Loading...
2005, 12-13 Special Meeting MinutesMayor Wilhite called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m., and welcomed everyone to the 82n 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, December 13, 2005 City Staff: Dave Mercier, City Manager Nina Regor, Deputy City Manager Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney Ken Thompson, Finance Director Mike Jackson, Parks & Rec Director Tom Scholtens, Building Official Neil Kersten, Public Works Director Scott Kuhta, Senior Planner Steve Worley, Senior Engineer "Bing" Greg Bingaman, IT Specialist Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk INVOCATION: Pastor Ben Orchards of the Spokane Valley Bible 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 Councilmember Denenny, and unanimously agreed to approve the amended agenda. INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS: COMMITTEE, BOARD, LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS: Councilmember Schimmels: mentioned he attended the National League of Cities (NLC) conference in North Carolina last week and attended several workshops focusing on land issues. Councilmember Taylor: stated that he attended the Spokane Hotel/Motel Association annual dinner last week. Deputy Mayor Munson: reported that he also attended the NLC convention; and attended the Spokane Transit Authority (STA) meeting where they chose an STA lobbyist candidate for the STA Board to approve or disapprove this coming Thursday. Councilmember Flanigan: said that he attended the Health District Board meeting; and also attended several smaller committee meetings. Councilmember Denenny: explained that he attended the Regional Health District Meeting; mentioned the upcoming STA board meeting; and stated that the dischargers met with the Department of Ecology and they all feel an agreement will be forthcoming; and that the full group will be meeting on the 16 Councilmember DeVleming reported that he attended this morning's 911 Board meeting where staffing budgeting issues were discussed, and that the group received a notice from Motorola that they would no longer support the 911 phone system after the end of 2006, and that he will keep everyone updated on that situation as more information becomes available. MAYOR'S REPORT: Mayor Wilhite reported that she attended the Hotel/Motel Dinner and the Chamber's Legislative luncheon; and that she participated in an Eagle Scout award ceremony for Troop 427. Council Meeting: 12 -13 -05 Page 1 of 7 Approved by Council: 01 -10 -06 VOUCHER LIST DATE VOUCHER #s TOTAL VOUCHER AMOUNT 11 -18 -2005 8059 -8089 536,319.29 11 -23 -2005 8090 -8123 1,468,040.95 12 -05 -2005 8133 -8167 59,873.07 GRAND TOTAL $2,064,233.31 PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Wilhite invited public comment. Bill Gothmann, 10010 E 48 Avenue: reported that he recently attended a Spokane Valley Edgeclift Weed and Seed meeting December 6, and that there were a number of interesting speakers, including Terrance Donahue, the Associate Director of the U.S. Department of Justice Initiatives, and that he identified several upcoming changes to the Weed and Seed, some of which include making it highly competitive, and that they will ask that communities get organized and spend one year in cleaning up their area before they will be considered as a candidate for weed and seed funds. 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 November 30, 2005, in the amount of $194,979.74 c. Planning Commission Reappointments of Gail Kogle and Fred Beaulac d. Approval of Council Appointments to Listed Committees /Boards /Commissions e. Resolution 05 -027 Approving Issuance of Non - Resource Revenue Bonds f. Approval of Request to Use Spokane Valley City Logo for Smoke Alarm Document g. Approval of Findings of Fact on Appeal APP 04 -05 (Hilleri Viljanen) h. Approval of Montgomery Avenue Overlay Project Final Costs i. Acceptance of Cost Allocation Plan j. Approval of STA Bus Shelter Request and Agreement k. Approval of Minutes of Special Council Meeting of November 14, 2005 1. Approval of Minutes of Special Council Meeting of November 15, 2005 m. Approval of Minutes of Special Council Meeting of November 28, 2005 n. Approval of Minutes of Regular Council Meeting of November 29, 2005 o. Approval of Minutes of Council Study Session Meeting of December 6, 2005 Mayor Wilhite requested removal of Consent agenda items "d" and "j" and stated that those items will be discussed separately later under tonight's new business. It was then moved by Deputy Mayor Munson, seconded, and unanimously agreed to approve the Consent Agenda minus items "d" and 7." NEW BUSINESS 2. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 05 -033 Street Right -of -way Ordinance — Neil Kersten After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Councilmember Flanigan and seconded by Councilmember Taylor, to approve Ordinance 05 -033. Public Works Director Kersten explained that no changes have been made since the first reading, except to incorporate the desired option in Section 2 wherein each such dedication must come to Council for approval; adding that most of those could likely be done by resolution on the consent agenda. Mayor Wilhite invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 3. Approval of Mayor Appointment: Marcia Sands to Planning Commission — Mayor Wilhite It was moved by Mayor Wilhite to confirm the appointment of Marcia Sands to the Planning Commission, with a term commencing January 1, 2006, and ending December 31, 2006. Mayor Wilhite mentioned that Ms. Sands' term would expire December 31, 2006 to correspond with the to -be- vacated term of now Councilmember -elect Bill Gothmann. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Mayor Wilhite, and Councilmembers Schimmels, Taylor, Denenny, and Flanigan. Opposed: Deputy Mayor Munson and Councilmember DeVleming. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. Council Meeting: 12 -13 -05 Page 2 of 7 Approved by Council: 01 -10 -06 4. Approval of Lodging Tax Advisory Committee Grant Recommendations — Councilmember Flanigan Councilmember Flanigan briefly explained the recommended allocations as shown on the Request for Council Action form, and stated that because of some confusion concerning gifting of public funds, the committee felt it would be prudent to allocate $15,000 to CenterPlace and move the $5,000 difference to the Regional Convention so that they could use those funds for marketing materials for CenterPlace. First Motion: After brief discussion, it was moved by Councilmember Flanigan and seconded by Mayor Wilhite, to change the committee allocation to CenterPlace from $20,000 to $15,000, and increase the Regional Convention allocation from $160,000 to $165,000; with the note that the additional $5,000 would be used for marketing materials for CenterPlace. Discussion ensued regarding the additional $5,000 to the Convention and Visitor's Bureau and that the funds could be used for purchase of pens, coffee cups, and other promotional items for trade shows. Mayor Wilhite invited public comment. Harry Sladich, President of Spokane Regional Convention and Visitor's Bureau, 801 W. Riverside, Spokane: said that said they have funds allocated in their budget for CenterPlace; and if this were to occur, they would use those funds and add to that effort; that there are some trade journals and magazines specifically for non -hotel related facilities in which they could advertise. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. Councilmember Flanigan then stated the other allocated amounts: CenterPlace Spokane Valley Junior Soccer Association Valley Chamber of Commerce Valleyfest Spokane Valley Heritage Museum YMCA Convention Visitor's Bureau Regional Sports Commission TOTAL ALLOCATION $15,000 $4,000 — for Plantes Ferry Soccer fields $5,000 - matching funds for community float $15,000 — not just for TV advertising $5,000 — to market an upcoming Smithsonian exhibit $7,000 — for a skate -a -thon $165,000 $84,000 $300,000 Council discussed the funds allocated to the Chamber of Commerce and how a float would promote tourism or generate ample sales tax; and it was mentioned that our Chamber takes the float to other communities, and other communities bring their floats and visitors to our community which helps raise awareness of our community identity; that this would be seed money to see if the Chamber could raise the additional funds; and that the committee members favored the recommended amount as a means to promote the community and Valleyfest. It was also mentioned that Peggy Doering of Valleyfest recommended the funds be given to the Chamber to promote the float as a benefit to the Valleyfest parade. Second Motion: It was moved by Councilmember DeVleming and seconded by Councilmember Taylor to withdraw that $5,000 to the Spokane Valley Chamber of Commerce. Mayor Wilhite invited public comment. Tony Lazanis: questioned why there was less money coming in then expected; as he thought there would be $400,000; and that Council should use the money for the Valley's benefit and keep it in Mirabeau; and he wants more money given to the Valley Chamber so they can promote the Valley business. Dick Behm, 3626 S Ridgeview Drive: wanted to remind Council that he was on the Hearts of Gold Festival in Spokane Valley, and that the Valley float was taken all over the country; and there were 150 units in our parade here including 37 floats from other communities who brought in hundreds of people, and he would love to see the Hearts of Gold festival return as Valleyfest. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Councilmember DeVleming; Opposed: Mayor Wilhite, Deputy Mayor Munson, and Councilmembers Schimmels, Taylor, Flanigan, and Denenny. Abstentions: None. Motion failed. Council Meeting: 12 -13 -05 Page 3 of 7 Approved by Council: 01 -10 -06 In response to Council questions concerning last year's reserves and next year's allocations, Finance Director Thompson said there is approximately $30,000 to $40,000 in reserves for the current year; and it appears that of the $300,000 budgeted, it will be closer to $360,000, which agrees with the information received from hotels regarding an increase in their clientele; and suggests not allocating anything over the $300,000 yet. Councilmember Flanigan mentioned that the reserve from 2005 is a contingency to be used as done in the past; and that the committee recommended that CenterPlace could later request additional funds up to $20,000 from any reserves that might be available at the end of the year; and that the reserves are carried over from year to year. Third Motion: It was moved by Councilmember DeVleming and seconded by Councilmember Denenny to approve the amended budget items for this fund. It was afterwards clarified that the motion is to approve all the items in their amended form as shown on the list above.] Mayor Wilhite invited public comment. Harry Sladich, 801 W. Riverside, speaking on behalf of the Sports Commission and the CVB, expressed thanks to the Council for the trust and the allocation of funds. Philip Rudy, 10720 E. Fruithill: said that he is a member of the Executive Committee of the Spokane Valley Chamber of Commerce, that they are looking forward to the funds if they become available; and they are working on some innovative ideas for a float. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 5. Presentation: Valley Corridor (Sprague /Appleway) Project Update — Neil Kersten/Steve Worley Senior Engineer Worley said that this agenda item was to have been an update on the Valley Corridor Environmental Study, and as a segue to the next agenda item; that a contract was approved last June with CH2M Hill to assist in the environmental process in putting together a purpose and needs statement for the extension of the couplet, for whatever was the preferred alternative; that he had anticipated having information related to some of those alternatives that would be presented to the stakeholder groups, with the idea of holding a stakeholder meeting prior to tonight; but due to delays in getting the regional traffic model issues rectified, such ITD (interdisciplinary team) meeting was not held and is now scheduled for this Friday. Mr. Worley said that CH2M Hill and staff have been working together to get the regional traffic model to an agreed point; but our traffic engineer found there still exists an error in the number of trips crossing state line on I -90, which significantly impacts the volumes of traffic on our streets twenty years from now; that further changes were made, and Friday's ITD meeting will discuss alternatives to come up with a short list to proceed with further analysis, with the ultimate goal of being able to present to Council a list of alternatives, along with all pros and cons; and a narrowed down process to select a preferred alternative. After a brief discussion concerning the model's traffic numbers, Mr. Worley stated that staff hopes to be able to come up with a preferred alternative early next year; and such preferred alternatives needs to be on the Spokane Metropolitan Transportation Plan prior to July of this year in order to save the $4.2 million allocated from the TIB for the project that comes from this process; with construction possibly starting late 2007 or early 2008. 6. Motion Consideration: Sprague Appleway Traffic Flow Corridor Configuration from University Road to I90 — Neil Kersten /Steve Worley Engineer Worley stated that Council previously asked that this item be brought forward in anticipation of the previous agenda presentation, and that staff is available to help with Council's deliberation on the issue. Council /staff discussion included traffic counts underway, changing direction on Sprague between University and Dishman and any resulting impact on the corridor project; that staff has heard comments from the community suggesting staff evaluate alternatives in terms of Sprague Avenue, but that staff has not received any direction to do anything different from what is currently in place on Sprague; and projected peak -hour traffic numbers on various parts of the couplet. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Munson and seconded by Councilmember Denenny, to change the direction of Sprague between the north and south streets of University and Dishman Mica, to a two -way street. That motion generated much discussion including the technical information concerning traffic patterns; auto row and the need for further information from them; the desire to have the study results Council Meeting: 12 -13 -05 Page 4 of 7 Approved by Council: 01 -10 -06 before making any recommendations; funding needed if the direction were changed back to two -way; and if there is a need or community desire to address this issue now. Mayor Wilhite invited public comment. Philip Rudy, 5647 N Fruithill: said he represents Spokane Valley Business Association, that they have trouble with the traffic modeling and feels that information is necessary before any decision can be made; that he recommends having the Comprehensive Plan finalized prior to making such decision; and he recommends the motion be withdrawn and Council take no action now. Howard Herman, 117 N McDonald: said that there is a public safety issue regarding Fire Station #1 and if the Fire Station receives a call to go north, east or south they must first go west taking away precious response time. Tony Lazanis, E Empire: said it was a mistake to begin with making Sprague a two -way; and that Council needs to make a decision of what is best for the people who use it and for businesses who use it; and suggests having the road two ways from Argonne to University. Dick Behm, 9405 E Sprague: said he owns a business in that area; and is a Board member of the Spokane Valley Business Association; that not everyone is in agreement, but suggests waiting another six months as it won't make any difference as they have waited for three years; that he wants to see what the study suggests; and recommends killing the motion and finishing the Comprehensive Plan. Ray Perry, 2020 N Eli: stated he is not really affected by the road except when he wants to shop; and suggests Council throw out the motion and wait until the study is completed; and not to waste money but to leave the road as it is at least for now. Bill Gothmann, 10010 E 48 recommends voting against the motion; said during his campaigning most comments he received were concerning finishing the couplet, and that he perhaps only received one comment to reverse the road. Deputy Mayor Munson stated his preference to withdraw the motion, but the seconder denied the withdraw request. Vote: by Acclamation: In Favor: Deputy Mayor Munson. Opposed: Mayor Wilhite, and Councilmembers Schimmels, Taylor, Denenny, Flanigan and DeVleming. Abstentions: None. Motion failed. Mayor Wilhite called for a recess at 7:49 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 7:55 p.m. 6a. Consent Agenda Item ld: Approval of Council Appointments to Listed Committees /Boards/ Commissions — Mayor Wilhite First Motion: Growth Management Steering Committee. Mayor Wilhite explained that Councilmember Taylor indicated he would tender his resignation from the Growth Management Steering Committee in order to accommodate an appointment of Councilmember DeVleming to that position. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Munson and seconded, to approve the appointment of Councilmember DeVleming to take the place of Councilmember Taylor on the Growth Management Steering Committee. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. Second Motion: Finance Committee. Councilmember DeVleming voiced his request to be placed on the Finance Committee, noting that the membership on that committee has not changed since inception. Mayor Wilhite indicated she would take that under consideration; that she reviewed which councilmembers were involved with which committee to try to keep committee representation equally spread out among councilmembers. It was moved by Councilmember DeVleming and seconded by Councilmember Denenny to pull the appointments of the finance committee until council has had an opportunity for further review. Deputy Mayor Munson, as a point of order, stated that it is his understanding the Council's position is Council Meeting: 12 -13 -05 Page 5 of 7 Approved by Council: 01 -10 -06 to approve or disapprove the appointments, rather than name people to be appointed; and therefore suggested that the motion is out of order. City Manager Mercier stated he feels the motion is not out of order as the essence of the motion is not to deny the Mayor the opportunity to make an appointment, but was requesting a reservation of the timing of that appointment for a later period. Councilmember Taylor stated that there is no set term for the finance committee, that perhaps there should be; and that the entire committee list was not in the past, brought before council as a whole document; and suggested each Councilmember review each committee to try to determine any potential changes. Councilmember Denenny asked if it would be amenable to defer the appointments until 2006, and to then ask input from Councilmembers for their appointment preference. Vote by acclamation: In Favor: Councilmembers DeVleming, Denenny, Flanigan, Taylor. Opposed: Mayor Wilhite, Deputy Mayor Munson, and Councilmember Schimmels. Motion carried and finance committee appointments deferred. City Manager Mercier reminded Council that there are a number of councilmember committee terms which expire the end of this month; and that Council should entertain a motion to deal with those, or present an overall motion to continue in office, all councilmember representations until changed at a later date, so that between the end of December 31, 2005 and the first meeting in January, there will not be committees with no council representation. Councilmember Denenny said that by making appointments at the end of the year, the current Council would be making appointments which would affect another sitting council; and he stated his feelings that the appointments should be made by the new council. Mr. Mercier said that for tonight, he seeks an action by council which will continue the current appointments until replaced by future council action. Third Motion: Committee List. It was moved by Mayor Wilhite and seconded by Councilmember Denenny, to approve the appointments as listed with the exception of the Finance Committee, which will be a continuation. Mayor Wilhite called for the question. Vote on calling the question: In Favor: Mayor Wilhite, Deputy Mayor Munson, and Councilmember Schimmels Opposed: Councilmember Taylor, DeVleming, Flanigan, and Denenny. The motion failed and discussion continued concerning when best to consider the list of appointments. Mayor Wilhite then withdrew her motion, with concurrence from the seconder. Fourth Motion: Continued Committee List Consideration. It was moved by Mayor Wilhite and seconded to continue all appointments until the first meeting in January. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 6b. Consent Agenda Item lj: Approval of STA Bus Shelter Request and Agreement Deputy Mayor Munson stated his opposition to the bus stop on the north side of Indiana, and of his overall opposition to the request as he feels it is not safe to approve the bus shop as explained under option #1. It was moved by Councilmember Flanigan and seconded, to approve STA 's request and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement under option #1. After discussion on the proposal, including the placement of the shelter and all safety aspects, Councilmember Taylor called for the question. Vote on the call for the question: In Favor: Mayor Wilhite, and Councilmembers Taylor, Denenny, Flanigan and DeVleming. Opposed: Councilmember Schimmels. Motion carried and the question was taken. Vote on the motion to approve the STA Bus Shelter Request and Agreement: In Favor: Mayor Wilhite, and Councilmembers Taylor, Flanigan, Denenny, and DeVleming. Opposed: Deputy Mayor Munson and Councilmember Schimmels. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Wilhite invited public comment; no comments were offered. Council Meeting: 12 -13 -05 Page 6 of 7 Approved by Council: 01 -10 -06 ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS: 6c. Pending County Tax Increment Financing Proposal — Dave Mercier /Cary Driskell City Manager Mercier explained that on November 15, bond council gave a briefing to the Board of County Commissioners on a perspective tax increment financing (TIF) proposal in the UGA (Urban Growth Area) between our boundaries and Liberty Lake; that at that time there were numerous questions concerning how that economic development tool would be applied, whether it would be according to the statute's intent, and that there was a need for additional information, which was thought to be forthcoming in the form of an ordinance specifying terms and conditions for the proposal. Mr. Mercier said that nothing since has been heard of that proposal until this morning when there was a notice of a public hearing filed by the County Commissioners last Friday. Mr. Mercier explained that the document alerts the community that a public hearing will be held at 5 p.m. next Tuesday, and in discussions with at least one County Commissioner this morning, there was an indication they might vote on that proposal Tuesday. Mr. Mercier further explained that the TIF legislation is a useful tool; but when the legislature adopted it for Washington State, it was not totally embraced; leading to trepidation voiced by at least one County Commissioner last November about making certain they are meeting the letter of the law. Mr. Mercier said there are few economic tools available for municipal and county jurisdictions in the state, so this is one which we would like to see well applied when the opportunity arises; and as this Council has previously stated, they have a belief that significant happenings in the UGA between Liberty Lake and Spokane Valley would be a matter of great communication occurring with all involved, and to date, he is unaware of any communication occurring with representatives of this City regarding that proposal; and it therefore appears we are operating from an information deficit. Mr. Mercier said he would like to have two City staff members attend the hearing and ask questions which we thought a prepared ordinance might have