2003, 10-14 Regular Meeting MinutesROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called roll.
MINUTES
City of Spokane Valley
City Council Regular Meeting
October 14, 2003
Mayor DeVleming called the City of Spokane Valley Regular Meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
Attendance:
Councilmembers: Michael DeVleming, Mayor
Diana Wilhite, Deputy Mayor
Dick Denenny, Councilmember
Mike Flanigan, Councilmember
Richard Munson, Councilmember
Gary Schimmels, Councilmember
Steve Taylor, Councilmember
Staff Present: Dave Mercier, City Manager
Nina Regor, Deputy City Manager
Stanley Schwartz, City Attorney
Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney
Ken Thompson, Finance Director
Mike Jackson, Parks & Recreation Director
Marina Sukup, Community Development Director
Neil Kersten, Public Works Director
Greg McCormick, Long Range Planning Manager
Kevin Snyder, Current Planning Manager
Tom Scholtens, Building Official
Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor DeVleming led the Pledge of Allegiance.
INVOCATION: Pastor Steve Farnworth of Livingwater Community Church gave the invocation.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: City Manager Mercier requested an additional item under New Business,
Item #7A, which will provide Council an opportunity to consider a motion on the matter of issuing a letter
of support for a bid for the National High School Rodeo Championships to be held in the community
during 2008 and 2009. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Wilhite and seconded by Councilmember
Denenny to approve the agenda as amended. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed:
None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried.
COMMITTEE, BOARD, LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS:
Deputy Mayor Wilhite reported that she attended the Economic Development Board Meeting where their
agenda for the year was discussed; she also attended Walk To School Day to promote safety for children
walking to and from school.
Councilmember Taylor said that he attended the Inland Northwest Technology Council (INTEC) Board
meeting as the new ex- officio board member representing the City.
Councilmember Denenny mentioned that the Spokane Transit assembled a committee to look at the
allocation of seats on the board, and as a result of that meeting, the City of Spokane Valley now has two
Council Minutes 10 -14 -03 Page 1 of 6
Date Approved by Council: 10 -28 -03
seats on that Board; that he also attended the Convention Visitor's Bureau meeting pertaining to tourism
patterns within this region.
Councilmember Munson reported that he attended the GMA Steering Committee of Elected Officials, that
two members of our council were seated as members of the Committee, and that it was decided not to
disband the committee. Councilmember Munson said he received an interlocal agreement which will be
placed on a future study session for council consideration. Councilmember Munson also reported that he
attended the HUD Board where proportionate representation for the City of Spokane Valley was
discussed, and a recommendation was issued to the County Commissioners that Spokane Valley have
three members on that board, to be appointed by this council. Councilmember Munson also announced
that on October 3 he attended an Association of Washington Cities meeting and gathered information on
preparing information and an approach for border cities to be able to compete more effectively with other
neighboring cities.
MAYOR'S REPORT: Mayor DeVleming announced that the first "Pizza with the Mayor" is scheduled
for October 20 at West Valley; the Mayor also thanked everyone in the community for their contributions
to the upcoming tree lighting ceremony scheduled for December 4 and asked for volunteers to help with
the event; and mentioned that there will be a fundraiser community dance with the help of Oldies 101, to
be held November lst at University City.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Maxine Espelund, 11019 E. Sundown Drive: spoke in reference to the previous issue of Hollow Court and
questioned the type of business and the ownership.
Lonnie Helmes, 14014 E. Rockwell Avenue: discussed issues with the Rock Company in relation to noise,
dust, health problems, land stability, etc; he mentioned that there are no fences or signs and it could be
dangerous if children were to play in that area; he also brought in a video tape, and a petition from his
neighbors for action against the RPC Rock Barn.
Craig Heaton, 4119 S Hollow Court: spoke to the same issues at Ms. Espelund above and the previous
issues relative to Hollow Court; said that the Moose van can be seen unloading materials and that he feels
permits and licensing should be acquired before the business begins operation.
Scott Lanes, owner of Hotteez Nightclub: spoke to problems dealing with the police department and the
effect police actions are having on his customer base; that there are too many police officers in his area
and not enough patrolling the drug houses; also mentioned that he pays twice as much tax money when
buying and selling alcohol as compared with a liquor store.
Daryle Thom, 4109 S Hollow Court: said the previous owner of the Hollow Court property had tried to
build an outbuilding which was denied because the floodplain runs through the property; he also
distributed a copy of a map showing the area of the flood plain.
Mayor DeVleming said staff will research these concerns and report back to council at a later date.
1. PUBLIC HEARING: Mayor DeVleming opened the public hearing at 6:25 p.m. and asked for staff
presentation.
Finance Director Thompson discussed the revised 2004 projected revenues, and said that the 2004
estimates are based on experience during 2003 and estimates provided by the State of Washington and the
Municipal Research and Services Center. Director Thompson added that the 2004 estimates of fines and
forfeitures were significantly reduced based on collections to date. Deputy City Manager Regor then
Council Minutes 10 -14 -03 Page 2 of 6
Date Approved by Council: 10 -28 -03
discussed the draft chart of fees and further changes as indicated. Deputy City Manager Regor also
brought council attention to the accompanying fee comparison chart. Mayor DeVleming mentioned that
during the October 21 Study Session, council will have opportunity to discuss these fees at length. Mayor
DeVleming then invited public comment; none being offered, Mayor DeVleming closed the public
hearing at 6:45 p.m. [Councilmember Munson left the room.]
2. CONSENT AGENDA: After City Clerk Bainbridge read the Consent Agenda, it was moved by
Mayor DeVleming and seconded by Deputy Mayor Wilhite to approve the consent agenda as presented.
[Councilmember Munson returned to the dais.] Vote by acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed:
None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried.
3. Nuisance Abatement Ordinance No. 03 -083 Second Reading: It was moved by Mayor DeVleming
and seconded by Councilmember Flanigan to approve Ordinance No. 03 -083. Deputy City Attorney
Driskell explained two changes since council's last review: page 5, section 4F dealing with compost piles;
and page 7 section 4P with added language to clarify dust from farming. Mayor DeVleming invited
public comment; none was offered. Vote by acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None.
