2004, 10-26 Regular Meeting MinutesMayor DeVleming called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m., and welcomed everyone to the 54`" meeting.
Attendance:
Councilmembers:
Michael DeVleming, Mayor
Diana Wilhite, Deputy Mayor
Dick Denenny, Councilmember
Mike Flanigan, Councilmember
Steve Taylor, Councilmember
Gary Schimmels, Councilmember
Richard Munson, Councilmember
MINUTES
City of Spokane Valley
City Council Regular Meeting
Tuesday, October 26, 2004
Staff:
David Mercier, City Manager
Nina Regor, Deputy City Attorney
Stanley Schwartz, City Attorney
Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney
Marina Sukup, Community Development Director
Mike Jackson, Parks & Recreation Director
Neil Kersten, Public Works Director
Ken Thompson, Finance Director
Cal Walker, Police Chief
Courtney Moore, Accountant /Budget Analyst
Tom Scholtens, Building Official
Bing (Greg) Bingaman, IT Specialist
Sue Pearson, Deputy City Clerk
Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Mayor DeVleming led the Pledge of Allegiance.
INVOCATION: Pastor Eric Hinnenkamp, of New Hope Bible Church, gave the invocation.
ROLL CALL City Clerk Bainbridge called roll; all Councilmembers were present.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA Mayor DeVleming announced he would like to add item #9a: Mayoral
Appointment: to nominate an appointment to the Student Advisory Council. It was moved by Mayor
DeVleming and seconded by Deputy Mayor Wilhite to approve the amended agenda. Vote by
Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried.
COMMITTEE, BOARD, LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS
Councilmember Munson: reported that he attended the Growth Management Advisory Committee
meeting where they passed the County -wide planning policies recommended by the Citizens and
Technical Review Committees; and that they now have a revised set of County -wide planning policies to
guide the County's effort to comply with the Growth Management Act.
Councilmember Taylor: gave his congratulations to the subcommittee on the revised updated planning
policies.
Councilmember Schimmels: said that he attended the Spokane Regional Transportation meeting a few
weeks ago, that they are working with their budgets and discussed funding situations that affect the city;
that he and most of the council attended the Association of Washington Cities meetings; and that he also
attended the Weed and Seed meeting with the Mayor last week; that he attended the Transportation
Commission meeting with WSDOT in Seattle last week and that they are meeting tomorrow morning at
Spokane Community College at 8 a.m. He also mentioned that he received information from the City of
Council Meeting Minutes: 10 -26 -04 Page 1 of 7
Approved: 11 -09 -04
Spokane Valley regarding business license information and asked that staff distribute copies of that to all
Councilmembers as an informational item.
Councilmember Denenny: explained that he attended the Executive Board Meeting of Spokane Regional
Health Department; and reminded everyone of the evening televised STA meetings.
Councilmember Flanigan: reported that he attended last Wednesday's Ad Hoc Library Committee
Meeting for analysis of received proposals, and that there was a large turnout; that they will meet again
tomorrow night with the goal to reach a recommendation to bring before Council; that he attended the
Open House at Sports USA; and that the City received seven responses to the Hotel /Motel Request For
Proposals.
Deputy Mayor Wilhite: stated that she also attended the Ad Hoc Library Committee meeting; and standing
in for Mr. Taylor, she attended the Steering Committee of Elected Officials dealing with the final draft of
the County -wide Planning Policies; and also that the Washington Policy Center came to Spokane and that
she attended that meeting which discussed health care issues in our community.
MAYOR'S REPORT: Mayor DeVleming mentioned planning and work is under way for this year's
Celebration of Lights, which is the community Christmas tree lighting project scheduled for December 2,
2004; and that the Centennial Trail Board has been meeting to respond to the State regarding requiring a
parking fee for access to the trailhead use at Riverside State Park.
PUBLIC COMMENTS Mayor DeVleming invited public comment.
