Loading...
2004, 11-09 Regular Meeting MinutesMINUTES City of Spokane Valley City Council Regular Meeting Tuesday, November 9, 2004 Mayor DeVleming called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m., and welcomed everyone to the 55`" 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 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 Tom Scholtens, Building Official Courtney Moore, Accountant/budget analyst Morgan Koudelka, Administrative Analyst 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 Bill Dropko, Greenacres Christian Fellowship Church, gave the invocation. ROLL CALL City Clerk Bainbridge called roll; all Councilmembers were present. APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was moved by Mayor DeVleming and seconded by Councilmember Munson to approve the agenda. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS Mayor DeVleming acknowledged and welcomed the Boy Scouts from Troops 405 and 412, who were attending in partial fulfillment of certain merit badges. COMMITTEE, BOARD, LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS Councilmember Denenny: reported that the STA (Spokane Transit Authority) finance committee met last Wednesday and discussed some of the adjustments that will be made this summer to a number of bus routes, including having more routes in the Valley; which Mr. Denenny stated he feels is in response to input from Council in voicing the needs of the Valley citizens. Councilmember Schimmels: stated that he attended the local community meeting for the State Transportation Commission, that the Mayor and other elected officials were also in attendance; that he attended an award luncheon put on in conjunction with individuals who run our burn plant, and WISHA, Industrial Safety Agency, and that they received a work site award and were one of ten in the State of Washington out of 207,000 businesses, to receive such an award. Council Meeting 11 -09 -04 Page 1 of 7 Approved by Council: 11 -30 -04 VOUCHER LIST DATE VOUCHER Number(s) TOTAL VOUCHER AMOUNT 10 -22 -04 5713 -5771 1,791,402.75 10 -28 -04 5773 -5774 5,506.54 11 -01 -04 5775 -5797 1,155,549.74 GRAND TOTAL 2,952,459.03 Councilmember Flanigan: reported that the hotel motel tax committee will meet this Friday morning at 9:00 a.m. in the City Council's conference room. Councilmember Munson: mentioned that he attended the Operations and Administrative Committee meeting for STA, and discussed and passed on for approval to the STA Board a continuing effort to improve the size of the buses being bought by STA; and discussed the reduction route for people with disabilities, and said that STA will move forward as per the court - agreed settlement. Deputy Mayor Wilhite: stated that she attended the meeting on the Comprehensive Plan held at Pratt Elementary; and also attended the meeting regarding the Parks Plan. MAYOR'S REPORT: Mayor DeVleming reminded everyone of this year's Celebration of Lights scheduled for December 2, 2004. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Clark Hagar, 11717 East Lenora Drive, Spokane Valley: expressed concern with the citizens not having the right of initiative and referendum, and asked Council to immediately take that under advisement; and to immediately give the citizens the right to vote; he stated it is a travesty of justice not to incorporate that under our ordinances; and asked that council expedite that issue. Troy Daley, 2400 N Wilbur Road, Apt #150: stated his opposition to the homeless people approaching him at his car on Appleway, Sprague and Pines, and the area near Wal -Mart; that he was forced to roll up his window to avoid being panhandled; he stated the current situation is ridiculous, and he wants us to adopt what Spokane County has adopted. Dick Behm, 3626 S Ridgeview Drive: spoke in support of what Clark Hager said earlier; said that in the efforts for incorporation, there were five different groups working together; that the driving force behind that was the right of initiative and referendum and he assumed it was a foregone conclusion; that apparently that was left out and he wants Council to rectify the issue at the next meeting. Mayor DeVleming invited further public comment; no further comments were offered. 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. Approval of Regular Council Meeting Minutes of October 26, 2004 b. Approval of Study Session Minutes of November 2, 2004 c. Approval of Payroll of October 30, 2004 of $143,652.24 d. Approval of the Following Vouchers: It was moved by Mayor DeVleming and seconded by Councilmember Munson to waive the reading and approve the Consent Agenda. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. Council Meeting 11 -09 -04 Page 2 of 7 Approved by Council: 11 -30 -04 NEW BUSINESS 2. Second 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 Deputy Mayor Wilhite, to approve Ordinance 04 -044. Finance Director Thompson explained that this is the second reading toward adopting the budget; he mentioned some minor changes that Council was already aware of, but added that a vehicle that was inadvertently added was eliminated. Councilmember Taylor noted that library expenditures have been budgeted at $2.27 million, and asked for the previous figure. Director Thompson said the budget was $2.1 million in the current year's budget, although we ended up paying just slightly less than that; that we have not agreed to expend $2.27 million as that needs to be negotiated and the figure in the budget merely serves as a placeholder. Mayor DeVleming invited public comment. Clark Hagar, 11717 East Lenora Drive, Spokane Valley: stated that he realizes we contract most services with Spokane County, but that part of the problem with these contracts is it seems there is no control over the wage negotiations; that when the issue was originally brought up, it was with the provision that the Council would have input with the wage negotiations; and if that is not the case, the County would therefore have no motivation to help the City and we would be left with a "take it or leave it" proposition; and if that is the case we would have no control over the costs, which would have an impact on this budget. Mr. Hagar asked Council if they were involved in contract negotiations with the Police, or with the road contractors. Mayor DeVleming said staff will address the questions and try to get answers back as soon as possible. Mayor DeVleming invited further public comment; no further comments were offered. Brief council discussion ensued concerning this budget, planning for future budgets, and facing long -term financial difficulties. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 3. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 04 -046 Planned Unit Developments (PUD) — Marina Sukup After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Mayor DeVleming and seconded by Deputy Mayor Wilhite to approve Ordinance 04 -046. Community Development Director Sukup explained the issue as per her PowerPoint presentation and gave background as per the attached Request for Council Action form. Director Sukup also suggested adding the phrase "or the public utility" to page 9 at the end of the sentence of 4.08.19.15d, which was ultimately agreed to change to "or the serving utility." In reference to the financial responsibility issue, City Attorney Schwartz explained that he changed the role of the City regarding financial responsibility; that the previous ordinance allowed the City to take control; in a PUD it is the Homeowners Association that is set up for the purposes of managing the common area, which typically includes streets, stormwater and other public infrastructure; and that he changed the role regarding the obligation to maintain that public infrastructure. Mr. Schwartz said that the previous ordinance allowed the City to stand in the shoes of the Homeowners Association and take control, which meant that the City could build, assess and if needed foreclose the improvement; that it occurred to him that by doing so, we would be in conflict with public works bidding laws and create a long, unnecessary process. To alleviate that, the revision provides that the City tells the Homeowners Association that it has a duty to perform, that a court order can be obtained if needed, and the performance would be related to maintenance of the infrastructure; so the City would not be in control of infrastructure maintenance, but would require that the Homeowners Association carry that burden. Attorney Schwartz mentioned this would apply to future new developments and this ordinance would not affect existing situations. After brief council discussion, and Director Sukup explaining the need to correct pagination on page nine, Mayor DeVleming invited public comment; no comments were offered. Mayor DeVleming moved, seconded by Deputy Mayor Wilhite, to amend his motion to approve ordinance 04 -046 as amended. Vote Council Meeting 11 -09 -04 Page 3 of 7 Approved by Council: 11 -30 -04 to amend the motion: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried to amend the motion. Vote by Acclamation on the amended motion: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 4. First Reading: Proposed Ordinance 04 -047 Amending Spokane Valley Building Code — Tom Scholtens After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Mayor DeVleming and seconded by Councilmember Munson to suspend the rules and approve Ordinance 04 -047. Building Official Scholtens explained the background of the issue as per his November 9 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. 