Abstentions: None. Motion carried.
4. Bond Ordinance No. 03 -084 First Reading: It was moved by Councilmember Denenny and
seconded by Councilmember Flanigan to advance Ordinance 03 -084 to a second reading. Attorney
Ormsby briefly explained the status of the financing, commended staff, Lehman Brothers, and Seattle
Northwest Securities for their diligence; and then highlighted the bond issues as contained in the
ordinance. Attorney Ormsby explained about the City's commitment to provide ongoing disclosure as
required by the SCC, that since the City has not committed to an insurer for this issue, there is a portion of
the ordinance which may change between now and the final reading. Attorney Ormsby stated that
delegation authority is provided to the City Manager to execute the bond purchase agreement, it sets forth
certain parameters relative to financial guidelines which council expects to be met prior to signing the
agreement; and that providing that delegation gives the underwriters more flexibility on when they go into
the market with these bonds, which puts the City in the best position to achieve the lowest interest rate.
Mayor DeVleming invited public comment; none was offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor:
Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried.
5. Proposed Resolution No. 03 -049 Extending Annexation for One Year to Fire Districts No. 1, 8, 9:
It was moved by Councilmember Munson and seconded by Councilmember Flanigan to approve
Resolution 03 -049. Deputy City Manager Regor offered background on this issue as noted in her
October 14, 2003 Council memo, and stated that a temporary annexation may be extended for one
additional year to give cities additional time to analyze the various fire service alternatives, and this draft
resolution will extend that temporary annexation through 2004. After discussion concerning a possible
election, Deputy Manager Regor stated she will come back later to council with viable election dates and
projected costs, and added that the next step will be an evaluation of fire service options. Mayor
DeVleming invited public comment; none was offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous.
Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried.
6. Motion consideration: Clarification of Intent and Reaffirmation of Planning Commission
Appointments: City Attorney Schwartz explained that Ordinance 35 provides that Planning Commission
terms expire on the thirty -first (31) day of December; but that clarification is needed if year 2003 or 2004
was intended as the first expiration date. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Wilhite and seconded by
Councilmember Flanigan that the Planning Commission members he reappointed for their identified
terms, effective December 31, 2003, with the understanding that their respective appointments and
terms be measured from December 31, 2003 and not April 15, 2003. Mayor DeVleming invited public
Council Minutes 10 -14 -03 Page 3 of 6
Date Approved by Council: 10 -28 -03
comment; none was offered. Vote by acclamation: In favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None.
Abstentions: None. Motion carried.
7. Motion Consideration: Hotel /Motel Ratification of Tourism Allocations: It was moved by Mayor
DeVleming and seconded by Councilmember Flanigan that hotel /motel tax allocations for the YMCA
Skate Park and Spokane Valley Junior Soccer Association Concession Stand facility development be
modified so that the distributions are instead used by the above entities for tourism marketing as set
forth in the materials filed with the City Clerk. City Attorney Schwartz explained that when council
approved the hotel /motel fund allocations, the YMCA Skate Park received one award, and another award
was issued to the Junior Soccer Association for a concession stand facility. Attorney Schwartz said the
law is explicit when investing in tourism facility, and that the council is authorized to make such
investment provided that the City has a legally identifiable interest, such as a partnership, joint venture,
lease agreement, etc. When this matter was later discussed, it was revealed that liability, negotiation,
contract and time issues would surface were we to identify an identifiable interest in these facilities. To
avoid such legal issues, staff contacted the two entities and suggested the funds be used for a different
budgeted purpose. Attorney Schwartz said that these entities will take the same allocations and simply
use the funds for tourism marketing or promotion, which is fully consistent with state law. The award
will remain the same, and entity receiving the award will remain the same, but the purpose will change.
Councilmember Taylor said this changes the arguments and discussions of how and why the allocations
were first decided upon; and if a change were made now, it might be better if those funds were put into a
regional type of marketing; and therefore, these two allocations should be re- discussed.
Councilmember Denenny asked of the intent of the entities and Attorney Schwartz said these entities
already have funds set aside for tourism marketing and that those funds can be shifted into facility
development thus enabling the award of funds from the City to be used for marketing. Councilmember
Denenny said he would like that assurance stated in a letter from each entity and would also like to see a
budget of how their current funds will be used.
Mayor DeVleming invited public comment; none was offered.
Councilmember Munson said he feels allocation of these funds will help bring tourism into the Valley
and would therefore be a proper use of the funds. Councilmember Flanigan said that in order for money
to be allocated for facilities, it requires the governing agency to have an ownership in the facility; and that
our insurance company said the City would be open to liability issues if the City had ownership especially
in a skate park facility; so that funds allocated for advertising and promotion of those facilities (which is
already budgeted), would simply be shifted to the facility, which still leaves all with the same end result.
Councilmember Flanigan said that the goal of the council was to assist in these facilities in order to attract
tourism to the community; and that he has been in contact with both entities and letters are forthcoming
asking that funds be switched to marketing.
It was moved by Councilmember Denenny and seconded by Councilmember Taylor to table this motion
until a response and budget are received from both entities. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Mayor
DeVleming, Councilmembers Denenny, Munson, Schimmels, Taylor. Opposed: Deputy Mayor
Wilhite, Councilmember Flanigan. Motion carried. Previous motion tabled.
7a. Letter of Endorsement /Support: Councilmember Flanigan explained that he received a request for
Council endorsement of the Spokane County Fair and Exposition Center and the Spokane Regional
Convention and Visitor's Bureau in their efforts to secure the National High School Rodeo to be held in
July of 2008 and 2009, and added that this most recent rodeo in San Juan brought an estimated three
million in expenditures into the community, and that this event falls in line with efforts to bring various
Council Minutes 10 -14 -03 Page 4 of 6
Date Approved by Council: 10 -28 -03
entities in the community. It was moved by Councilmember Flanigan and seconded by Councilmember
Munson to endorse this letter of support. Mayor DeVleming invited public comment; none was offered.
Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor DeVleming invited further public comment. None was offered.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS:
8. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Project Ideas: Long Range Planning Manager
McCormick explained that earlier this year, Council took action to participate in the Spokane County
CDBG Consortium, and as a member of that Consortium, the City has the ability to apply for CDBG
funds. Manager McCormick explained the limits on the allocation of funds, and mentioned such funding
options as CenterPlace, adding that he and Director Jackson will discuss this further for possible funding
requests. It was also noted that a public hearing on this issue will be held October 28 with a formal vote
on submissions of applications scheduled for November 4.
9. Draft Interlocal Agreement for Commute Trip Reduction Program: Deputy City Attorney Driskell
explained the guidelines and statutes governing this program, as outlined in his accompanying memo, and
added that within the next few weeks, the draft ordinance will be presented in final form for council
consideration.
Other Comments:
City Manager Mercier mentioned that our resolution 02 -05 addresses posting of notice for agendas and
public hearings at several locations such as the County Library and two post offices; and that staff will be
making suggestions to rely on other language already in the resolution to physically post notices at City
Hall and at such other places as City Council may direct. City Manager Mercier added that as our web
site matures, many members of the community will have the ability to access various data there as well.
City Manager Mercier also mentioned that he received a public records request from the Spokesman
Review; that staff has responded to four of the five points of interest, and that regarding the fifth part,
which asks for an opportunity to review and /or copy councilmembers' e -mail between August 1 and
December 30 of this year, that staff is undertaking a process to make those e -mails available. City
Manager Mercier added that he hopes to be able to take a direct copy of all those transmissions, review all
transmissions to determine which matters might be prevented from disclosure, then invite the media to
review the records requested.
In further response to the Hollow Court issue, Current Planning Manager Snyder advised that as a matter
of policy and practice, additional information such as evidence of ownership is not requested when
citizens apply for a building permit, and that staff relies upon information received at the time of the
permit process. Manager Snyder mentioned that no business was being conducted at the time of the
inspection, although the applicant did state intent for acquiring a conditional use permit, which permit
application procedure requires that a public hearing be held. In preparation for such public hearing,
notice will be mailed to residents within 400 feet of the business, notice will be placed in the Spokesman
Review, and a notice will be placed on the property. Manager Snyder said he will check further in
reference to the floodplain issue.
Mayor DeVleming opened the floor for further comments:
Jim Ferrell, owner of the property, stated that he feels there is misconception of what his business is; that
it is not a repair business and that 98% of his work is done in the field; that he sells and services
equipment, and that the shop that is being built is not going to be for working on any cars except his own.
Mr. Ferrell added that the shop will include a bathroom, two bays, and an automotive lift for his own use
and he will not bring in and will not work on other people's vehicles; there will be no sign on the building
Council Minutes 10 -14 -03 Page 5 of 6
Date Approved by Council: 10 -28 -03
to indicate it will be a business, although he did mention to a neighbor the idea of placing a picture of a
cartoon moose on the building. Mr. Ferrell said he is trimming the building to match his house and wants
the appearance to be residential, and that he does not want a business in his backyard either. He stated
that his mother -in -law Jean Miller owns the property and she will be living there too, as will an aunt of
his; and that his presence will be there to help with their needs as well. He stated that the moose van
comes and goes and that he did bring ladders as he is currently remodeling the house as there was
previously a beauty shop in the basement and a satellite business on the main floor.
There being no further business, it was moved, seconded, and unanimously agreed upon to adjourn. The
meeting adjourned at 8:12 p.m.
hristine Bainbridge, City Clerk
Michael DeVleming, Mayor
Council Minutes 10 -14 -03 Page 6 of 6
Date Approved by Council: 10 -28 -03
NAME
PLEASE PRINT
TOPIC OF CONCERN
ADDRESS
TELEPHONE
LC' kl ELLES
60(.. � ��
eill ?
tA 4/6.- -- * /
Z 1 [u/v!]
�,
A t .6(4-'55 /,%'
£ECi & '7X Ne/cfi
/ / G' / % e _ gcc.c1 J.
DX . S,pzi en�%
9-Z7 - l a % '
. 1
( , v 1.--1
(..9 s '1
, i 1 / G h -1 it
� y' S I o cf
/ i 1� /
-5 ' p/<!u
l 1 l i - ) Lf )
A M-' 1-
s ; o � -, t• ii L /1/
S �
jUalley
PUBLIC COMMENT SIGN -IN SHEET
SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING
DATE 0e I4 � 2003
CITIZEN COMMENTS ON ITEMS ,NOT INCLUDED ON THIS AGENDA., Please include your
name and address for the record. Your time will be limited to three (3) minutes.
NAME
PRESENT /ABSENT
•COMMENTS
Mayor Michael
DeVleming- Position No. 3
I /
.
.
Deputy Mayor Diana
'Wilhite-Position No. 1
Councilmember nick.
Denenny- Position No. 7
•
•
Councilmember Mike
Flanigan- Position No. 6
t/
-
Councilmember Rich
Munson - Position No. 5
•
Councilmember Cary
Schimmcls- Position No. 4
.
Councilmember Steve
Taylor- Position No. 2
CITY OF SPOKANI<a VALLEY
COIJiNCI_L MEETING DATE / d - / I- / - 7)\3
COUNCIL ROLL CALL
AWC
SOCIATION OF
WASHINGTON CITIES
Tort Reform
Local governments are being sued
at a rapidly accelerating rate for
employment practices, land use
decisions, law enforcement activities,
and more. The cost of resolving claims is
escalating furiously. The damages
awarded by judges and juries have
skyrocketed — way beyond what is
reasonable compensation for real losses.
Last session, the Legislature
considered ESSB 5728, a comprehensive
11 that would have enacted a number of
civil liability reform provisions beneficial
to local governments. The Senate passed
Fact Shee P1ember
the bill on a 28 -21 vote, but the House
did not take action on it. This legislation
would have gone a long way towards
increasing the fairness, certainty and
predictability of the civil justice system. It
balanced the interests of injured parties
with those of Washington's taxpayers,
who are carrying a growing burden for
financing litigation costs.