Grace Graham, 710 N McCabe Rd, Spokane Valley Wa: asked what could be done about getting different
codes, rules and regulations to prohibit big trucks and trailers from parking on residential streets; that she
has been putting up with that since early spring; that the trucks park across from the school at Broadway
and McCabe, and she feels that makes for a dangerous condition with children in area. She handed
pictures to the City Clerk for later council viewing.
John Snediker, 18316 E Broadway, Spokane Valley: said that the Library Transition Report mentioned the
possibility of annexing and that could still happen later; that he feels the Library District is doing a great
job; and mentioned some of the positive comments heard at the last Ad Hoc Library Meeting.
Debra Cham, 16004 E 6 Lane, Spokane Valley: said she feels we should contract with the Library
District for another year then vote on annexation; she gave three reasons for not going with LSSI which is
a profit- motivated company; she said that LSSI relies on volunteer labor; that we would lose our
investment if we had to start over with LSSI; that we have a decades -old relationship with SCLD; and she
feels we should keep tax dollars within the community instead of sending them to another state; that she
wants us to keep the fine library system we have and not give it to a profit motivated business.
Rich Bryant, S Valley, 12025 East 31' spoke concerning the ongoing comprehensive plan; said he
realizes it is governed by law; but asks how can we determine where or to even start planning for zoning
changes if we haven't figured out where the city center will be; that he understood the proposed light rail
has a stand -alone project for the U -City area, and they already determined where the city center could be;
that he read that developers can pay an $1800 fee and have a zoning change so money talks and
individuals who have been there for years have no say.
Mayor DeVleming invited further public comment; no further comments were offered.
Council Meeting Minutes: 10 -26 -04 Page 2 of 7
Approved: 11 -09 -04
VOUCHER LIST
VOUCHER
TOTAL VOUCHER
DATE
Number(s)
AMOUNT
10 -06 -04
5673 -5705
37,974.55
GRAND TOTAL
37,974.55
1. PUBLIC HEARING: Final 2005 Budget Hearing — Ken Thompson
Mayor DeVleming opened the public hearing at 6:23 p.m. Finance Director Thompson said that staff has
worked to place budget information on our website; he then introduced Courtney Moore, member of the
finance division who has worked on the first six or seven items on tonight's agenda. Director Thompson
explained that tonight's hearing for the 2005 budget is the third budget hearing and the second hearing on
the full budget; that we have a balanced budget for 2005 of $44 million dollars, which is down about 13%
from the current year; the budget includes funds for CenterPlace operations, a service level reserve, and a
contingency in case of an emergency. He also explained that the budget includes $10 million dollars in
capital projects, and a loan repayment of up to $1.3 million dollars, which is on the money we borrowed
from the street fund last year for start -up costs. Mayor DeVleming invited public comment; no comments
were offered. After asking Council for any discussion and receiving none, Mayor DeVleming closed the
public hearing at 6:28 p.m.
2. CONSENT AGENDA Consists of items considered routine which are approved as a group. A
Councilmember may remove an item from the Consent Agenda to be considered separately.
a. Approval of Regular Council Meeting Minutes of October 12, 2004
b. Approval of Study Session Minutes of October 19, 2004
c. Approval of Payroll of October 15 of $108,992.68
d. Approval of Following Vouchers:
It was moved by Mayor DeVleming and seconded by Councilmember Taylor, to waive the reading and
approve the Consent Agenda. Councilmember Flanigan pointed out a clarification in the minutes from
the October 26 meeting regarding outside agency funding, that both EDC and ITA should have separate
line items in future budgets. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions:
None. Motion carried.
NEW BUSINESS
3. Second Reading: Proposed 2005 Annual Property Tax Ordinance 04 -041— Ken Thompson
After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Mayor DeVleming and seconded by
Councilmember Flanigan to approve Ordinance 04 -041. Finance Director Thompson explained that
statute dictates an ordinance is required to levy property taxes, and that it is expected that the property tax
levy would be close to $9,870,000 for 2005 and would be based on a rate of $2.10 per thousand dollars of
assessed value, which is close to the rate we have in the current year. Mayor DeVleming invited public
comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None.
Abstentions: None. Motion carried.
4. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 04 -042 to Confirm Extra 1 +% Levy — Ken Thompson
After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Mayor DeVleming and seconded by
Councilmember Denenny to approve Ordinance 04 -042. Finance Director Thompson stated that a second
requirement under the State budget law is that if we want to collect the 1 % increase in property tax each
year, there must be a separate ordinance; and that it is usually 1 %, but in our case this year only it will
1.37 %, which equates to $126,681; he further explained that our property tax levy in the current year was
approximately $9.2 million dollars, and the State budget law allows us to collect 1% more than that, and
we can receive that if we so specify via an ordinance. Mayor DeVleming invited public comment; no
comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions:
None. Motion carried.
Council Meeting Minutes: 10 -26 -04 Page 3 of 7
Approved: 11 -09 -04
5. First Reading Proposed Ordinance 04 -044 Adopting 2005 Budget — Ken Thompson
After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Councilmember Munson and
seconded by Councilmember Flanigan to advance Ordinance 04 -044 to a second reading. Finance
Director Thompson explained that this is the ordinance which formally adopts the 2005 budget. Mayor
DeVleming invited public comment; no comments were offered. Council briefly discussed the budget
including the beginning and ending balances of the street fund as shown, and noted that this is a "bare -
bones" budget and depletes the street fund to a dangerous low level. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor:
Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried.
6. Proposed Resolution 04 -025 Amending Fee Resolution for 2005 — Ken Thompson
After City Clerk Bainbridge read the resolution title, it was moved by Councilmember Munson and
seconded by Councilmember Denenny to approve Resolution 04 -025. Finance Director Thompson
explained that fees are adopted with a resolution, and as fees change, the resolution must be amended. He
stated there are only two changes in this resolution, and that those changes will not be effective until
2005. He stated that one change is the $13 business registration fee including the $3.00 fee for non - profit
business registration; and that the other change deals with stormwater utility fees of $24.00 per equivalent
residential unit per year, for the 2005 stormwater fund. Discussion turned to the $24 stormwater utility
fee and the use of the 3,160 square foot and how staff derived that figure; of the impact this would have
on some businesses; the overall allocation of the ERU's; and whether staff researched other possible
alternatives. Mayor DeVleming invited public comment.
Dick Behm, 3626 S Ridgeview: said he worked on the water quality advisory board and spent most of that
time dealing with stormwater, stormwater fees, and floodplains, and that this is an unfair fee against
business people; that business property is required to keep their stormwater on site; that most of the
stormwater is caused by city streets and rains and drywells. He said that Spokane County is raising their
fee to $17.00, and he recommends we not increase Spokane Valley's fee higher than the County's; that
historically Spokane Valley doesn't have any stormwater problems because of the nature of our soils and
our drywells, although there are some isolated areas like the Ponderosa; he stated that if the 3100 square
feet were spread across the Valley Mall, their stormwater bill would be tens of thousands of dollars; that
he feels fees are being diverted to streets and street funding and that he takes exception to that; that the
law is clear on how to handle stormwater; and he asks that Council delay the vote and do more due
diligence on this and bring it up again later.
In response to Council question, Public Works Director Kersten explained that this issue is more of a
method of how to accumulate the revenue needed to accomplish the work, and is similar to a school bond
issue where not everyone has children in school but everyone pays the school tax; that this is one method
of calculation but that staff could work to come up with some other ideas. He explained that he and staff
can research how other communities go about the process. Further discussion included what the County
is currently charging and what they intend to charge in future years; our flat rate versus the county's
changing rate; locating and inventory of all stormwater facilities; maintenance (including preventive
maintenance) and monitoring issues; that the county's rate apparently does not cover maintenance;
moving the square footage number (3,160) up or down; plugged drywells and drain areas and flooding
issues this year; being sensitive to businesses with large parking areas; fee issues including equitable
setting of fees, capping, customer classification preference, and a sliding fee scale.
It was moved by Councilmember Denenny and seconded to table this motion. Vote by Acclamation: In
favor: Deputy Mayor Wilhite and Councilmembers Schimmels, Munson, Flanigan, and Denenny.