5. Motion Consideration: Selecting a Library Services Provider, and Authorizing City Manager to Negotiate Agreement — Nina Regor It was moved by Mayor DeVleming and seconded by Councilmember Munson to select the Spokane County Library District as the service provider and instruct the City Manager to negotiate the agreement based on usage and not on assessed valuation. Deputy City Manager Regor explained the issue per her PowerPoint presentation; adding that the SCLD proposal used taxable valuation in calculating cost, giving an estimated cost for 2005 of $2.27 million; but that the 2004 library cost was based upon a usage model and came to $2.02 million. Ms. Regor also stated that staff seeks Council input concerning policies to address with the District, including cost, length of contract, terms of ownership or other provisions. Mayor DeVleming invited public comment. David Sani, Board Member, Library District Board of Trustees, 4322 N Argonne: stated that he was speaking on behalf of the Board and of the approximate 230,000 current service area residents; that they feel that the City and the Board have a common goal to advocate for the proposal that best meets the community's needs; and he recommends that SCLD continue to provide services; but that he is surprised and dismayed with the suggestion that the major proposal elements including fee structures and asset ownership, will continue to be topics of discussion; he stated that the proposal submitted was to have been evaluated and considered as a package, and he urges Council to move in that direction, to accept the proposal in its entirety and to move forward. Council discussion then ensued regarding Council's attempts to examine all aspects of the issue in order to get the best value for the money spent; careful consideration of spending, ownership, length of contract, not arbitrarily placing a dollar amount on services; and the philosophy of which formula to use regarding costs. Councilmember Flanigan stated that the private company (LSSI) came in for less dollars, and if we start the negotiation process again, we will be back to where we were before the RFP was submitted; and that he will not support large reductions in the library's proposal and feels the proposal is the best and most fair for the citizens of the community. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Mayor DeVleming, Deputy Mayor Wilhite, and Councilmembers Schimmels, Taylor, Munson, and Denenny. Opposed: Councilmember Flanigan. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 6. Discussion: Mayoral Appointments to Boards and Committees — Mayor DeVleming Mayor DeVleming stated that this issue is not an action item but merely discussion; that the policy is to make re- appointments annually, he mentioned the attached short list of particular committees coming up for re- appointment, and asked Councilmembers for their philosophy on rotating positions or other options. After discussing the various boards and committees, and the desire of some Councilmembers to remain in their current committee in order to become more familiar with the issues each board is facing, Mayor DeVleming suggested Councilmembers make note if anyone would like to participate on a particular committee, or move from a committee, and to please leave the Mayor a note so stating their preference. Mayor DeVleming said this issue will be brought back at the next Council meeting. Council Meeting 11 -09 -04 Page 4 of 7 Approved by Council: 11 -30 -04 Mayor DeVleming called for a short recess at 7:00 p.m., and reconvened the meeting at 7:10 p.m. 7. Presentation: Six - Year Financial Forecast — Dave Mercier City Manager Mercier stated that this is still a work in progress, and with each passing month we gain better financial detail and incorporate that detail into our projections; and added that a large scale update is planned in advance of the February retreat. City Manager Mercier then went over his updated PowerPoint presentation. Mr. Mercier also stated that this budget makes no provisions for changes in staff or new costs; that the forecast is not perfect as he knows no way to bring absolute precision to the numbers, although the trends are real and present real economic challenges. Mayor DeVleming invited public comment. Tony Lazanis, 10626 East Empire; Spokane Valley: said he previously suggested having a $1,000 impact fee on new construction on new houses; and also suggested a small business fee of $60.00, stating that would generate more revenue; that perhaps there should be negotiation for less funding in the police contract; and ended by stating there are many other things to do other than impose a utility tax. Bill Gothmann, 10010 E 48 Ave: said that previously he had asked that staff show what we are buying and not buying with the budget and he complimented the City Manager and staff on providing citizens with that information; he stated that he enjoys the level of service we have; he is not convinced public services should be decreased; and given a choice between cutting services and raising taxes, he'd rather raise taxes and not cut services; and that he understands that it will cost him personally. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: 8. First Reading Proposed Utility Tax Ordinance (Tabled October 26, 2004) — Ken Thompson Councilmember Munson moved, seconded by Councilmember Denenny, to remove from the table the reading of the proposed ordinance 04 -045, and resume discussion. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried to place back on the table for discussion, the original motion to advance ordinance 04 -045 to a second reading. In response to Councilmember Denenny's request for an update on applying the tax on electrical entities, City Attorney Schwartz explained that the ability to impose a city tax depends on the entity paying the tax, and that municipal tax corporations cannot tax each other; and also that certain municipal corporations may not be subject to a utility tax. Mr. Schwartz stated that in his general conversations with the attorney for Avista, he discussed the issue of taxing other governmental entities and all agreed that it cannot be done. Councilmember Munson mentioned that in talking to several members of the community, he is convinced we need to do some cutting; that he examined the budget and feels the growth estimate of our sales tax is too conservative, and suggests staff look at 2.8% rather than 1 %. Discussion came up concerning the three reserves, and Councilmember Munson suggested reducing each of the contingency funds until such time as there is a record of achievement and accumulation which would give a better way to forecast budget issues. He suggested reducing each of the three reserves from $500,000 to $300,000, giving a one -time savings of $600,000, realizing this would only prolong the deficit numbers until 2007 or 2010. He also suggested staff work with these numbers and also with a five position cut in the police force. Councilmember Munson suggested and encouraged members of the community to participate in the website calculations for their suggestions on balancing future budgets, and to continue to give Council input. Further discussion included predicting future building activity, the amount of fine and forfeitures to expect in the coming years; possible increase in interest rates having an adverse affect on construction, building, and sales tax; trying to be equitable to everyone's situation; and other tax possibilities. It was Council consensus not to include SCOPE or the school reserve officers in the possible cuts; and for staff Council Meeting 11 -09 -04 Page 5 of 7 Approved by Council: 11 -30 -04 to come back with spreadsheets showing scenarios with 4, 5, and 6% utility tax rate without electricity; with reduced contingencies, and with the reduction of five police officer positions. Councilmember Denenny as maker of the original motion, and Councilmember Munson as seconder of the original motion, (the original motion to advance ordinance 04 -045 to a second reading) withdrew the motion. It was moved by Mayor DeVleming to advance ordinance 04 -045 to a second reading for December 7, 2004. There being no second, the motion was not considered. It was then moved by Councilmember Taylor and seconded by Councilmember Munson to allow public comment on the utility tax ordinance. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. Clark Hager: stated that during the last meeting of the Spokane Valley Business Association, he recommended considering placement of any new tax on a ballot for the people to decide; he added that whenever a city is going to put a utility tax on citizens, that they incorporate a referendum provision in the ordinance; and that we decided not to take that advice; he suggested we insert a referendum provision in that ordinance; that putting the issue on the ballot would be a positive step and a means to inform the public of the issues; and that the ordinance could also contain a sunset clause explaining that the tax would be temporary; and that he feels the people will react positively to get over a short term crisis. [Councilmember Flanigan left the room; and returned within a few minutes.] Mayor DeVleming invited further public comment on this issue. No further comments were offered. It was Council consensus to place this issue on the next two Council agendas. PUBLIC COMMENTS Dick Behm, 3626 S Ridgeview: commended Council and Mr. Mercier for a good presentation, and for making the issue and position understandable, and he extended his thanks. It was moved by Mayor DeVleming, seconded by Councilmember Munson, and unanimously agreed upon to extend the meeting to 9:10 p.m. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS: [no public comment] 9. Update on Park Maintenance Service Proposals - Mike Jackson Parks and Recreation Director Jackson explained the issue as per his November 9 Request for Council Action, and his accompanying PowerPoint. Director Jackson said staff feels the County's proposal was not responsive, leaving the two firms of Skilis'Kin and Senske Lawn and Tree Care as responsive proposals. Director Jackson sought Council direction in order to return next week with a formal request for a motion. After Director Jackson summarized the different proposals, and explained some of the rating criteria, he stated that both companies are local, that Spokane County's proposal included an added stipulation that if the City selects Spokane County for park maintenance, the City must also agree to contract with the County for aquatic services; and that as it has been determined that the County's proposal is nonresponsive, we must look at alternatives for the aquatic program, adding that there is always the option of doing it in- house. Further discussion continued regarding overall necessary funds needed for the parks and for the aquatic program, the possibility of the YMCA or Jeff Ellis & Associates handling the aquatic program or training employees, rejecting all bids and moving away from managed competition, and of staff examining other options. It was moved by Councilmember Taylor, seconded and unanimously agreed upon to extend the meeting for an additional ten minutes. Council Meeting 11 -09 -04 Page 6 of 7 Approved by Council: 11 -30 -04 It was Council consensus to eliminate the proposal from Spokane County; to continue with managed competition, not reject all bids, and that staff come back with additional information including a recommendation from the selection committee, information concerning the aquatic situation, and information on performing these tasks in- house. There being no further business, it was moved by Mayor DeVleming, seconded by Councilmember Schimmels, and unanimously agreed upon to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 9:17 p.m. ATTES • - 4),, / rh�i�r4nP. Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk cw.,L (3.) aZkrb. Diana Wilhite, Mayor Council Meeting 11-09-04 Page 7 of 7 Approved by Council: 11 -30 -04 NAME PLEASE PRINT TOPIC OF CONCERN ADDRESS TELEPHONE - / / 1 - Z f p of A 9 5 5 ` / , 0 ) 1 s ii 1 hur ezo or-- ( ' f _D'n ifq `4, 6 l , J« ?t' . Y' l - - . ,_ . . �,�._� -= _ .." i atbi-t:irildekeEL--. /■, ;M tilley PUBLIC COMMENT SIGN -IN SHEET SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL MEEpNG DATE l- c Citizen comments on any item. Please state your name and address for the record. Your time will be limited to THREE MINUTES. Managed Competition Parks Maintenance Services Mike Jackson, Parks and Recreation Director November 9, 2004 Background • The City of Spokane Valley currently contracts with Spokane County for park maintenance services. The current agreement terminates on December 31, 2004. • Contract performance has been acceptable, with continual adjustments but no major problems or omissions. • Park Maintenance is one of the pilot projects in the Managed Competition Program. November 9, 2004 2 1 Request for Proposal • A Request for Proposal was released and advertised in August 2004, with a deadline of October 1. The RFP was a comprehensive document. Only one addendum was issued. • The RFP covers all aspects of park maintenance on all park properties including but not limited to: — Lawn care — mowing, trimming, edging, raking, seeping, washing, spraying for weeds, aerating, fertilizing, watering — Litter control and graffiti eradication — Restroom and facility cleaning and repair — Playground maintenance, repair and installation • A mandatory pre - submittal conference was held on Thursday, September 9 — Spokane County and nine additional firms were represented Four submittals were received. November 9, 2004 3 Process • Several steps based on a combination of objective and subjective criteria including but not limited to qualifications, experience, work proposal and cost. — Work Proposals — Cost Proposals — Interviews • Reference checks and property inspections will be done on final selection. Some have already been completed. • Proposals were evaluated by selection team — Morgan Koudelka- Administrative Analyst — Neil Kersten - Public Works Director — Nina Regor - Deputy City Manager — Mike Jackson -Parks and Recreation Director November 9, 2004 4 2 Evaluation of Proposals • One Proposal was determined to be non- responsive. The submitter indicated they would not perform one important element. • The Cost Proposals for the three remaining submittals — Senske Lawn and Tree Care, Spokane County, and Skils'Kin — were opened. • Spokane County's proposal was an estimate and not a fixed cost. The County proposed an arrangement similar to the existing 2004 contract, i.e., actual costs would be calculated and billed to the City. November 9, 2004 5 Evaluation of Proposals • In order to determine if the County's bid was responsive, a letter was sent to the County requesting clarification. • It was determined that Spokane County could continue in the selection process but additional review of their Cost Proposal was warranted if they were selected. November 9, 2004 6 3 Evaluation of Proposals • The selection committee interviewed Senske, Spokane County and Skils'Kin on Wednesday, October 27. • The committee re- convened on Friday, October 29 to discuss the submittals. November 9, 2004 7 Comparison of Proposals Spokane County Skils'Kin Senske Proposal Ratings 695 687 674 Interviews 83 91 80 Total Points 778 778 754 Cost $666,581 $650,350 $584,796 Greatest Benefit/Dollar 1.17 1.20 1.29 November 9, 2004 8 4 Three Choices • Continue with current provider — Spokane County • Select new provider with highest point value - Skils'Kin • Select new provider with lowest cost - Senske Lawn and Tree Care November 9, 2004 9 Arguments to Continue with Current Service Provider • Widest diversity of equipment, skills and trades • Known history of satisfactory performance • Good communication with City • Potential for contract to cost less as cost proposal is not a fixed cost • Avoid potential service disruption • Spokane County has a well established risk management program November 9, 2004 10 5 Arguments to select a new provider • Spokane County's open -ended Cost Proposal could cost more than the amount estimated in their proposal • Potential for cost savings • Potential for increased service • Results in a greater diversity