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.