Opposed: Mayor DeVleming and Councilmember Taylor. Abstentions: None. Motion carried to table
the motion to approve Resolution 04 -025.
Council Meeting Minutes: 10 -26 -04 Page 4 of 7
Approved: 11 -09 -04
7. First Reading Proposed Utility Tax Ordinance 04 -045 — Ken Thompson
After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Councilmember Denenny and
seconded by Councilmember Munson to advance Ordinance 04 -045 to a second reading. Finance
Director Thompson explained that the reason to explore a possible utility tax is to help alleviate financial
difficulties in future years in the general fund and in the street fund; that the Boundary Review Board in
their 2001 study mentioned there may later be need for additional revenue sources; that most cities
(especially cities our size) levy that tax. He mentioned that other options were reviewed such as
admission taxes, increased business license tax, increased gambling tax, and business and occupation tax;
and that it was felt that the best way to solve the financial problem for future years was through a utility
tax. Mr. Thompson explained that tonight's recommendation is for a 6% utility tax on natural gas,
electricity, refuse, telephone, and stormwater; and if council approves, the utility companies need a
minimum sixty -day's notice so that they can identify those accounts that are within our city limits. In
response to Council questions concerning the water districts, Attorney Schwartz explained that the ability
of a city to tax another entity depends upon the form of the entity; that one local government may not tax
another local government unless the legislature has given specific authority to do so; that concerning
special purpose districts, such as water, our legal intern did a survey of the special purpose districts
providing water within the city, and found that some are governmental entities and some are not. Mr.
Schwartz added that there is a special exception for electric, but as far as we can tell that does not seem to
apply within the City of Spokane Valley. City Manager Mercier stated that the proposal for the utility tax
does not include application against any water or sewer enterprises. Mr. Schwartz also explained that
Vera Water and Power is an irrigation district, which is a municipal corporation; and as such falls under
the rule that one municipality cannot tax another. In response to Councilmember Taylor's question about
a list of utilities serving the area, Director Thompson said the list includes Avista, Inland Power and
Light, Modern Electric, Valley Garbage, and several telephone companies, as well as the City's
stormwater enterprise. After a brief explanation of how the figured was derived, discussion turned to
comparison of our City with Yakima, Vera's electric customers, each utility's volume of customers, the
numerous variables in calculating a tax, that the tax would be on the company's gross revenues received,
and mention that wholesale power entities like Bonneville Power would not be included as this tax would
be levied against the utility doing business and earning revenue within our City. Mayor DeVleming
invited public comment.
Mike Baker, 815 S Glenbrook Court, Greenacres, 99016: stated that he is the General Manager at Modern
Electric Water Company; that his company would be subject to the tax; that they serve about 20,000
citizens of the city; that he feels this is a regressive tax and very unfair; if the tax is enacted they will pass
the tax to their customers and the bill will show the tax as an itemized line item showing Spokane Valley
City tax; that small businesses will pay $200 month; that many people are struggling financially and this
will hurt the community service organizations; that this increase to the school districts might mean a few
teacher positions; that this is not a fair tax as Vera Water and Power would be exempt, adding that maybe
there is a conflict of interest and /or an appearance of fairness issue since the Mayor works for Vera; he
suggests we try to do something else.
Dan Vallalobos, Representative of Inland Power and Light, 320 East 2nd Avenue, Spokane: said his
company has many customers in Spokane Valley; that this would have an adverse impact on people on
fixed income, seniors, and low income people; that this should apply to all utilities within the city's
boundaries, and if not it becomes a fairness issue; that those businesses that will be affected will pass on
those increases to their customers; that maybe 6% is not a fair burden; that he feels this tax is probably
inevitable; but asks whether the full percentage is necessary, or can we balance with less.