answered, thereby making the County Commissioners aware that we recognize there is potential for many transportation impacts, and right now, there is insufficient data available to make a judgment of what those affects might be. Council discussion included traffic mitigation and stoplights on Barker Road and Harvard Road; development outside our boundaries which would use our infrastructure; not being involved in all discussions concerning the TIF boundary; Fire District #1's taxing authority; and the importance of our staff attending the public hearing; and of the possibility of including further council discussion prior to Council adjourning into Executive Session at the December 19 Special Meeting. Council went through the materials prepared by Jeffrey C. Nave concerning Tax Increment Financing, and in particular page 32 describing how to halt the TI_F creation process; and further mentioned the need for additional communication with the County. Councilmember DeVleming suggested that agenda items for the next joint meeting with the County Commissioners should be joint planning and contracting; and that such meeting should occur soon. DISCUSSION: Council Deliberation: Draft Comprehensive Plan, Land Use and /or Utilities Chapter In the interest of time, there was Council consensus that this item be postponed to another meeting. It was moved by Councilmember Flanigan, seconded, and unanimously agreed to adjourn. • The meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m. AT ES Christine Bainbridge, C Clerk Council Meeting: 12 -13 -05 Approved by Council: 01 -10 -06 Diana Wilhite, Mayor Page 7 of 7 an cµ pokane galley PUBLIC CO:MNIENT SIGN -IN SHEET SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING Date: December 13, 2005 Citizen comments: Eor tse�uiw .istiinyit±v�±�ak't�toroug��is aco�n>�c�l Please include your name, address and telephone number for the record. Your time will be limited to three (3 minutes) NAME PLEASE PRINT 4-61t),) trut/kA) TOPIC OF CONCERN ADDRESS TELEPHONE 1105 SPOKANE COUNTY, WASITINGTON 5 NOTICE OF HEARING ON PROPOSE]) COMMUNITY REVITALIZATION FINANCING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held at 5:00 P.M., or as soon as possible thereafter, on December 20, 2005, in the Commissioners' Assembly Room located in the Lower Level of the Public Works Building at 1029 West Broadway Avenue, Spokane, Washington 99260, to discuss certain public improvements, as further described below (the "Public Improvements "), to be made within the boundaries of a proposed increment area to be designated IA No. 2005 -01 ( "IA No. 2005 -01 ") and .financed in whole or in part with community revitalization financing. _ Purpose: At this public hearing, persons who desire to comment may appear and state their views relating to the proposed financing of the Public Improvements in whole or in part with community revitalization financing. The Public Improvements include the acquisition, construction and installation of the following: 1.' Streets, roads and sidewalks; 2. Curbs and gutters; 3. Street lighting; 4. Water and sewer lines; and 5. Other work as may be necessary in conjunction with development of IA No. 2005 -01. Estimated Costs: The estimated cost of. the Public Improvements is estimated to be no more than $15 million. Portion of the Costs of the Public Improvements to be Borne by Community Revitalization Financing: Limited to the tax allocation revenues generated from IA No. 2005- 01. Other Sources of Revenues to Finance the Public Improvements: The developer shall pay the difference between the costs of the Public Improvements and the amount of the tax allocation revenues generated from IA No. 2005 -01. Boundaries of IA No. 2005 -01: IA No. 2005 -01 is described as follows: Portions of Sections 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10, 15, 16 and 17, Township 25N, Range 45E, W.M. more particularly described as follows: 5 1105 13EG]N ING at the intersection of the Northerly Right of Way line of Euclid Avenue and the North/South center of Section line of said Section 5; thence Southerly along the North /South center of Section lines of said Sections 5, 8 and 17 to the Southerly Right of Way line of Appleway Avenue; thence Easterly along said southerly Right of Way line to the intersection of the Southerly Right of Way line of Country vista Drive; thence continuing Easterly along said Southerly Right of Way line of Country Vista Drive to the North/South center of Section line of said Section 16; thence Northerly along said North/South center of Section line to the Southerly Right of Way line of Interstate 90; thence Easterly along said Southerly Right of Way line to the intersection with a line 285 feet more or less Westerly of and parallel with the East line of Section 10; thence Northerly along said parallel line to the Northerly ordinary high water line of the Spokane River; thence Westerly along said ordinary high water line to the Easterly Right of Way line of Harvard Road; thence Northerly along said Easterly Right of Way line to the North Right of Way line of Euclid Avenue; thence Westerly along said Northerly Right of Way line to the POINT OF BEG-INNING. Situate in the County of Spokane, state of Washington. Estimated Period During which Community Revitalization Financing is Contemplated to be Used: The estimated time period is 5 years from the date the tax allocation revenues are first collected. All meetings and hearings will be conducted in facilities that are accessible to all members of the public. Additional information with regard to the accessibility of the Public Works Building, Commissioners' Assembly Room, or notification of an ADA accommodation should be made to Danicla Erickson, Clerk of the Board, at (509) 477 -2265. DATED this 9th day of D - ber, 2005. �� �4 G ti - 'F , SPOKANE CO !. , WASHINGTON c r„ !ll " clA s .,.t. • - BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BY: Daniela Erickson, Clerk of the Board Spokane County Commissioners f*emrim..m ■emeewermp. Zia. "Irr�1E'� 4 ` i�1!>il�sEr %rig, 2. 