of providers to the City November 9, 2004 11 Issues to Discuss • It appears Spokane County's Cost Proposal is non - responsive — Open ended cost — Statement that Spokane County only provide park maintenance services in conjunction with aquatic services — "...if not selected to provide park maintenance services, Spokane County shall not provide aquatic services for the City of Spokane Valley's Valley Mission, Park Road, and Terrace View Pools." • Should one of the two remaining firms be selected? — Skils'Kin • Highest score, highest price — Senske Lawn and Tree Care • Lowest score, lowest price • Should all bids be rejected and the City negotiate with the County outside of managed competition? November 9, 2004 12 6 ' L' ' Overview • $40,000 in room tax receipts has been allocated for marketing of CenterPlace • Library expenditures have been budgeted at $2.27 million • Storm Water Fund reserves and expenditures have been budgeted - $17 /ERU • Equipment Replacement Fund has been reduced to reflect the purchase of one vehicle not two • The loan repayment has been decreased to reflect the net change in the General Fund Managed Competition: Library Services for 2005 and Beyond r Nina Regor, Deputy City Manager November 9, 2004 Scope of Work • Provide a turn -key service • Operations, Administration, Support • Maintain or exceed the current service level • Size and scope of collections and programs • Customer service • Hours of operation • Reciprocal agreement(s) • Develop appropriate performance measures Library Svc 11/9104 1 Recommendation • Ad Hoc Library Committee: Contract with Spokane County Library District (SCLD) for five years • Continue contracting with SCLD for two years, with the potential for up to three one -year extensions Library Svc 11/9/04 3 What Does SCLD Proposal Offer? • Systemwide approach • 10 branches: 390,000 materials collection • Known entity — high customer satisfaction • Existing local presence — became a district in 1950's Library Svc 11/9/04 4 2 Cost: SCLD Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Proposal $2,270,000 $2,338,100 $2,408,243 $2,480,490 $2,554,905 Usage 2,080.905 2,143,332 2,207,632 2,273,861 2,342,077 Model Diff. $189,095 $194,768 $200,611 $206,629 $212,828 Library Svc 11/9/04 6 3 (--- Usage of SCLD Branches Branch % SV Regis. (100 %) SV Share of Branch Airway Heights .13% 3.89% Argonne 13.68% 49.36% Cheney .30% 2.67% Deer Park .11% 1.27% Fairfield .05% 6.70% Medical Lake .10% 4.11% Moran Prairie .54% 3.40% North Spokane 1.07% 1.52% Otis Orchards 2.38% 14.15% Valley 81.63% 80.50% Library Svc 11/9;04 5 Cost: SCLD Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Proposal $2,270,000 $2,338,100 $2,408,243 $2,480,490 $2,554,905 Usage 2,080.905 2,143,332 2,207,632 2,273,861 2,342,077 Model Diff. $189,095 $194,768 $200,611 $206,629 $212,828 Library Svc 11/9/04 6 3 Council Direction • Confirmation of SCLD as provider • Preferred term of the agreement • Asset ownership • Cost of proposal • Other Library Svc 11/9104 4 MEMO TO: Marina Sukup, Community Development Director, City of Spokane Valley FROM: Dee Caputo, Senior Planner, CTED /Growth Management Services DATE: 9/21/04 RE: DRAFT Development Regulation Amendment — Related to PUDs and Residential Standards Here are my informal observations on your draft development regulation document currently under 60 -day review and comment in our office. 1.) This draft amendment was reviewed by the jurisdiction for environmental impacts under both SEPA approaches, i.e., by use of the typical checklist and the newer Non - Project Action Review Form. With the inclusion of both approaches, Spokane Valley provides a thorough discussion of this proposal - it helps to clarify what you intend to do by means of these proposed amendments. It also helps to know the City of Spokane Valley anticipates this action to be followed by additional amendments in the future to further refine your interim development regulations. 2.) The Purpose and Intent of Chapter 14.704 is clearly stated, and expanded from its original format to include a number of new reasons explaining its need to exist. 3.) Bonus density credits provide one innovative technique to implement the comprehensive plan in an effective and progressive manner. The categories for earning additional credits are well defined by the subtext and provide generous exchange for developers who choose to contribute to Spokane Valley's future through the use of this mechanism. 4.) By allowing the use of the clustering technique, Spokane Valley is relying on another innovative approach to encourage flexibility while continuing to support the overall density scheme imposed by the city through its zoning. 5.) The standards required for the provision of private streets are quite strict and very well stated. There should be no confusion on what will be expected of homeowners who choose to reside within planned unit developments. In fact, the standards are so strict that they may very well serve to discourage using this approach to providing circulation and access to land within the PUDs. The requirement to provide sidewalks on both sides of a street is another indication of this regulation's strength.