AWC and the Liability Reform
Coalition, a broad coalition of business
and many other interests, will continue to
push for major reform in the upcoming
legislative session.
Message for Legislators
Urge your Senators and Representatives to support comprehensive civil liability reform legislation,
including the following:
• Joint and Several Liability.
Joint and several liability
reform is of paramount
importance to local
governments. Under current
law, one party in a multi -party
lawsuit can be required to pay
100 percent of all damages
even if they have been found
legally responsible for only 10
percent (or less). This causes
tremendous harm to
Dyer n men ts that are drawn in
as the "deep pocket"
defendants — and to the
taxpayers, who ultimately pay
the costs through higher taxes
and reduced government
services. Defendants should
be held liable only for the
share of damages for which
they are responsible — and no
more. AWC supports
legislation that would tie
money awards to actual faults.
• Liability for Employment
References. In recent years,
employers have stopped
providing reference
information regarding former
or current workers to
prospective employers. The
risk of getting sued is just too
great. AWC supports
legislation that would protect
employers who in good faith
disclose job performance, on-
the -job conduct, or other
work - related information
about an employee from
lawsuits. The employer would
only be held liable where the
information disclosed was
knowingly false or deliberately
misleading.
• Tort Judgment Interest Rate.
Under current law, defendants
(including cities) pay an
interest rate of at least 12
percent when they lose an
appeal of a court decision.
This language was written in
the 1970s as an attempt to cap
then - skyrocketing interest rates
in the appeals process. Today,
however, interest rates are
much lower, and the 12%
minimum interest rate is
absurd. This high interest rate
is a disincentive for cities and
others to appeal adverse
decisions. AWC supports
legislation that would lower
the interest rate to two
percentage points above the
26 -week Treasury Bill rate (as
of January, 2003, the "T Bill"
rate was 1.182%).
• Seatbelt Defense. Under
current law, in lawsuits
regarding auto accidents, a
defendant is not allowed to
enter into evidence whether or
not a plaintiff was wearing his
or her seatbelt at the time of
the accident. AWC supports
legislation that would simply
allow this information to be
presented to a jury.
•
Association of Washington Cities
1076 Franklin St. SE
Olympia, WA 98501 -1346
Phone: 360 - 753 -4137
Website: www.awcnet.org
• Liability When Acting in
Governmental Capacity.
Currently, local governments
can be held liable for damage
arising out of the actions of
their officers, employees, or
volunteers while performing
their official duties. AWC
supports legislation that would
clarify that, while acting in its
governmental capacity, a local
government is liable only to
the extent that the actions or
omissions of its officers,
employees, or agents
constitute gross negligence.
"Governmental capacity"
includes (but is not limited to)
the supervision of offenders,
protection of vulnerable
citizens, fire fighting, police
activities, and highway design
and construction.
For More
Information
Jim Justin
(360) 753 -4137
jimj@awcnet.org
Tammy Fellin
(360) 753 - 4137
tammyf @awcnet.org
Deanna Krell
(360) 753 -4137
deannak @awcnet.org
Meagan Eliot
(360) 753 - 4137
meagane @awcnet.org
AWC
.SSOCIATION OF
WASHINGTON CITIES
Fact Shee p1emLcr 2003
LAND USE /GROWTH MANAGEMENT
ISSUES
Land use policies and regulations
are "bread and butter" issues among
citizens and city officials. How decisions
are made, under what authorities and at
what expense are also issues that capture
the attention of Olympia legislators and
administration officials.
More than a decade has passed
since cities and counties have been
quired to review and update local land
use plans and regulations under the
Growth Management Act (GMA). Many
changes have been proposed to this
landmark legislation and several have
been enacted — among them adding
more deference to local decisions under
appeal; adding detailed land
consumption evaluation requirements in
the six most urbanized counties in
Western Washington (so-called
"buildable lands "); providing more
flexible rural economic development
opportunities; requiring consideration of
"best available science" when reviewing
and updating environmental plans and
regulations; and staggering state -
mandated updates of local plans and
regulations over a longer period of time
beginning in 2004.
After several years of failed attempts
and litigation, the state's Shorelines
Management Act (SMA) guidelines are
poised to be updated. Most cities and all
counties will then have to review and
update local Master Programs — a process
involving considerable work, expense
and potential for controversy.
Approaching the 2004 Legislative
Session, interests on all sides of these
issues will again engage legislators in
discussions about potential authority and
mandate changes. The history of
successful changes indicate near
consensus must be reached to succeed —
chances of which are slim.
What Changes, If Any,
Do Cities Want and
Need?
• Preserve the basic foundation
and policies of GMA and
SMA. Land use planning and
zoning have a long history of
support within cities. Our
citizens expect that land uses
be regulated to protect their
investments and communities.
GMA and Shorelines generally
work well within cities.
• Cities have maintained
support for these high profile
statutes as long as local
update responsibilities are
reasonably scheduled and
fairly funded. The current
"every seven year" update
cycle should be re- evaluated,
especially in smaller and slow
growing cities. Cities need
confidence that local reviews
will not open all past decisions
to appeal. If this is not clarified,
it could significantly drive up
local costs (fiscal and political).
• Focus changes, if any, on
things that will help 2004
mandated GMA update
communities to succeed. Over
100 cities in King, Pierce,
Snohomish, Kitsap, Thurston,
Clark, Clallam, Jefferson and
Whatcom counties must
review and update local GMA
plans and regulations by
December 2004. Legislators
need to become familiar with
what issues need updating
locally (such as zoning
changes, level of service
standard modifications,
affordable housing policy
modifications, etc.) and how
much they will cost. As cities
identify infrastructure needs to
accommodate growth, please
share the information with
AWC, legislators and others —
the funding gap is likely
widening!
How Are These Needs
In Jeopardy?