1"T'" ' j'01* al Wt. al;F "M,IIII'1� IRE GREE`MM KF4 iNitRURANGE • 1 p • • '1 1 • • . n S 194 1 • ralikda ii l • i i i. i. .1 • 1.1 It.TY LARS ED Infrastructure Financing: Streets Proposed Streets Proposed Signalized intersection Additional Planned Streets Pedestrian Crossing RIVER DISTRICT tor sruf rw,vs ro.i riv 4 .7 t i P,44- Trip.. ft}.3uw .i sit) rt Atkx5' i, rot Affirm 'Am tv'llALLY tN Nti/t4 t 111 tki Mr Proposed '111• Houndar►y • Proposed Harvard Rd Mitigation Boundary, Budget Suggestions for 2003 Tax Increment Financing (Again) 2010 "Sunset" Provision is Repealed by Jeffrey C. Nave, Foster Pepper & Shefelman PLLC (Editor's Note: This article was reprinted with permission, from ' "llfunicrpal & Public Penance News. Spring 2002) On March 12, 2002, Governor Locke signed Substitute House Hill 2592 (Chapter 12, Laws of 2002). This bill remedied one of the fatal flaws in the tax increment financing ( "TIF ") statutes enacted in 2001 — it repelled the 2010 expiration date applying to such statutes. The hill also made certain "housekeeping" amendments to clarify the existing statutes. The amendments take effect on Jtmc 13, 2002. Those of you following thc recent efforts to bring TIF to Washington State understand that the repeal of the "sunset" provision is big news. Many more TIF projects will be financially feasible because the tax allocation schcmc established by chapter 39.89 RCW can extend for an indefinite period of time. In light of this significant change, we are providing a revised summary of the TT laws. The Law Chapter 212, Laws of 2011 (generally codified in chapter 39.89 RCW ), as amended by Chapter 12, Laws of 2002. Chapter 39.88 RCW, thc prior TIF statutory schcmc, was ruled unconstitutional in Spokane v. Leonard (1995) on the grounds it diverted tax revenue intended to support the common schools. (The voters rejected attempts in 1973, 1982 and 1985 to amend thc Washington Constitution and authorize tax increment financing.) Who Can Initiate TIF Projects? Cities; counties; and port districts. Which Local Governments Are Authorized to Participate in TIF Projects? Rural county library districts; intercounty rural library districts; metropolitan park distracts; counties; park and recreation service areas; park and recreation districts; mad districts; fire protection districts; port districts; public utility districts; cultural arts, stadium and convention center districts; cemetery districts; public hospital districts; and flood control lone districts. 28 V What Is TIF? Designated "community revitalization financing" in thc Washington statutes — but commonly known as "tax increment financing" — TIF generally refers to a financing mechanism that allows a local government to "trap" increased property tax revenue resulting from the growth of assessed value within an increment arca This tax revenue services debt issued to finance public improvements that spur private development within the increment area Unlike other tax increment laws around the Country, Washington's TIF laws do not authorize thc issuance of special revenue bonds_ Rather, such laws merely pmvidc an additional source of revenue (i.e. a portion of the regular taxes levied by other taxing districts) to apply toward debt service on the issuer's general indebtedness. What Is an "Increment Area "? An "increment area" is a geographic arca within the city, county or port district that creates the increment arca. In this sense, increment areas are similar to local improvement districts. How Are Increment Areas Created? What Are the Purposes for Which TIF Is Authorized? Budget Suggestions for 2003 By thc adoption of an ordinance (in thc casc of cities) or a resolution (in thc case of counties and port districts) after a public hearing is held regarding thc proposed financing of the public improvement Unlike laws relating to local improvement districts, the TIF laws do not: (i) require that notice be mailed to ptuterty owners within the proposed increment area; (ii) establish protest procedures; or (iii) limit the authority to create an increment area if protests are made at the hearing Do Cities, Counties and Port Districts Have Free Reign to Create Increment Areas? No. Various factors must be present before an increment area can he created —(i) the entity creating the increment area must expect that the proposed public improvements will encourage private development and increase thc fair market value of real property within thc increment area, (ii) the anticipated private development must be consistent with countywide planning policies adopted undcr thc Growth Management Act, and (iii) the anticipated private development must be consistent with the entity's comprehensive plan and development regulations adopted under the Growth Management Act. The ordinance /resolution creating the increment area must contain findings in this regard. Tax allocation revenues can be spent only "to finance public improvement costs associated with thc public improvements financed in whole or in part by community revitalization financing." 29 Budget Suggestions for 2003 How Are "Public Improvement Costs" Defined for Purposes of the TIF Laws? "Public improvement costs" are defined broadly. They include costs of design, planning, acquisition, construction, rehabilitation, improvement and installation of "public improvements;" relocation costs; and financing costs. Which "Public Improvements" Are Authorized by the TIF Laws? The phrase "public improvements" includes more than bricks and mortar (and its use throughout the statutes is awkward as a result). "Public impmvcmcnts" arc defined to mean (i) "infrastructure improvements" and (ii) "expenditures" for environmental analysis, professional management, planning, promotion within the increment area, management and promotion of retail trade activities in the increment area, maintenance and security for common or public areas in the increment arca, and historic preservation activities. While maintenance, security and promotion expenditures are defined to be "public improvcrncnts," such expenditures are not included within the definition of "public improvement costs." !fiend literally, thc only way tax allocation revenue can