John O'Rourke, 212 W 2" is the director of one of the Spokane Neighborhood Action Programs called
Citizens Utility Alliance, which is an advocate for utility customers; that he opposes the tax; says it is a
regressive tax; that they do energy assistance with the Spokane Valley Center and he feels low income
Council Meeting Minutes: 10 -26 -04 Page 5 of 7
Approved: 11 -09 -04
people will pay a larger percentage of their income than those with a higher income; he wants us to find a
non - regressive alternative; and he feels if this must be approved, that maybe there is something that can
be done to cushion the low income households, perhaps an exemption or dedicate a portion, perhaps 1/6`"
to low income assistance programs.
Tony Lazanis, 10626 East Empire, Spokane Valley: stated that he is surprised at what we are trying to do
to the citizens of Spokane Valley; that we are doing damage to the people; that this is a bad tax; he
suggested implementing impact fees for each new house as that would generate quite a bit of money; that
we need to generate revenue without hurting the poor people; and that he doesn't know who to blame, the
Council or the City Manager; and that he hopes the tax is not implemented and he suggested we do other
things.
Mayor DeVleming invited further public comment; no comments were offered.
In response to Councilmember Flanigan's question about the City of Spokane's utility tax, Attorney
Schwartz stated that the City of Spokane has a utility tax on eight types of utilities: electric light or power
6 %; manufactured gas 6 %; solid waste collection 17 %; wastewater collection and treatment 17 %;
telegraph 3.5 %; telephone business 6 %; water 17 %; and cable 6% of gross income. After further
discussion, it was Council consensus that further public discourse is essential on this topic.
It was moved by Councilmember Munson and seconded by Councilmember Flanigan to table the motion
to move the ordinance to a second reading, to November 9, 2004 in order to allow continued discussion
and public participation over the next several council meetings. Vote by acclamation: In Favor:
Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion to table this issue was approved.
Mayor DeVleming called for a short recess at 7:58 p.m., he reconvened the meeting at 8:10 p.m.
8. Vacation of a Portion of David Road
• Second Reading: Proposed Street Vacation Ordinance 04 -043 (David Street) — Marina Sukup
After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Mayor DeVleming and seconded by
Councilmember Flanigan to approve Ordinance 04 -043. Community Development Director Sukup
explained the background as noted on her October 26, 2004 Request for Council Action.
Councilmember Taylor stated that he continues to have reservations on this ordinance, would like to keep
the options open, and if there is some type of entryway or beautification proposal in the future, it would
best be situated on Sprague rather than Appleway; and that he will vote against the motion. City Manager
Mercier added that the recommendation before Council is to proceed with the vacation of the streetway
and to consider a declaration of surplus status for only the triangular piece; that what happens to that piece
has not been decided. Director Sukup added that concerning that piece of property, an appraisal must be
done and the area will be sold at auction or to the highest bidder as determined by the City Manager for
the best interest of the city; so it will not be conveyed for free. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Mayor
DeVleming, Deputy Mayor Wilhite, Councilmembers Schimmels, Munson, Flanigan, and Denenny.
Opposed: Councilmember Taylor. Abstentions: None. Motion carried.
• Motion Consideration: Declaring the remainder of the property as Surplus Property
It was moved by Councilmember Munson and seconded by Deputy Mayor Wilhite to declare the subject
property surplus, and that surplus property is the triangular piece represented on the drawing included in
the council packet. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Mayor DeVleming, Deputy Mayor Wilhite,
Councilmembers Schimmels, Munson, Flanigan, and Denenny. Opposed: Councilmember Taylor.
Abstentions: None. Motion carried.
Council Meeting Minutes: 10 -26 -04 Page 6 of 7
Approved: 11 -09 -04
9. First Reading Proposed Ordinance 04 -046 for PUD Amendments — Marina Sukup
After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Councilmember Munson and
seconded by Councilmember Flanigan to advance ordinance 04 -046 to a second reading. Community
Development Director Sukup explained the proposed ordinance as noted in her October 26, 2004 Request
for Council Action form. Mayor DeVleming invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote
by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried.