Not since GMA was enacted
in 1990, when ALL cities had to
respond, have so many been
scheduled to conduct thorough
reviews and updates of all their
pertinent GMA plans and
regulations.
Cities support the idea of
reviewing and updating local
plans (perhaps the schedule
should be tied to level of growth,
those growing faster update more
frequently), based on new local
conditions and /or in response to
legislative changes or new
directives. Making all past
planning decisions vulnerable to
challenge, whether updated or
not, seems illogical and provides
no confidence that past or future
land use decisions are secure.
Once plans and regulations
are updated, cities will take on
new and expanded
responsibilities to fund and
provide infrastructure and
services to expanding city
populations. Our abilities to do
so are constrained by stagnant or
shrinking revenues in many
cases, and fewer and fewer grant
or loan programs to fund needed
infrastructure. Some systems,
such as water or sewer
infrastructure, are traditionally
funded through rates. Whether or
not rate bases can sustain
needed improvements is
questionable.
What Can /Should Be
Done To Protect These
Needs?
• Cities mandated or choosing
to review and update GMA
plans or regulations in a
comprehensive manner
should consult with legal
counsel about how best to
conduct this review and make
findings about what will or will
not be updated. AWC is
seeking clarification from the
Department of Community
Trade and Economic
Development and the Attorney
General's office on how best to
proceed in a way that limits
legal exposure for past
decisions.
• Remind local legislators that
GMA reviews and updates are
costly and that you appreciate
and need continuing financial
assistance from the state.
• Take care in evaluating
infrastructure needs and
funding availability as updates
are conducted. Funding from
local and other sources is
getting scarcer, and there's
increased competition for state
and federal funding sources —
many of which are insufficient
to fund all local needs.
For more
information or
assistance
Dave Williams
(360) 753 - 4137
davew@ awcnet.org
Dave Catterson
(360) 753 -4137
davec @awcnet.org
•
Association of Washington Cities
1076 Franklin St. SE
Olympia, WA 98501 -1346
Phone: 360 - 753 -4137
Website: www.awcnet.org
t
AWC
SSOCIATION OF
WASHINGTON CITIES
Fact Shee p1embcr 2003
The Future of Municipal Courts
Background
For more than a decade, the
Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC)
and Washington cities have disagreed
about the proper administration and role
of municipal courts. Court reform efforts
in the past have included:
• Abolishing municipal courts and
consolidating them in the District
Court,
Requiring that all judges serve full time
with a salary equivalent to the District
Court judge, and
• Requiring a set of minimum standards
for courts, including but not limited to
maintaining full time court staff and
probation officers.
Driving these reforms, in part, is a
question relating to the true
independence of a municipal court
judge who has been appointed by city
officials rather than elected by the
citizens. Another perennial theme is the
assertion that cities only have courts to
make money. Clearly, neither of these
issues reflects the true value of municipal
(') u its .
This issue has taken on a renewed
sense of urgency with the announcement
by King County Executive Ron Sims that
he would not extend the contracts with
17 cities to provide court services. Faced
with the prospect of abandoning their
municipal courts or establishing 17 new
independent courts, these cities have
sought broader options.
In the 2003 legislative session, SB
5500 offered one such option. In the face
of an AOC challenge, the bill sought to
affirm cities' authority to contract for
court services with one or more
municipalities through an interlocal
agreement. SB 5500 would have allowed
cities statewide to consider this as a
viable option for providing court
services. This and other reform efforts are
likely to resurface in the upcoming
session, potentially creating both
opportunities and challenges for a wide
array of cities and towns across the state.
Looking Forward
For the 2004 legislative
session, we are expecting a
broad reform effort directed at
municipal courts. Options that
are being discussed include:
• Requiring all municipal court
judges to be elected,
• Clarifying the authority of
cities to contract with each
other to provide court services
through a "community court"
model,
• Expanding the jurisdiction of
municipal courts to include
civil protection orders and
other cases concurrent with
the District Court, and
• Requiring additional
information be reported to
AOC.
The success of these reform
efforts would directly impact city
budgets and cities' ability to
determine what court structures
and services are best for their
communities. At least 65 cities
would be forced to make
significant changes in their courts
if all judges were required to be
elected, more than half of which
are small cities and towns (under
5,000 population). On the other
hand, the community court
model could benefit cities,
offering another option for
balancing tight budgets and local
needs for services. It is critical
that cities participate in these
discussions.
•
Association of Washington Cities
1076 Franklin St. SE
Olympia, WA 98501 -1346
Phone: 360 - 753 -4137
Website: www.awcnet.org
Get Involved
AWC staff members are
seeking your help now. We're
looking for:
• A broad representation of
appropriate city staff to
participate in a Court
Resource Group to ensure the
city voice is reflected in any
change in state law, and
• Your help spreading the
message of the value
municipal courts provide in
local communities.
For More
Information
Meagan Eliot
(360) 753 -4137
meagane @awcnet.org
Tammy Fellin
(360) 753 -4137
tammyf @awcnet.org
•
AWC
.SSOCIATION OF
WASHINGTON CITIES
Fact Shee � .
Annexation Reform: Cities need
reliable annexation tools in order to
plan for and accommodate growth
Court Decision Forces Cities
to Seek Annexation Reform
In March 2002, the state Supreme
Court released their surprise decision
declaring the petition method of
annexation unconstitutional. The
property owner petition method had
?en by far the most commonly used
annexation method for more than fifty
years.
Without that method available,
cities had no way to annex unoccupied
lands, and only the election method
available for occupied lands.
AWC responded by supporting a
Motion for Reconsideration to the Court
and by immediately working to identify
potential legislative fixes. AWC convened
an Ad -Hoc Annexation Advisory
Committee, and we brought together an
Annexation Reform Coalition of cities,
counties, and business and
environmental interests, all seeking a fix
to the Court's decision.
Much to everyone's surprise, the
Court granted the Motion for
Reconsideration in the case. Since a final
decision would not come for many
months, and the outcome was still
uncertain, AWC and the Coalition moved
ahead in pursuit of legislative solutions.
