Loading...
2005, 11-15 Special Meeting MinutesMayor Wilhite called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m., and welcomed everyone to the 78 meeting Attendance: Diana Wilhite, Mayor Rich Munson, Deputy Mayor Dick Denenny, Councilmember Mike DeVleming, Councilmember Mike Flanigan, Councilmember Gary Schimmels, Councilmember Steve Taylor, Councilmember MINUTES City of Spokane Valley City Council Special Meeting Tuesday, November 15, 2005 City Staff: Dave Mercier, City Manager Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney Ken Thompson, Finance Director Nina Regor, Deputy City manager Tom Scholtens, Building Official Mike Jackson, Parks & Recreation Director Marina Sukup, Community Development Director Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer Mike Basinger, Associate Planner Steve Worley, Senior Engineer Scott Kuhta, Senior Planner Greg McCormick, Planning Manager "Bing" Greg Bingaman, IT Specialist Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk INVOCATION: Pastor Darrel Cole, Spokane Valley Wesleyan Church gave the invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Wilhite led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called roll; all Councilmembers were present. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: It was moved by Councilmember Taylor, seconded by Deputy Mayor Munson, and unanimously agreed upon to approve the amended agenda. INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS Mayor Wilhite acknowledged the presence of the Scoutmaster and Boy Scouts from Troop 405, the Wolverine Patrol. COMMITTEE, BOARD, LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS Councilmember Schimmels: reported that he attended the Washington Department of Transportation Completion Ceremony of I90, and mentioned that the State Secretary of Transportation along with other dignitaries were in attendance, and that everyone is very happy to see that roadway open again; that he also attended a Solid Waste Comp Plan update meeting which is expected to continue deliberations until approximately February 2007. Councilmember Taylor: mentioned he attended the Convention Visitor's Bureau meeting last week where they discussed the budget, adding that they are allocating funds for reserves; he attended the Housing and Community Development Advisory Meeting, which committee helps to decide where the CDBG (community development block grant) funds will be allocated, and that the deadline for applications was last Friday; and he also attended the I90 Completion Ceremony. Deputy Mayor Munson: explained that he chaired last week's meeting of the Operations and Administrative Committee Meeting for the STA where they discussed the proposed bus stop on Indiana, Council Meeting: 11 -15 -05 Page 1 of 8 Approved by Council: 12 -13 -05 and that the committee suggested coming up with another alternative, or simply not put the bus stop in as proposed as that area is not safe; that he also attended an initial briefing on the STA upcoming 2006 budget; he attended the Central Valley School Steering Committee strategic plan meeting, and tomorrow at 9:30 a.m. he will host the Steering Committee for Elected Officials meeting where officials will continue to discuss joint planning areas that are contiguous to our borders. Councilmember Flanigan: mentioned that tomorrow morning will be the first meeting for this cycle of the Hotel /Motel Tax Committee to review grant proposals; and that Spokane Valley was presented with a certificate from Valleyfest thanking the City for being a major sponsor of the event. Councilmember Denenny : said the meetings continue regarding negotiations on discharge and TMDL (total maximum daily load) and it is anticipated that information will be provided to the Department of Ecology within the next few days; and that there are several upcoming meetings sponsored by Commissioner Mielke concerning phosphorous levels in dishwasher detergents. Councilmember DeVleming: said he continues preparation of the Celebration of Light, the annual Christmas tree lighting ceremony set for December 1 and that volunteers are still needed for the event, to set up, tear down, and for overall committee help. MAYOR'S REPORT: Mayor Wilhite reported that she also attended the I90 Ceremony; and she attended a Chase Youth Commission breakfast regarding America's Promise and their planning for 2006 on how to publicize their goals. She announced she also attended the Convention Visitor's Bureau meeting. Mayor Wilhite then read the Hunger & Homelessness Awareness Week Proclamation; after which Sheila Morley, Emergency Assistance Case Manager with Spokane Valley Community Center, and Kimberly Rasp with Spokane Housing Ventures, both representing the leadership of the Spokane Homeless Coalition, spoke on the history of that Coalition and of the need for greater awareness of the problems of hunger and homelessness, and of how people can get involved and help. PUBLIC COMMENTS Mayor Wilhite invited public comment. Robert Ryan Smith, 10503 E 6 Avenue: (University & 6 said of all the places he has lived, that Spokane Valley has the worst blind corner problems of all; that there are serious problems with a multitude of intersections. Mayor Wilhite encouraged Mr. Smith to give staff addresses of those intersections, and Mr. Smith replied that almost all the intersections have those problems. Chuck Vensel, 14617 7 Avenue: said that his concern is with transportation; that he is an ardent bike rider, and in reading the Comprehensive Plan he wanted to mention that by May, bike paths are impassable; and that bike paths are only good if they are passable; by May a bicyclist can't ride from University to Vancher because of wind blown debris; and the Centennial Trail cannot be ridden