9a Mayoral Appointment: Student Advisory Council — Mayor DeVleming
Mayor DeVleming announced that the previous Valley Christian school representative was transferred to
West Valley, leaving that position vacant. It was moved by Mayor DeVleming, and seconded, to appoint
Laura Schlet to the Student Advisory Council as the Valley Christian School representation. Vote by
Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Dick Behm: mentioned in reference to the surplus property and the triangle area; that it might be possible
to get the County to transfer that property to the City free of charge; and he advises Council exercise
caution when declaring property surplus. Mayor DeVleming invited further public comment; no
comments were offered.
It was moved by Councilmember Flanigan, seconded, and unanimously agreed upon to adjourn. The
meeting adjourned at 8:49 p.m.
ristine Bainbridge, C ' Clerk
Michael DeVleming, Ma r
Council Meeting Minutes: 10 -26 -04 Page 7 of 7
Approved: 11 -09 -04
NAME
PLEASE PRINT
ADDRESS
TELEPHONE
0/1Ze
/ 6 -- _,,--„(,1„--,- - ,- - - , -5
/5 5 c--(r),6,<<,‘ C, -i`
f c- 7- / -737'
r -- AA1
7 1%:DC - --' IA le - c'Of it
9- - 2.
J a'KQ ^
2 ( 2 - - 0. 2- 11 zv l
HQ "3"
till llF 4
poxane
�lley
PUBLIC HEARING SIGN -IN SHEET
2005 Final Budget Hearing
SPOKANE VALLEY
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
DATE: October 26, 2004
All persons wishing to speak at a PUBLIC HEARING must sign in with your name and
address for the record. There may be a time limit for your comments. A copy of any
written comments relating to the public hearing subject must be provided to the City
Clerk.
NAME
PLEASE PRINT
TOPIC OF CONCERN
ADDRESS
TELEPHONE
4
. la fc
L / r
1 . 2 E E. 3/ st
I e`31/ F f yq 4
3 z-c' /f7
ell 5 n1 _ -_ _
- L4,c\l1 LLtC tL
Lc bra
iL_•6e . 0-17 L.41
93 (0 77(7
•
SPOKANE VALLEY
CITY COUNCIL MEE
DATE
PUBLIC COMMENT SIGN -IN SHEET
Citizen comments on any item. Please state your name and address for the record. Your
time will be limited to THREE MINUTES.
Spokane Valley City Council Invocation
October 26, 2004 — Pastor Eric Hinnenkamp, New Hope .Bible Church
Our God in heaven, I come before you tonight and thank you for the great blessings that
you have poured upon our lives. Thank you God . for our homes, our health, for our
families and loved ones, and thank you, for this great country that we are so fortunate to
live in. I thank you also for the City of Spokane Valley, and tonight I lift before you God
the leaders of this city as they gather together. I pray that you would instill them with
vision . for our city and its people and that you would grant unto them the strength and
ability to share this vision through their service. Give them God wisdom and discernment
as they make decisions here tonight, and guide us we ask unto a spirit of cooperation and
unity as we work with one another. We ask these things in the name of your Son Jesus
Christ, Amen.
DRAF - 2
PLEASE NOTE REVISED PAGE 4 P'" THE UTILITY TAX ORDINANCE
The only change is fhe added %. _.d co l ected under section 4 A
paid to one of the contesting cities, the Cellular Telephone Service company shall have no further
liability with respect to additional taxes an the disputed revenues so long as it changes its billing
records for future revenues to comport with the settlement facilitated by AWC.
E. City Manager Authority. The City Manager is authorized to represent the City in
negotiations with other cities for the proper allocation of Cellular Telephone Service taxes
imposed pursuant to this Ordinance. Any agreement with respect to the allocation of the Cellular
Telephone Service taxes shall receive the final approval of the City Council.
Section 4. Remittance.
A. Monthly Remittance. The tax imposed by this Ordinance shall be collected, reported and
remitted to the City monthly on or before the last day of the subsequent month. If a Taxpayer
commences to engage in business at any time other than the first day of the month, then the
Taxpayer's first return and tax payment shall be based upon and cover the portion of the month
during which the Taxpayer engaged in business.
