt parking Barker Road Pit toilet - restroom Harvard Road Developed parking, no toilet State Line Restrooms at state rest-stop History The Centennial Trail, established in 1989, is a 39-mile long asphalt surface that runs from the Washington/Idaho state line west to the Riverfront Park in downtown City of Spokane. An additional 11 miles of marked trails run along road rights-of-way from the Riverfront Park west to Nine Mile Falls. The trail and many of the trailheads are designed for barrier free access and generally follows the historical Spokane River. The trail surface is generally 12-feet wide, with restroom facilities and benches located intermittently along the course. .The Centennial Trail has over 1,000,000 user visits in 2001. A partnership consisting of the County and City of Spokane and the State Parks and Recreation Commission and a non-profit corporation, the "Friends of the Centennial Trail" manage and operate the trail. This is a well designed and constructed multi-use trail corridor bordering a scenic river that winds its way from wilderness areas through the heart of the City of Spokane. The trail provides opportunities for walking, jogging, rollerblading, cycling, horseback riding in designated areas, and water craft access. It is vital recreational focal point for the community where thousands of people can simultaneously experience nature without disturbing the natural environment. Spokane County Parks, Recreation and Open Space Plan - 2002 06✓13/U2