Legislature Adopts Some Meaningful Reform Legislation
By the time the 2003
legislative session was over, two
annexation reform bills had
passed. Most important, SSB
5409, which passed almost
unanimously in both the House
1 Senate, established a new
uouble- majority" petition
method of annexation. It requires
petition signatures from property
owners representing at least 50
percent of the acreage proposed
for annexation, and petition
signatures from at least 50
percent (if any) of the registered
voters living i n the proposed
annexation area.
The legislature also passed SHB
1755 that established a new
method for annexation of
unincorporated islands through
inter -local agreements between a
county and city. The bill specified
that the method is available only to
cities within Clark, King, Kitsap,
Pierce, Snohomish and Thurston
counties.
More Work to Do:
Cities Still Need
More Annexation
Tools
Many cities have used outside
utility agreements that allowed
them to extend city utilities
outside of city boundaries in
exchange for an agreement from
the landowner to annex in the
future through the currently
invalid property owner petition
method. As such, these
agreements are now much more
difficult to enforce, often due to
the resistance of residents living
on the now developed
properties.
In order to annex and grow,
cities need more certainty in their
ability to annex, especially in
areas where they are already
providing services. This certainty
could be achieved in numerous
ways:
• A reversal of the state Supreme
Court's original decision could
reinstate the original property
owner petition method. A final
decision by the court is likely
to be released within the next
few months. The outcome is
uncertain.
• Without re- affirmation of the
petition method by the Court,
cities will seek a new utility-
based annexation method. In
2003, we were unsuccessful in
passing HB 1801 (it passed in
the House but not in the
Senate) which would have
allowed a city to annex an
area in which a city was
providing or had committed to
provide water and/or sewer
services to at least 75 percent
of the area. We will continue
to advocate for HB 1801 or a
similar legislative solution.
• We will work with the counties
to explore annexation
methods based upon inter-
local agreements between a
city and county.
Next Steps: A
Multi -year Project
The AWC Board has
recognized that cities face
numerous challenges as they
attempt to annex and grow,
including the implications of
annexation on other units of
government (e.g. counties,
special purpose districts). As
such, the Board has approved an
AWC work program aimed at
crafting a more efficient and
viable system of annexation and
land -use control.
• As part of that work program,
AWC will engage our
membership in identifying
problems and solutions.
o We have recently
conducted a survey of our
cities and towns in order to
more clearly identify
problems we face.
•
Association of Washington Cities
1076 Franklin St. SE
Olympia, WA 98501 -1346
Phone: 360 - 753 -4137
Website: www.awcnet.org
o We are re- convening an Ad-
Hoc Advisory Committee on
Annexation and Land Use.
o We are engaging in
discussions with our affiliate
groups (e.g. Planning
Directors, Finance Officers,
etc.).
• We will attempt to work with
counties and special purpose
districts to identify solutions
that could smooth issues
related to transference of
governance.
• We will continue to actively
pursue appropriate legislative
solutions.
What Can You Do
• Continue to share your
challenges related to
annexation with AWC, and
• Thank your legislators for the
passage of SSB 5409 and
inform them of the challenges
that you still face.
If You Have
Questions or
Comments
Dave Williams
360 - 753 -4137
davew @awcnet.org
Dave Catterson
360- 753 -4137
davecPawcnet.org
Revenues are
Down
The sales and property taxes,
two of cities' three major revenue
sources, have been significantly
limited by the economic
downturn and recent statewide
initiatives.
Initiatives reduce
city revenues
more each year.
• The Legislature repealed the
MotorVehicle Excise Tax after
voters approved Initiative 695
in 1999. Cities have lost more
than $100 million per year as
a result. Over half of cities lost
more than 10% of their annual
revenues.
• Initiative 747 passed in 2001,
limiting annual levy growth to
1 %, thus falling behind
inflation more and more each
year. Cities rely on property
taxes for 25% of their
operating budgets. As a result,
cities will lose $63.7 million in
2003, and the annual losses
are expected to grow to
$136.6 million by 2007.
3 Main Revenue Sources for WA Cities:
Property, Sales, and Business & Utility Taxes
2001 City Operating* Revenues — $3.2 Billion
(Includes Restricted Revenues, excludes capital debt & enterprise)
• General a social Fund.
$250
5200
1150
1100
150
Qil N
Property Taxes
($697.1 M)
22%
Initiative Losses to Cities 2002 -2007
1300
s-
1111-776 Loss'
• 1-747 Loss
• LIVET Lose (After Baddlr)
2002 2003
1199
119.1
141.3
11012
2004
5195
183.7
$ 109.7
$114A
2008
520.0
s1oe.9
1120.1
$205
1138.8
1123.9
atataY
Assumes 18 M baddW to cities in 2003. 33 M in 2004, 52 AA In 2005, and no bacldi to cities beginning In 2006
•1-778 was declared uncm,tItutbnal by the King County Superior Court In February 2003. and Supreme Court
arguments Wel be heard h June 20011.
Projected 2007 Initiative Impacts to City
Operating Revenues
State and Federal
Shared Pereruss Met
( 1334 . 8 ) (S1 B on)
Et% 25%
Business
& Uiity
Taxes
20%
$2221 M
119.1
166.3
11111141
hltiab
Losses
7% 1.747 Loss
— (5136.6 M)
3%
1-776 Lose
Property Tams (5205 M)
(17555 M) 1%
11?%
Business &
Occupation
(Bdo) Taxes
($ 203.7 M)
6%
uiity Taxes
($447.6 M)
14%
• E sa metea based on prviected 2001 MVET loss and OFM 1-747 and 1-776 bases.
Estimate assumes Ai Inpk rnentaton of 1. 776. Local Faeroe lee and MVET reveruas contras to be
collected on banal of Klnp and Pierce Coji es and Sotrd Invert pending the final outcome of e legal
dtaiertpe b the Intiathe.'
Wt M
MVET Loss
(3123.9 Nf)
3%
Many cities have
exhausted their
options.
Cities have been cutting their
budgets since 1999. Many cities
are now eliminating basic
services as the gap between
revenues and expenses widens.