be used to pay for maintenance, security and promotion within thc increment aria is if bonds art issued to finance such expenditures. What Are "Tax Allocation Revenues "? Those tax revenues derived from the imposition of "regular property taxes" on 75% of any increase in thc true and fair value of real property in an increment arca that is placed on thc tax rolls after the increment arca is created. The entity creating an increment arca can agree to take less tax revenue than the maximum allowed by the TIF laws, so long as bond debt service, bond reserve, and other bond covenant requirements are satisfied. Under such circumstances, the "tax allocation revenues" would be the tax revenues actually distributed to finance thc public improvements. What Taxes Are Subject to TIF Allocation? "Regular property taxes," which are defined for TIF purposes to mean property tax levies that (i) are subject to the aggregate limitation sct forth in RCW 8452.043 (i.e. the "$5.90 per $ 1,000 assessed value" limitation) and 84.52.050 (i.c. thc "tine percent" limitation), or (ii) are levied by a port district ur a public utility district. What Taxes Are Excluded from TIF Allocation? Regular property taxes levied by thc State for thc support of the common schools; • Regular property taxes levied by a port district or a public utility district. to the extent the port district or public utility district specifies (e,g. in the resolution submitting the levy request to the county assessor) that the tax receipts will be used to make required debt service payments on general indebtedness; • Voter - approved regular property tax levies to fund emergency medical services; 30 • Regular property taxes levied by counties under RCW 8434.230 to fund the acquisition of open space and conservation fixtures; • Voter- approved regular property tat lc-vies by counties, cities and towns to fund affordable housing for low - income households; and • Certain voter - approved regular property taxes levied by metropolitan park districts. What Is the Maximum Levy Rate Subject to TIF Allocation? The maximum levy rate subject to allocation under chapter 39.98 RCW is $7.70 per $1,000 of assessed value of taxable property. However, it is highly unlikely that regular property taxes within an ine.e Gwent area would be levied at such an aggregate rate_ Under existing laws, this can only occur if: (i) thc aggnegatc levy rate within the increment arca for all taxing districts subject to RCW 84.52.043 is S5.90 per S1,000 of assessed value; (ii) a port district is levying regular property taxes within the increment area for general purposes, dredging purposes and industrial development purposes (e.g. for an aggregate levy rate of $135 per S 1,000 of assessed value); (iii) a public utility district is levying regular property taxes within thc increment arca (e.g. for an aggregate levy ratc of S0.45 per $ 1,(x)0 of assessed value); and (iv) neither the port district nor the public utility district has specified that the receipts from such tax levies will be used to pay debt service on general indebtedness. When Are Tax Allocation Revenues First Distributed? During the year after thc increment arca is created. Who Allocates the Assessed Values for TIF Purposes? The county assessor. The TIF laws do not authorize a county assessor to revalue property within the increment area unless thc revaluation is pursuant to the assessor's revaluation plan. In other words, assessors are not authorized to make special revaluations solely to accommodate TIF financing. Who Distributes Tax Revenues for TIF Purposes? The county treasurer Is TIF Financially Feasible? Budget Suggestions for 2003 Yes, under certain circumstances. Assessed value within an increment area must increase by approximately $18 million to support each S1 million ofT1F bonds. Stated conversely, approximately S55,000 of TIF bonds can be supported by each $1 million increase of assessed value within the increment area. These estimates assume various factors, including (i) a 20 -year bond amortization period; (ii) an interest rate of 5% per annum; (iii) thc tax allocation revenues will be based on an aggregate regular property tax rate of S5.90 per $1,000 of assessed value; and (iv) the entity creating an increment area is entitled to 75% of the increase regular property tat revenues resulting from the growth of assessed values within the increment area. 31 Budget Suggestions for 2003 When Does the Tax Allocation Process Terminate? The TIF tart distribution scheme terminates when tax allocation revenues are no longer necessary or obligated to pay the costs of the public improvements. Because the "sunset" provision was removed from the TIF laws in 2002, a tax allocation program can be extended for an indefinite period of time. Other taxing districts may require a specific terminate date in the written agreements required by the TIF laws. Can Members of the Public Halt the TIF Creation Process? Yes, but in a very limited way. A member of the public can challenge the validity of the TIF statutes or the formation process. However, any such challenge must be commenced within 30 days after notice is published regarding the creation of the increment area. Can Other Local Governments Halt the TIF Creation Process? Yes. Fire protection districts have ultimate "veto" power over the creation of the increment areas. A fire protection district must agree to participate in the TIF project for thc project to proceed. In addition, taxing districts that levy at least 75% of the regular property tax within the increment area must approve the TIF project by means of a written agreement. A TM' project cannot proceed without this agreement. What Risks Are Unique to Local Governments Issuing TIF Bonds? The entity creating an increment arca will receive no tax allocation revenues if the assessed value of the increment area declines below its original amount, or if a court determines thc TIF is unconstitutional. Washington's newest TIF laws have not been tested in court. While they appear to address many of the shortcomings of thc prior laws, there can be no guarantee the new