over the entire course; that he's never seen street sweepers cleaning bike lanes; that bike paths must be clean; and we need bike - friendly routes; that walkways are also a problem in the winter. Mayor Wilhite told Mr. Vensel that if he wanted his comments to be a part of the Comprehensive Plan record, that such comments should be submitted in writing or at a public hearing; and Mr. Vensel stated he understood these comments would not be part of the comprehensive record; but that he might later write them down and send them in for record inclusion. Jim Huttinmeier, Economic Development Council: as Chair of the Economic Update Rally Committee for the Spokane Valley Chamber of Commerce, and as part of the Economic Development Council, he thanked Council for the sponsorship of last week's Economic Update Rally; and that they were impressed with the turnout and with CenterPlace. Council Meeting: 11 -15 -05 Page 2 of 8 Approved by Council: 12 -13 -05 VOUCHER LIST DATE VOUCHER Number(s) TOTAL VOUCHER AMOUNT 11/01/05 7898 -7949 1,490,518.93 11/04/05 7951 -8005 255,690.23 GRAND TOTAL 1,746,209.16 1. CONSENT AGENDA Consists of items considered routine which are approved as a group. A Councilmember may remove an item from the Consent Agenda to be considered separately. a. Following claim vouchers: b. Payroll for Pay Period Ending October 31, 2005, in the amount of $198,077.45 c. Approval of Resolution 05 -024 Amending Resolution 04 -023, Fee Resolution (adding January 1, 2006 Effective Date) d. Minutes of Regular Council Meeting of October 25, 2005 e. Minutes of Special Council Meeting of November 1, 2005 It was moved by Deputy Mayor Munson, seconded by Councilmember Flanigan, and unanimously agreed to approve the Consent Agenda. NEW BUSINESS 2. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 05 -027, 2006 Property Tax — Ken Thompson After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Munson and seconded by Councilmember Taylor, to approve the ordinance levying property taxes in the amount of $8, 050, or approximately $1.60 per thousand of assessed value, for the 2006 budget for the City of Spokane Valley. Mr. Thompson explained the history of this proposal, after which council clarified that they want the levy rate to be not more than $1.60 per thousand dollars assessed valuation, and to tie the tax to the $1.60 amount rather than the $8,050 amount. Mayor Wilhite invited public comment: Tony Lazanis, 10626 E. Empire: stated that the $1.60 is the highest in the county and feels the rate should be lower, and suggested changing it to $1.55 with the five cents difference dedicated to sidewalks. Mayor Wilhite invited further comments; no further comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 3. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 05 -029 Adopting 2006 Budget — Ken Thompson After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Councilmember Flanigan and seconded by Councilmember Taylor, to approve ordinance 05 -029 adopting the 2006 budget. Finance Director Thompson explained that this ordinance adopts the budget, stated that several public hearings were held, and once adopted, a copy will be submitted to the County. Deputy Mayor Munson stated that the citizens voted to retain the gas tax increase, and this budget does not reflect the income that will be realized from that increase; and in response to that Director Thompson stated he expects a budget amendment early next year. Mayor Wilhite invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 4. First Reading Proposed Ordinance 05 -030 Excess Tax Levy — Ken Thompson After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Councilmember Taylor and seconded by Councilmember Flanigan, to advance Ordinance 05 -030 to a second reading on November 29. Finance Director Thompson explained that this is somewhat of an unusual situation; that we no longer have library responsibility or have the library levy, and that our property taxes will actually decrease by $1.5 million; but the way the law is written, if we want the 1 %, which is included in the previously approved $8,050, a separate ordinance is necessary. Mayor Wilhite invited public comment; Council Meeting: 11 -15 -05 Page 3 of 8 Approved by Council: 12 -13 -05 no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 5. First Reading Proposed Ordinance 05 -031 Amending 3.40.050H Competitive Bidding — Cary Driskell After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Councilmember Taylor and seconded by Deputy Mayor Munson to suspend the rules and approve ordinance 05 -031 as written. Deputy City Attorney Driskell explained the proposed change per his November 15, 2005 Request for County Action (RCA) form, and emphasized that this would provide a second exception as listed in the revised language, and only be used for road construction projects. Mayor Wilhite invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 6. Proposed Resolution 05 -025 Accepting Street Dedication from Troy and Denise Hobbs — Cary Driskell It was moved by Deputy Mayor Munson and seconded by Councilmember Denenny, to approve Resolution 05 -025 accepting the dedication of real property in the attached right -of -way deed, and authorize the City Manager or designee to execute any document necessary for the transfer. Deputy City Attorney Driskell explained that this resolution is necessary as we do not yet have a formalized process for accepting dedications of real property for road purposes if the property to be dedicated is outside the boundaries of a final plat; that staff is working on a draft ordinance and procedures, but in the meantime, the matter needs to be addressed for the finalization of a development; and that the only issue before Council is whether to accept this property for road purposes. Mayor Wilhite invited public comment; no comments were offered. Deputy Mayor Munson suggested it would be helpful in the future, to have staff include a map so the area in question can be easily referenced. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 7. Motion Consideration: App 02 -05 Findings, Conclusions and Decision Remanding Application to Hearing Examiner — Cary Driskell It was moved by Councilmember Denenny and seconded by Councilmember Taylor, to approve the proposed Findings, Conclusions and Decision remanding the preliminary plat application back to the Hearing Examiner with instructions to reconsider the matter. Deputy City Attorney Driskell gave a brief background of the subject. Mayor Wilhite announced that as this is a quasi - judicial matter, no public comments will be taken. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Mayor Wilhite, Councilmember's Schimmels, Taylor, Flanigan, Denenny and DeVleming. Opposed: Deputy Mayor Munson. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 8. Motion Consideration: Right -of -way Property Acquisition Procedures, WSDOT Agreement — Steve Worley It was moved by Deputy Mayor Munson and seconded by Councilmember Denenny to approve the agreement, authorize the City Manager's or designee's signature thereon, and stipulate such agreement is to be effective November 23, 2005. Engineer Worley gave the background of this issue, and explained that this is tied in with the just previously approved ordinance amending competitive bidding; and stated that these are standard, yet required agreements necessary any time we have right -of -way acquisitions on federally funded projects. Mayor Wilhite invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 9. Motion Consideration: David Evans & Associates Consultant Agreement — Steve Worley It was moved by Councilmember Taylor and seconded by Councilmember Flanigan, to authorize the City Manager or designee to execute the Local Agency Standard Consultant Agreement and Supplemental Agreements with David Evans and Associates in the amount of $158,952 for the preliminary engineering phase, $60,605 for the right -of -way phase, and $177,957 for the construction phase. Mayor Wilhite Council Meeting: 11 -15 -05 Page 4 of 8 Approved by Council: 12 -13 -05 invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENTS Mayor Wilhite invited general public comments. Chuck Vensel, 14617 E 7th Avenue: stated that there is a dangerous corner where the couplet meets Dishman Mica; said that in the two turning lanes that traffic won't stop for anything, and he feels a light is needed that stays red to give pedestrians a chance to cross safely. Tony Lazanis: wants to find out about the wastewater facility; and he wants to know what Council plans to do since we are paying 80% or more; that it is a big issue and he asked if we were going to let the County build it and turn it over to us within a year, or right away, or let the County build it and own it; he said now we are paying $7.00 or $8.00 more than the City of Spokane; and that this Council doesn't want the responsibility or doesn't want to do something about it, or even talk about it. Mayor Wilhite suggested to Mr. Lazanis that this topic of conversation would be a good discussion topic for those "Conversations with the Community," which lends much better to a conversation between citizens and council, rather than strictly public comments. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS: 10. Employee Classification — Nina Regor Deputy City Manager Regor explained the background of the deputy city attorney position and discussed the issues for consideration as per her PowerPoint presentation and November 15, 2005 RCA. It was mentioned that should council support this re- classification, a resolution could be presented at the next council meeting, either as a regular agenda item or on the consent agenda; and would be effective upon approval. Councilmember Taylor voiced his support for the adjustment to a grade 18; and suggested perhaps in the future if the need arises, to consider having an entry level attorney position. Deputy Mayor Munson and Councilmember DeVleming voiced their support of the re- classification; with Mayor Wilhite voicing a hesitancy to go from grade 16 to 18, yet added that hesitancy is no reflection on the job abilities or job performance of Mr. Driskell; but more on her not wanting to set precedent. Councilmember Flanigan suggested the grade was initially likely too low. As there was not full council consensus on this issue, the resolution will be placed on the next agenda as a regular agenda item rather than on the consent agenda. 11. GMA Steering Committee 11/16/05 Meeting — Scott Kuhta /Mike Connelly Deputy Mayor Munson stated that there has been ongoing dialogue between City Council and County Commissioners about joint planning issues; and that there is a new draft interlocal agreement dated 11- 15-05, and this agenda item is a briefing in preparation for tomorrow's meeting; and that he seeks suggestions for changes, with the hope of reaching council consensus tonight on the document. Senior Planner Kuhta explained that many GMA issues have been previously discussed at length; that while we are examining the City's first Comprehensive Plan, the County is working on their five -year plan update, which is scheduled for completion by the end of 2006. He said that as part of the County's five -year update, they must first update the population projection; then divide that population between all jurisdictions in the County; land capacity analysis must be completed to determine the amount of buildable land available in the various cities and in the county; and then if needed, to adjust urban growth boundaries and