I3. Returns. The remittance shall be in legal tender and shall be accompanied by a return on
a form to be provided and prescribed by the City. The Taxpayer shall be required to swear or
affirm in writing on the return that the information therein given is full and true and that the
Taxpayer knows it to be so. If the total tax for which any Person is liable under this Ordinance is
not reasonably expected to exceed $ 100 in any month, the Taxpayer may file a written request
with the City Manager to file and pay taxes due under this Ordinance annually, Such requests are
subject to approval by the City Manager.
Section 5. Taxpayer engaged in more than one business. Any Person engaged in, or
carrying on more than one activity or business subject to the tax imposed by this Ordinance, shall pay the
tax so imposed on each such business or activity.
Section 6. Deductions. In computing the tax imposed by this Ordinance, the following may
be deducted from the measure of the tax:
A. Adjustments made to a billing or to a customer account or to a telecommunications
company accrual account in order to reverse a billing or charge that had been made as a result of
third-party fraud or other crime and for which the Taxpayer can provide documentation to the
City.
B. All cash discounts allowed and actually granted to customers of the Taxpayer during the
tax year and for which the Taxpayer can provide documentation to the City.
C. Amounts derived from transactions in interstate or foreign commerce, or from business
done for the government of the United States, its officers or agents in their official capacity, and
any amount paid by the Taxpayer to the United States or the State of Washington, as excise taxes.
17. The amount of credit losses actually sustained by Taxpayers whose regular books are
kept on an accrual basis.
E. Amounts derived from business which the City is prohibited from taxing under the
Constitution or the laws of this State or the United States.
Utility Tax Ordinance Page 4 of 7
• Chris Linc Properties submitted an application for the
David Road on July 9, 2004
• Applicant's submittal schematic included Appleway
acquisition remainder and a portion of David Road loca
Sprague Avenue and Appleway, west of Thierman Road
• Planning Commission held a public hearing on August �
tabled the decision pending information concerning
ownership of 20 `for David Road south of the Sprague F
• A second hearing was held on the amended request on
2004
• City Council advanced the ordinance to a second readir
19, 2004
Spokane i '
,SUalley
STREET VACATION STV -03 -04
Chris Linc Properties L.L.C., 2320 North Atlantic
Street, Spokane WA 99205 ,
October 26, 2004
a K fl r
1_
nd
• Spokane County acquired Blocks 5 and 6 of the Miller
Park Addition for the Appleway extension
• The Sprague Avenue right -of -way and the portion of
David Road 20 feet south of the Sprague Avenue right-
of -way were conveyed to WSDOT for the same project.
• Spokane County installed a 54" wastewater interceptor
though Block 5. The interceptor is actually located six
feet north of the south easement line
• Spokane County subsequently sold the remainder of
Block 5 to applicant
Water
Facilities
Surplus
2: Gas Line
, y
•
1
a < •
a M
•
•
0
U
•
•
•
•
•
N
cro
C++
•
Original Request
• Applicant proposes to acquire the
property for the purpose of
constructing required 208 swales
30' SEWER EASEMENT PER
ASSESSOR'S DOCUMENT 465864B
2E "E 330.
(330.CO
v
PJ88'11'2 262.66'
`7128
Electric Distribution
54" I nterceptor
1St AVE MILLER PARK G NTE1 UNE
N
d i t ton s
•
• Spokane Utilities will require a 25 -foot easement fora 54 inch
wastewater interceptor
• Spokane Water District No. 3 requires a 20 -foot easement to allow
for the repair, maintenance and replacement of an existing water
line. Drywells will need to be located not less than ten feet from the
water line, while maintaining five feet of cover over the line itself.
• Avista requires a 10 -ft easement, 5 feet from the centerline of
existing power lines along the east boundary of the property and a
10 -ft easement along the west side of David Road located 5 feet
from the centerline of a 2 -inch natural gas line with a minimum of
30 inches of cover and prohibition of paving and /or the traffic of
equipment exceeding 30,000 pounds /axle over the easement.