laws are constitutional. TIF bonds are payable from tax revenues. As a result, such bonds arc treated as "general indebtedness" undcr the TIF laws. This is consistent with court decisions construing the Washington Constitution_ Although "nonpublic participants" in TIF financings may be required to provide "adequate security to protect the public investment" in the increment area the issuer's general fund ultimately may be at risk to thc extent tax allocation revenues arc insufficient to pay debt service on TiF bonds. Because TiF bonds will be a "general indehtedness," such bonds will count against an issuer's constitutional and statutory debt limits. Observations and Suggestions Municipalities that arc considering whether to create an increment area should prepare a detailed analysis of the historical and anticipated tax levy rates within the proposed increment area, as well as the purpose of each such tax. This analysis should consider the potential impacts of future limitations on the amount by which regular property taxes can increase —such as thc limitations imposed by initiative 747.Only after such 32 t Budget Suggestions for 2003 an analysis is prepared can one estimate the aggregate tax rate that should be used in projecting future tax allocation revenues for a specific increment area Because significant increases in assessed value of property must occur in the increment arca before taxi allocation revenues will be sufficient to finance meaningful improvements, community revitalization financing favors projects involving undeveloped and under - developed property (i.e. where the potential for growth in assessed value is the greatest). TIF bonds will be most useful if they arc issued in conjunction with other types of bonds, such as revenue bonds or special assessment bonds, or if additional sources of revenue arc pledged to the payment of 17F bonds. For political reasons, a city, county or port may be required to distribute a portion of their tax allocation revenues to other taxing districts (e.g. if necec+ry to secure the consent of those taxing districts.) Until a court passes upon the constitutionality oldie TIF laws, it is unlikely that any bond counsel firm will be willing to render an unqualified approving opinion regarding bonds that are solely secured by tax allocation revenues. Such opinions likely will bc rendered for general obligation bonds that are secured by a pledge of the issuer's full faith and credit (even if tax allocation revenues are expected to bc the primary source of repayment). We look forward to working with our clients as they consider this new economic development tool. 33 1 + ML gAIIillisn".0 MIN I " a,i:lu' .:.. -. 7a R �c�l �L. -IIi1= fli!'1II ■ 11 1; pnnu, 1 _ : , =11i a te .. I�!sigo Q1L.11.i ;i: =111111n• iiffii ��pp 1 � � �� F via i, ys =! b.° E � ,II. .111III1m d El io= #gam- 61.411ff Mar IF wino uk • ii i • m..•11Fr . . iii : mil aii1 wIrl�r � ,�:; 11 MI= ralrilMEPP 4111FIMPSE. !mill HARVARD ROAD MITIGATION BOUNDARY EXISTING & PROPOSED Phase I Phase II Phase III Phase IV (1) This improvement is already bonded for and has had trips issued against it. (2) This improvement will be shared $540,000 by The Plan and $2,349,313 by individual building developers at the time of their building permits. Note: The public agencies have a number of options available to them during the term of this plan to obtain the difference between the mitigation fee and the total mitigation plan. The estimated fees at the adoption of the plan are $4,216,412 and the estimated project cost are $4,960,488. In accordance with Policy 10, both values are subject to periodic revision. Liberty Lake Transportation Group PROJECT PHASMIG • Relocate west bound off rain') • Widen Harvard Rd north of I -90 • Realign Mission Ave west of Harvard Rd • Signalize Mission Ave / Harvard Rd. Intersection _ • Construct 2 Iane Country Vista extension Liberty Lake Drive to Appleway west of Greenacres fly over $1,425,956 • Widen I -90 bridge for additional north bound lane • Construct northbound Liberty lake drive to west Westbound I -90 loop ramp • Widen Country Vista Dr & Mission to 4/5 lanes • Improve Liberty Lake Drive / Appleway Intersection • Widen east bound.off ramp, 1 -90 to Liberty Lake Dr. ne ri fin.- larva, Total Costs, all Phases $512,500 $219,037 $477, 867 $825,605 $495,000 $540,000 (2) $174,810 $289,710 $4,960,485 37 'Harvard Road Mitigation Plan ConinhittecS: judiciary Government Operations & Elections Joint Administrative Rules Review Committee November 2, 2005 Jack. Mayfield 1481.6 C. 36 Ave. Veradale, WA 99037 Dear Jack, Thank you for writing to me with your concerns regarding the protection of Washington's private property rights in light of the U.S. Supreme Court decision last June in Kelo v. New London. According to Washington State Attorney General Rob McK.eluia, Article 1, Section 16 of the Washington State Constitution is clear that private property shall not be taken for private use; aijd.the Washuigton State Supreme Court has defined the "public benefit "limitation more narrowly th' the definition used by the *U.S. Supreme Court in the Kelo decision. After the Kelo decision, a lawyer for the institute of Justice which defended the private landowners rights in the Kelo case, said that the "only recourse for property owners facing condemnation under eminent domain Would be to sue in state court based on the property rights provisions of eacli state's constitution." There is clearly a distinction bet yeen the Fifth Amendment to the Iinited.States Constitution and Article 1, Section 16 of the WaChington State Constitution. Washin> ton's •constitution contains language.sliecifically prohibiting •oveininent from taking private lroperty,_ for private use. .l: appreciate your taking the time to contact me with your concerns generated by the Kelo decision and J: assure you that I am a strong advocate for the protection of private property rights. Sincerely, Washington State Senate Senator Bob McCaslin 4th Legislative District Seiaator'1 ob " Olympia Office: 112 Iry Newhouse Building PO I3ox 40404 Olympia, WA 98504 -0404 (360) 786 -7606