perform a capital facilities analysis to see how such new projected growth can be supported. Mr. Kuhta said that the joint planning agreement in the council packet is more specific to the Turtle Creek area; while the newly drafted agreement council found tonight at the dais, is more generic and is intended to cover all urban growth areas outside city limits. Mr. Kuhta said two questions to consider tonight are: (1) county wide population projects, which is the starting point for all planning that follows and the draft letter which can be given at tomorrow's meeting; and (2) and that staff would like some direction concerning pursuing external growth boundaries. Council Meeting: 11 -15 -05 Page 5 of 8 Approved by Council: 12 -13 -05 Council discussion included the wastewater situation with an increase population; the need to get these topics on the table for discussion by the steering committee members; expanding our city boundaries by looking at contiguous UGAs that currently exist; annexation policies as a separate issue; and the City's versus the County's PUD regulations. It was Council consensus for Mayor Wilhite to sign the draft letter submitted by Mr. Kuhta. Mayor Wilhite called for a recess at 7:45 p.m., and convened the meeting at 7:55 p.m. DISCUSSION: Council Deliberation: Transportation Chapter of the Draft Comprehensive Plan Deputy City Manager Regor mentioned that in recap of last night's meeting, some Councilmembers mentioned a need for a copy of the October 25 memos with the proposed revisions to the arterial street map and the bike pedestrian map; and those new copies have now been re- submitted; and that there is also a housekeeping memorandum from Director Sukup that mentions if changes to the map are made, there will also need to be some changes to the appropriate text; and other minor changes for council consideration as per that memorandum. Mayor Wilhite mentioned that Commissioner Beaulac is also in attendance tonight and can speak to several truck issues; and with council urging, Mr. Beaulac addressed council concerning several truck routes and general truck issues. Mr. Beaulac stated that the main reason Sprague and Appleway are truck routes is by the tonnage it carries; that the area will generate local truck traffic regardless; that trucks trying to quickly move past the city will not use that route anyway; and that the area should be designated as a truck route to accommodate the local truck traffic. Discussion turned to the pros, cons, and reasons for such a designation, including the definition of "truck route." Councilmember DeVleming recapped that last night's Council consensus was to cut out the Argonne section to Sullivan section of Sprague and Appleway as the truck route. Deputy Mayor Munson said that council also heard from a citizen last night who requested that Boone Avenue be recognized, and asked for clarification of that request. Director Sukup said the concern is that currently on the proposed arterial road plans, Mission extends to the east as a proposed minor arterial; but their proposal, because there is residential on both sides of mission, and because the old railroad right -of- way is there that adjoins Boone; rather than going on Mission and hooking Indiana with Mission as originally proposed by the developer, to rather extend Indiana over to Bonne and take advantage of that right -of -way on Boone where there is an additional right -of -way from the old railroad right -of -way going east, as that alternative would be less disruptive to the neighborhood, which is the Greenacres area. In response to further discussion, Engineer Worley said that he attended the Greenacres community meeting where they discussed getting residents' ideas of what they want to see; and the arterial was a large issue; that one option was to re- designate the Boone right -of -way as the arterial rather than Mission for some of the reasons described above; that the option was discussed with the staff traffic engineer; there is a problem in terms of traffic flow in that intersection of Barker and Boone and the on and off ramp, and where Cataldo comes into the same area; as when there are numerous roads coming in at one small area, the area ends up very congested. Mr. Worley said that WSDOT (Washington Department of Transportation) is also looking at what it will take to widen I90 from Sullivan to State Line with an additional lane each direction; and to do that at Barker will require a reconfiguration of the entire interchange as there is not ample room under the existing bridge to accommodate an existing lane, and the existing on and off ramps do not meet current WSDOT standards; and the idea of keeping the same grid pattern which has been set up throughout the rest of the city in terms of the arterial network, would be a better way to deal with the major flow of traffic through the city; and from a traffic perspective, Mission Avenue is the better place to continue to have an arterial for that large east/west traffic from the Greenacres area to the mall. Council Meeting: 11 -15 -05 Page 6 of 8 Approved by Council: 12 -13 -05 Mr. Worley also mentioned that there was discussion of the connection of Mission to Indiana Avenue west of Flora Road; and that there is a road right -of -way which has been negotiated with the owners of that property; a sewer line was previously put in with the property owners in mind so there is already a road right -of -way designated for that, although the road won't be built until the developer decides to develop that property. Mr. Worley added that there is also an abandoned railroad right -of -way adjacent to the Boone railroad right -of -way; all of the railroad right -of -way west of Barker Road is incorporated into the railroad right -of -way; but east of Barker Road the railroad right -of -way is a separate parcel owned by Spokane County; and the Boone Road right -of -way is public right -of -way; so there is some discrepancy in terms of who owns what; and that the pedestrian bicycle plan that is being proposed, also looked at using that old railroad right -of -way as that path to get people in the Greenacres area to Flora and then onward north. Councilmember DeVleming asked for council consensus on making a stronger push with the County to get the right -of -way agreement for extending Appleway; and he brought up the continuing issue of Sprague and the portion that is one -way west of University, that some members of the community felt that issue remains undecided; and through public comments, he has heard a clear statement needs to be made of what Council's intensions are concerning whether to reverse Sprague back to a two -way; that several businesses wait for Council decision before ordering signs, and other business - related activities dealing with the issue; and asked if Council feels more information is needed, or if a letter should be sent to the Valley Chamber advising them of council decision. Deputy Mayor Munson said it was agreed at last summer's retreat, that we would do an overlay study of Sprague and Appleway west of University to determine how best to move forward with re- development; and that overlay study might make the direction a moot issue as it would provide a plan that would most effectively use the corridor; and until the study is completed based on the necessary inventory, there is inadequate information at this point to make a recommendation. Councilmember Flanigan voiced his concern over how much time should lapse before a recommendation is made on that section; followed by Councilmember Taylor's comments that he would be amenable to scheduling discussion within the next few weeks. Deputy City Manager Regor mentioned that the valley corridor update is scheduled for the December 13 council agenda, and that presentation of information should be of assistance to council in their decision - making process. Councilmember Taylor added that when the alternatives were presented last year, two alternatives were chosen as possibilities, and at that time, he feels the decision was made not to change Sprague west of University, back; and that the matter at debate now is whether to take the area on Sprague east of University and leave that as a two -way as Appleway is extended east. Deputy Mayor Munson said he felt the plan was to make the roads fit the comprehensive plan, and not make the comprehensive plan fit the roads; which would be the affect if such decision were made now; that Council agreed to work a re- development area for auto row, and to hire a consultant next year to tell us the best way to do that. It was also suggested if possible, to move the study up to have it done sooner than currently scheduled. It was determined this will be discussed further at the December 13 council meeting. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Pending Litigation It was moved by Mayor Wilhite, seconded and unanimously agreed upon to adjourn into Executive Session for approximately thirty minutes regarding pending litigation; and that afterwards upon reconvening the meeting, a decision may be made. Council adjourned into Executive Session at 8:41 p.m. Deputy Mayor Munson returned to the meeting at 9:15 p.m. and announced that the Executive Session would be extended for approximately 15 minutes. Mayor Wilhite declared Council out of Executive Session and reconvened the open meeting at 9:20 p.m. Deputy City Attorney Driskell stated that he received on Thursday last week, a Motion from the City of Liberty Lake to remand to the Boundary Review Board, the denial of their previous petition for annexation of that 644 acres laying between the two cities. He explained that Council options are to Council Meeting: 11 -15 -05 Page 7 of 8 Approved by Council: 12 -13 -05 instruct staff to do nothing, or to respond to the legal issues that were presented to the City of Liberty Lake. Deputy Mayor Munson stated that we have always asked that since the area is continuous to our borders, that there be a significant area for joint planning; and if we do not oppose this direct remand, then we would be unable to pursue that course of action; and therefore he recommended legal staff prepare a response to the motion that for legal resource. Councilmember Flanigan said that we are looking at an area that is continuous to our city, and that the area is the focus of a large amount of development, which would have their access and egress points directly out to Spokane Valley; that Liberty Lake is looking at annexing an area that will be using our infrastructure with no input from us on how to make that work for us; and that such development could result in a large loss of levels of service. He stated that he feels joint planning is mandated and must be done to ensure that issue is resolved. Councilmember Taylor explained that he doesn't see a pressing need that necessitates annexation of this area; that Liberty Lake has lots of undeveloped land in its boundaries; and the need exists to work out the future of the area through the joint planning process; he added that he doesn't see an emergency or need for that to be annexed to Liberty Lake, and that there is an interest as is it contiguous to us and could become part of our city in the future; and those issues need to be resolved. Councilmember Flanigan further stated that it could be viewed as skipping over a large section of undeveloped land to start a mini Liberty Lake city, separate from the main entity, which is contrary to the GMA purpose of infill; that he is not opposed to development, but it makes more sense for it to be part of our city; and he agreed there needs to be joint planning to resolve the issues. Councilmember Taylor also stated that the development they are talking about is adjacent to the current development of Riverwalk and has more in common with the urban development we see in our City of Spokane Valley. City Manager Mercier asked for a motion to provide direction to legal staff to oppose, remand, or take other action. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Munson, seconded by Councilmember Flanigan, and unanimously agreed to instruct staff to oppose the motion to remand. There being no further business, it was moved by Councilmember Flanigan, seconded by Councilmember Taylor, and unanimously agreed upon to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 9:26 p.m. ATTEST. Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Council Meeting: 11 -15 -05 Approved by Council: 12 -13 -05 ("Le.tAt,o,\)■) 6.6tu Diana Wilhite, Mayor Page 8 of 8 • PUBLIC COMMENT SIGN -IN SHEET CITIZEN COMMENTS YOUR TIME WILL BE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTES • SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: November 15, 2005 aIgn rn U yuu won t o make public comments. NAME PLEASE PRINT kUC.k Qi NS TOPIC OF CONCERN Et C ADDRESS (417 TAE TELEPHONE 122.-2.7-2z v4,,,riri T2tCci V0 Y DOE1@l�A IRAL4 N VA * LEYPEST FOUNDATION MAJOR SPONSOR GI1Y of SPOKANE VALLEY THANK YOU FOR YOUR GENEROSITY, SUPPORT, AND COMMITMENT TO THIS COMMUNITY EVENT ,ASIA ARLEY- CeeL'.tIRMA N V. LLErp sT' FOUNDATION November 1, 2005 Hotel -Motel City Council Dear City Council. �lley�� e We made it happen! The most successful Valleyfest in history delighted more than 32,000 attendees on September 24 at Mirabeau Park in the Spokane Valley. You are an important part of the community partnership that made it all possible. Thank you so much for your contribution of $ 15,000.00 which was used for television marketing. Your support was vital to this community event, and we look forward to reserving your sponsorship for next year! Valleyfest 2006 will he on Saturday. September 23rd. —mark your calendar now. Valleyfest is a premiere community event that is constantly growing to include more valuable futures. This year the beautiful new Center Place opened its doors to welcome visitors and neighbors, show offthe work of area artists and hold classes and exhibitions in crafts and performing arts. Our Friday night - Hearts of Gold" parade down Sprague Avenue drew 10,000 spectators alone. We were able to faiture dozens of participants. including national, regional and local husincss entities. Next years parade will he on Friday. Septemher 22nd. at 7:00 p.m. The First Annual Valleyfest Car Show was a big hit, including vintage and specialty automobiles from the Northwest. This was so popular with exhibitors and spectators that we are considering how to hold the show right in the park with the heart of the festivities. We expect to draw even more participation from throughout the region with the great publicity we received this year and the enthusiasm of event organizers. We are delighted that the weekend was so well attended and deeply enjoyed, exposing thousands to arts activities and performances. vendors, business partners and area non- profits. Such record turnout doesn't happen c. itho ut the publicity that our spomsors made possible. We are so pleased and proud that you chose to support this outstanding community event in 2005. I hank you for your commitment to Valleyfest! Sincerely Peggy ti . ( f eo lfa l Valleyfest 501 (c) 3 Tax ID Si 943152294 P.O. Box 368 • Spokane Valley. WA 99037 • (509) 922 -3299 • FAX (509) 928 -8463 Siiokane [RAFT jValley November 16, 2005 Growth Management Steering Committee of Elected Officials RE Countywide Population Projection Steering Committee Members 1 1707 E. Sprague Ave. • Suite 106 • Spokane Valley, WA 99206 (509) 921 -1000 • Fax (509) 921 -1008 • cityhall @'spokanevalley.org The Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) requires Counties to adopt a 20- year population projection as the basis for developing comprehensive plans (see RCW 36.70A 110). The projection must be consistent with population projections developed by the Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFM) The Countywide population projection is important because it provides the foundation for all city and county planning to follow. including establishing Urban Growth Areas and planning for capital facilities. The OFM produces a low. intermediate and high projection range for all counties within the State. County Planners have been directed to use the high OFM projection for Spokane County's 5 -year Comprehensive Plan update, which totals 657,946 people by the year 2025. This translates to a 1.83% compounded annual growth rate from 2000 to 2025 (the 2000 County population was 417.939), or a 57% total increase in population From 1990 to 2000, Spokane County grew from 361,364 to 417,939 people. a total increase of 15.7% (approximately 1 47% compounded annual growth) From 1995 to 2005, Spokane County grew from 401.200 to 436,300 people. a total increase of 8 75% (approximately 85% compounded annual growth) From 1990 to 2005, Spokane County grew from 361,364 to 436,300 people, a total increase of 20 1% (approximately 1.26% increase). At a recent Planning Director's meeting, representatives expressed reservation about using the high OFM number Consensus of the Planning Director's group was to use the intermediate 2025 OFM projection, or 561.627 people This equals a 1.19% compounded annual growth rate for the years 2000 to 2025. or a 34 4% total increase The population projection provides the basis for how we plan for the future Because of its importance to all jurisdictions, we request that the County provide to the Steering Committee of Elected Officials its projection model of the Committee's objective review and recommendation We also encourage the County to consult with independent demographers to help establish a reasonable population protection Sincerely, Diana Wilhite, Mayor City of Spokane Valley Page 1 of 7 DRAFT 11/15/05 Interlocal :Agreement Regarding Joint Planning between the City of Spokane Valley and Spokane Count This agreement is entered into on the day of . 