• Last year six communities cut
their budgets by closing their
police departments and
contracting with the county for
law enforcement
• Many smaller jurisdictions no
longer have 24 -hour police
coverage in their community.
• Many cities have had hiring
freezes for multiple years and
others have had to lay off
employees.
• Infrastructure and other capital
improvements have been
delayed, making the funding
gap even wider than the $3.05
billion estimated in 1998.
Tri- Association
Proposal
Last legislative session, the
legislature began to address
some cities' needs. While cities
appreciate this start in the right
direction, the crisis in local
government funding is far from
resolved.
City and county association
executive leadership advanced a
package of bills to provide some
additional revenue authority,
public health funding, direct
funding for the hardest hit
jurisdictions, and efficiencies.
The Legislature passed legislation
providing additional voter
approved local sales tax revenue
authority and streamlining the
process for multi -year levies; plus
provided two more years of
public health funding, and a
greatly reduced allocation of
MVET backfill.
In addition to permanent
public health funding and
"backfill" assistance, cities now
need assistance in addressing
spiraling costs. The city and
county executive leadership
continues to meet and plans to
submit a priority package of
efficiencies this session. While
this has yet to be finalized, it is
likely to include major
efficiencies, such as some
liability reforms, streamlining
public works processes, allowing
cities to take full advantage of
efficient purchasing and
streamlining outmoded bid
processes.
■
Association of Washington Cities
1076 Franklin St. SE
Olympia, WA 98501 -1346
Phone: 360 - 753 -4137
Website: www.awcnet.org
What Cities and
Towns Need from
Legislators
Some cities need direct
financial assistance, with an
ongoing source of revenue, from
the state to continue providing
basic services and, in some cases
to continue operating as cities.
Public health funding needs a
dedicated, ongoing source of
revenue.
Cities need new tools to help
contain or reduce costs, and
make more efficient use of
existing resources.
For More
Information
Jim Justin
(360) 753 -4137
jimj @awcnet.org
Sheila Gall
(360) 753 -4137
sheilag@awcnet.org
AWC
%SSOCIATION OF
WASHINGTON CITIES
Fact Shee Ptem�r 2003
City Finances - Tight Times Getting
Tougher
Background
Why are cities in Washington State
experiencing financial difficulty?
• Cities have experienced significant
new demands for services over the last
decade
• Cities are coping with rising costs
• The economic downturn has impacted
cities around the state
• Initiatives reduce city revenues more
each year
Service Demands
City responsibilities and the costs of maintaining current service levels have grown significantly over the
last fifteen years, but city services are competing for increasingly scarce resources.
• Cities are home to the majority
of Washington's citizens: 60%
of the state's population,
compared to 52% in 1990.
This growth has cities working
harder to provide livable
communities and essential
services to greater numbers
with shrinking resources.
• 3,440 miles of new city streets
have been added over the past
decade. Cities maintain a
street system that includes
14,588 lane miles, of which
94% are paved, and 657
bridges, many of which are in
need of significant repairs. In
1998, the Local Government
Infrastructure Study estimated
a total $2.25 billion in needs
for city streets, based on six -
year plans.
• Cities will be expected to
continue to maintain and
preserve their own systems
despite the same pressures on
their revenues that have
produced the state's budget
problems, without the benefit
of funding from the "nickel"
gas tax increase that was
approved this year.
• As cities build and repair
streets, they must also maintain
complex infrastructure below
street surfaces, such as
stormwater,
telecommunications and
sewer systems. City water
systems handle 79% of all
domestic water needs in
Washington.
• Law enforcement, fire, and
other public safety services
also increase with growth.
Cities employ approximately
70% of local law enforcement
officers.
• IP
Costs of Services
The cost of providing essential
services is escalating beyond
inflation, beyond city control,
and it will only get worse.
• Fifty percent of city budgets
are spent on public safety, a
high priority for our citizens,
which is growing faster than
the rate of inflation.
• Salaries and benefits account
for three - quarters of police and
fire services expenditures.
Over the past ten years, police
and fire wage increases
exceeded inflation by nearly
50%.
• The employers' share of health
insurance costs jumped 35%
in the last two years and is
expected to increase by 23-
28% for 2004.
• Budget cuts from other
jurisdictions have direct
impacts on cities:
o Jail rates and law
enforcement contracts have
increased substantially as
counties cope with rising
costs.
• Mandates from the state and
federal governments have
increased pressure on city
services and budgets.
o Cities are financially
responsible for the lifetime
medical and Tong -term care
costs of more than 6,500
LEOFF 1 members and
retirees. Since nursing home
costs now run as high as
$6,000 per month, just one
admission could force a
small city to lay off two
police officers.
o Expensive Homeland
Security requirements are
now included among city
responsibilities.
Natural Resources
(e.g. Parks,
Environment
Community
Deveiopment)
(5631.9 M)
22%
• Inok,d.• apied.upon:du and .yprfllu.. funded by . „r.....
Cost of Government Services vs. Inflation
10%
o%
Other (e.g. Health
Care, Liability
Insurance Benefits,
Pensions.
Lbraries, Interest
Payments)
(S709.5 M)
24%
1992 -1103
-l- Goverment Current Expenditures Index -s- CPI -US -0+- CPI - 6eettle
City Per Capita Revenues vs. Inflation
1992 -2001
(1992 Dollars)
10/2 1163
2001 WA City Operating* Expenditures —
$2.9 Billion
1992 -18N
1994 1995
1992-2001
Health d Hunan
Services
(548.1 M)
2%
19923
Law & Justice
Services
(5821 M)
28%
Fire b Emergency
Services
(S451 M)
169
Sae
tile. awe
1755 1791
5738 t rr31 - 5656 s674 1 ball r1w t
, 906 1907 1* 111111 *4 ,toot
l
• City Per C apita Reveries
• City Per Capita Ravenna In 1092 oafftars 1
JSOCIATION OF
WASHINGTON CITIES
September 2003
Fact Sheet
Annexation Reform: Cities need
reliable annexation tools in order to
plan for and accommodate growth
Court Decision Forces Cities
to Seek Annexation Reform
In March 2002, the state Supreme
Court released their surprise decision
declaring the petition method of
annexation unconstitutional. The
property owner petition method had
yen by far the most commonly used
annexation method for more than fifty
years.