• A different process is required for disposition of "surplus" property
Ec
• Planning Commission recommended approval of
the vacation of the David Street right -of -way by a
vote of 6 -0, subject to meeting requirements for a
survey and reserving the necessary easements
for public/ private utilities and the conditions
associated therewith
• Planning Commission also voted to provide
Council with notice of the proposal to declare the
remainder "surplus" (approximately 900 square
feet)
nit Jevelo m
equirements
Community Development Department
October 26, 2004
SO6kane
. Valley
ent
U 1
• Authorized pursuant to RCW 36.70, Spokane Valley
Ordinance 03 -53 Spokane Valley adopted Interim
Development Regulations pursuant to Ordinance 03 -053
• On April 6, June 1, and September 7, 2004, Council was
briefed on issues associated with PUD developments
• Spokane County revised regulations relating to PUDs on
July 13, 2004 as part of Phase 11 Development
Regulations
• Planning Commission held a public hearing on the
proposed amendments on October 14, 2004
Lot Standards
City Current
Proposed
800 square feet
1,600 square feet
Road Standards
20 feet one -way, 22 feet two
way private streets
Public street standards
Open Space
200 square feet
10% of development
Bonus Density
Open Space
City Current
Proposed
0.3 du /acre if 10% with slope of
10% or less
0.3 du /acre if 50% with slope of
10% or less
0.3 du /acre if landscaped open
areas, tennis courts, pool or play
areas
0.5 du /acre if two or more specific
improvements, including hard
surface trails, improved playfields
swimming or wading pools or play
areas with structures/ equipment
10,000 in size.
Environmental
City Current
Proposed
0.15 du /acre if "significant"
public access to lake river
0.3 du /acre if access to lake
river
0.1 du /acre if to trails
0.1 du /acre if to trails
0.1 du /acre if to scenic view
0.1 du /acre if to scenic view
1.0 du /acre if 40% of existing
healthy trees > 10 caliper
preserved, where trees
number more than 10 /acre
Internal Circulation /Parking
City Current
Proposed
0.1/acre if off - street parking 50
feet or less from the entrance
deleted
0.15 /acre if non - residential
parking small (10 -20
spaces /group) and landscaped
0.2 du /acre if non - residential
parking small (10 -20
spaces /group) and landscaped
0.15 /acre with bike /pedways
separate from road
0.5 du /acre with bike /pedways
separate from road
1.0 /acre for interconnected
roadways w/o cul -de -sacs
1.0 du /acre for interconnected
roadways w/o cul -de -sacs
0.5 du /acre if un -gated allowing
public access
0.2 /acre if 1/2 parking is covered
deleted
0.3 /acre if all parking is covered
deleted
Public Service & Facility Availability
City Current
Proposed
0.15 du /acre if public transit within /4 -mile
0.3 du /acre if public transit
within %- mile
/4 mile
0.15 du /acre if off -site shopping within /4 -mile
0.2 du /acre if off -site shopping
within 1/4-mile
0.1 du /acre if water /sewer within /adjacent and
"stressed"
district not stressed
deleted
0.15 du /acre if primary access via arterial road
deleted
0.1 du /acre w /crime prevention plan w /locks,
lighting, doors, windows and alarms, etc.
deleted
0.1 du /acre in school "preferred growth" area
deleted
0.15 du /acre if transit amenities included e.g
shelters schedule information, bus passes
0.5 du /acre if transit amenities
benches
include shelters, be c es
park 'n ride aces
&p spaces
du /acre approved school
bus stop shelters
Other
City Current
Proposed
0.2 /acre with a "design development team"
deleted
0.15 /acre with housing mix and 10% single
family detached.
deleted
�.J
dchti
at
• Update submittal requirements
Prcvision
S
• Specifying the requirements for financial guarantees for
private street maintenance.
• Requiring sidewalks on both sides of the street.
• Maintaining existing provisions for lighting, but requiring
provisions that street lighting is owned and maintained
by the property owners association.
• Requiring that any private street will not impede the
current or future development of a thoroughfare and
shall have direct access to a designated collector or
arterial.
Recommendation
• Planning Commission recommended
approval
• Staff recommends advance to a second
reading