2005 by the City of Spokane Valley (Spokane Valley) and the County of Spokane (Spokane County). Whereas, the Spokane County Board of County Commissioners intends to consider a number of proposed changes in the Spokane County Comprehensive Plan designating certain properties as being within the Spokane County Urban Growth Area; and Whereas, both parties wish to avoid and/or mitigate unplanned and potentially adverse impacts to Spokane County and Spokane Valley resulting from development; and Whereas, both Spokane County and Spokane Valley recognize that annexation of properties currently within Spokane County by any municipality may have adverse economic impacts to Spokane County and further that concern over these impacts has hindered negotiation of joint planning agreements; and Whereas, the parties wish to separate, without prejudice to either party, the issue of future annexations and the legal authority and right to pursue or oppose such annexations from this agreement and the execution of the same; Now, therefore: 'Io avoid any further dispute, promote orderly development and ensure that the capacity for development is concurrent with the consideration and approval of the same, the parties agree to the following: Pagc 2 of 7 1. Legal basis: This agreement is entered into pursuant to RCW 36.70A.010; 020(3); 110 (2); 210 (3) (a), (b), (d), and (f); RCW 39.34; County -Wide Planning Policies For Spokane County (Planning Policies) Topic 2, Overview of Growth Management Act( GMA) Requirements; Topic 2, Policies (1) and (2); Topic 5 Transportation, Overview of Growth Management (GMA) Requirements; Glossary Countywide Planning Policy Terms, Joint Planning Areas; Spokane Valley interim Comprehensive Plan; Spokane County Comprehensive Plan. 2. Area affected: The agreement applies to development within Spokane Valley and that portion of Spokane County near or adjacent to Spokane Valley as is set forth in Exhibit Two incorporated herein. 3. Intent: It is the intent of the parties, 1) to promote coordinated planning for transportation and development standards between the Spokane Valley and Spokane County for the area affected, 2) to ensure that transportation impacts resulting from development are identified and that adequate funding is secured to pay for the costs of improvements made necessary by these impacts, and 3) to ensure that development standards proscribed within the affected areas for streets, sidewalks, curbing, drainage and utilities are compatible. Spokane Valley and Spokane County desire to jointly establish and implement development regulations and procedures governing the review and approval of subdivisions, short subdivisions and conditional land uses within this affected area. The parties also desire to jointly establish and implement development regulations and procedures governing the provision of public facilities within the UGA property in question. Spokane Valley and Spokane County agree to commit sufficient staff to draft and finalize these specific agreements within 180 days of execution of this agreement. The parties further recognize that immediate land use development in this arca without a joint planning agreement governing the same will frustrate the purpose and intent of this agreement and the development regulations • • Page 3 of 7 and procedures to be established. Consequently, Spokane Valley and Spokane County agree to the following immediate measures: 4. Transportation: a. The parties rccogni that development in either the Spokane Valley or Spokane County creates potential impacts for intersections and corridors in the adjacent jurisdiction. b. In order to ensure proper planning and sufficient funds for the improvements necessitated by these impacts the parties agree to the following: i. Each development application within the affected areas for a subdivision, short subdivision or conditional land use permit that contemplates 20 or more living units, or PUD application of any size, shall within _ working days of submission be provided to the other jurisdiction. ii. The parties shall require the applicant for each development proposal described in "i" above to prepare a Traffic Impact Analysis (CIA) quantifying the impact of that development and provide the same to the other party. Each jurisdiction shall have the opportunity to contribute to the development of the scope of such study. iii. The parties shall provide each other any environmental checklist, EIS or other environmental document required pursuant to RCW 43.21C et sect for properties within the affected area within _ working days of submission by the applicant and prior to the issuance of any DNS or MDNS. iv. The parties shall have notice of and be able to attend any predevelopment conference and/or development conference with respect to development proposals described in "1" above and within the affected area. Page 4 of 7 v. The parties, after consultation, shall include in their respective recommended conditions of approval to the Hearing Examiner or other appropriate hearing body a condition requiring appropriate financial contributions for identified direct transportation impacts identified in the 11A prepared for each project. vi. The parties, after consultation, shall include in their recommended conditions of approval to the Ilearing Examiner or other appropriate hearing body a condition setting forth the time, manner and means of transference of any payment intended to compensate the other party for identified traffic impacts. vii. The parties recognizes that to implement this agreement some modification of existing land use regulations may be required and agrees to make such modifications within days of execution of this agreement_ 5. Development Standards: a. Spokane County agrees to adopt within days of the execution of this agreement, the Spokane Valley street standards, as well as standards for drainage, storm water and utility design and location for the affected area as is set forth in Exhibit 2 incorporated herein. Prior to the effective date of this legislation Spokane County agrees to reconunend to the Hearing Examiner or other appropriate hearing body that development within the affected area be consistent with the Spokane Valley Standards discussed above. b. The parties agree to confer prior to finalization of the necessity for and/or the location of any connector streets and/or the classification of any streets within or adjacent to a proposed development or adjacent to the boundaries of Spokane Valley. If agreement is not reached resulting in a joint recommendation to the Hearing Examiner or other appropriate hearing body r Page 5 of 7 both parties shall present their respective positions to the Hearing Examiner or other appropriate hearing body. c. The parties agree to adopt, within _ days of execution of this agreement, an agreed Planned Unit Development Ordinance to be applied to the affected area as is set forth in Exhibit 2, and incorporated herein. 6. Other Regulations: a. Nothing in this agreement shall supersede or negate any existing land use or development regulation for Spokane Valley or Spokane County. 7. Additional Agreements: a. The parties contemplate future joint planning agreements that may relate to the affected area of other portions of Spokane County and/or Spokane Valley. Nothing in this agreement is intended to prohibit the development of future agreements relating to either the impacts identified above or other impacts that may now or in the future exist. 8. Rights reserved: a. Nothing in these agreements is intended to waive or limit the rights of the parties to require mitigation for any impact as allowed by federal, state or local laws or ordinances including but not limited to environmental impacts governed by 43.2 1 C.010 et seq. 9. Accounting of Existing Fees: a. That Spokane County shall within 60 days of execution of this agreement provide an accounting of all fees paid by third parties to mitigate impacts to intersections or roadways now located within Spokane Valley along with the disposition of those funds. 10. Change in Standards or Ordinances: a. Any change in Spokane Valley or Spokane County standards or ordinances relied upon in this agreement shall be within _ working days of passage Page 6 of 7 forwarded to the other party. If the parties cannot agree to the implementation of these standards within 30 days the issue may be immediately set for mediation by either party. 11. Mediation of Disputes: a. Any disputes arising from this agreement, including the failure to agree as to new standards and /or applicable ordinances as is set forth in paragraph 10 above, shall be set for mediation within 30 days of notification of a dispute. If mediation is unsuccessful then the parties agree to arbitration pursuant to RCW 7.60.010, to be held with 60 days of the date mediation is abandoned. 12. Indemnification and Liability: a. Spokane County shall protect, save harmless, indemnify and defend, at its own expense, Spokane Valley, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees and agents, from any loss or claim for damages of any nature whatsoever arising out of Spokane County's performance of this agreement, including claims by the Spokane County employee's or third parties, except for those damages caused solely by the negligence or willful misconduct of Spokane Valley, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, or agents. b. Spokane Valley shall protect, save harmless, indemnify and defend, at its own expense, Spokane County its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees and agents, from any loss or claim for damages of any nature whatsoever arising out of Spokane Valley's performance of this agreement, including claims by the Spokane Valley employee's or third parties, except for those damages caused solely by the negligence or willful misconduct of Spokane County, its elected and appointed officials, officers, employees, or agents. c. In the event of liability for damages of any nature whatsoever arising out of the performance of this Agreement by Spokane County and Spokane Valley, including claims by Spokane County's or Spokane Valley's own officers, officials, employees, agents, volunteers, or third parties, caused by or resulting from the concurrent negligence of Spokane county and Spokane Valley, each parties liability hereunder shall only be to the extent of that party's negligence. d. No liability shall be attached to Spokane County or Spokane Valley by reason of entering into this agreement except as expressly provided herein. 13. Severability: If any provision of this agreement or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the provisions and/or the application of the provisions to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected. 14. Entire Agreement: This agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the affected property. It is anticipated that the parties will enter into further interlocal agreements on specific subject areas as indicated above.