Without that method available,
cities had no way to annex unoccupied
lands, and only the election method
available for occupied lands.
AWC responded by supporting a
Motion for Reconsideration to the Court
and by immediately working to identify
potential legislative fixes. AWC convened
an Ad -Hoc Annexation Advisory
Committee, and we brought together an
Annexation Reform Coalition of cities,
counties, and business and
environmental interests, all seeking a fix
to the Court's decision.
Much to everyone's surprise, the
Court granted the Motion for
Reconsideration in the case. Since a final
decision would not come for many
months, and the outcome was still
uncertain, AWC and the Coalition moved
ahead in pursuit of legislative solutions.
Legislature Adopts Some Meaningful Reform Legislation
By the time the 2003
legislative session was over, two
annexation reform bills had
passed. Most important, SSB
5409, which passed almost
'nanimously in both the House
d Senate, established a new
"double - majority" petition
method of annexation. It requires
petition signatures from property
owners representing at least 50
percent of the acreage proposed
for annexation, and petition
signatures from at least 50
percent (if any) of the registered
voters living in the proposed
annexation area.
The legislature also passed SHB
1755 that established a new
method for annexation of
unincorporated islands through
inter -local agreements between a
county and city. The bill specified
that the method is available only to
cities within Clark, King, Kitsap,
Pierce, Snohomish and Thurston
counties.
More Work to Do:
Cities Still Need
More Annexation
Tools
Many cities have used outside
utility agreements that allowed
them to extend city utilities
outside of city boundaries in
exchange for an agreement from
the landowner to annex in the
future through the currently
invalid property owner petition
method. As such, these
agreements are now much more
difficult to enforce, often due to
the resistance of residents living
on the now developed
properties.
In order to annex and grow,
cities need more certainty in their
ability to annex, especially in
areas where they are already
providing services. This certainty
could be achieved in numerous
ways:
• A reversal of the state Supreme
Court's original decision could
reinstate the original property
owner petition method. A final
decision by the court is likely
to be released within the next
few months. The outcome is
uncertain.
• Without re- affirmation of the
petition method by the Court,
cities will seek a new utility -
based annexation method. In
2003, we were unsuccessful in
passing HB 1801 (it passed in
the House but not in the
Senate) which would have
allowed a city to annex an
area in which a city was
providing or had committed to
provide water and /or sewer
services to at least 75 percent
of the area. We will continue
to advocate for HB 1801 or a
similar legislative solution.
• We will work with the counties
to explore annexation
methods based upon inter -
local agreements between a
city and county.
Next Steps: A
Multi -year Project
The AWC Board has
recognized that cities face
numerous challenges as they
attempt to annex and grow,
including the implications of
annexation on other units of
government (e.g. counties,
special purpose districts). As
such, the Board has approved an
AWC work program aimed at
crafting a more efficient and
viable system of annexation and
land -use control.
• As part of that work program,
AWC will engage our
membership in identifying
problems and solutions.
o We have recently
conducted a survey of our
cities and towns in order to
more clearly identify
problems we face.
•
Association of Washington Cities
1076 Franklin St. SE
Olympia, WA 98501 -1346
Phone: 360 - 753 -4137
Website: www.awcnet.org
o We are re- convening an Ad-
Hoc Advisory Committee on
Annexation and Land Use.
o We are engaging in
discussions with our affiliate
groups (e.g. Planning
Directors, Finance Officers,
etc.).
• We w i l l attempt to work with
counties and special purpose
districts to identify solutions
that could smooth issues
related to transference of
governance.
• We will continue to actively
pursue appropriate legislative
solutions.
What Can You Do
• Continue to share your
challenges related to
annexation with AWC, and
• Thank your legislators for the
passage of SSB 5409 and
inform them of the challenges
that you still face.
If You Have
Questions or
Comments
Dave Williams
360 - 753 -4137
davew @awcnet.org
Dave Catterson
360 - 753 -4137
davec @awcnet.org
Rich
Report of AWC Board of Directors Meeting
On October 3, 2003, 1 attended the Board of Directors for the AWC. See
the attached agenda for a complete list of topics discussed.
1. Regional Meetings:
Staff and Directors have been conducting regional meetings with
cities since September 24 /h. They have all been well attended. Our
meeting will be facilitated by Tom Moack who is the President of
AWC. I have attached a number of one sheet information pieces for
you to read before the meeting and bring to the meeting on the 14th
of October.
2. I have attached the Second Joint Legislative Proposal for the 2004
legislative agenda. I draw your attention to page 3, the second
paragraph, entitled Capital Purposes. A lively debate ensued about
how the state can help border communities better compete with
activities on the other side of the state line. Mr. Finklestein may
need a little convincing to aggressively discussing this with the
legislature.
3. A discussion about the status of annexation legislation went right
along with the position paper attached. An annexation survey was
discussed. I have a copy of it, but we are 'not in a good position to
pursue this activity or participate in the annexation survey until
we have made much more progress on our comprehensive plan.
4. In my opinion, one of the most important aspects of the
annexation discussion is the current policy of King County to
encourage unincorporated areas in the county to be annexed by a
city or to incorporate. They have offered economic incentives to
cities to annex neighboring urban areas. Their main concern is
their inability to efficiently deliver urban services over increasingly
fractionalized and scattered geographic areas. One wonders if this
will be a trend for all counties to eventually consider.
S. If you have any questions, please contact me.
8) Conference Committee Report
AWC Conference Committee Chair, Mary Place, will report on the
activities of the Conference Committee and will lead a board discussion
on the policy implications of recent trends in conference venues, pricing
and contracting.
*9 )
City Boundary Adjustment Policy Study
The AWC Executive Director will update the Board on the status of the
policy study on city boundary adjustments. Enclosed under tab #9 is a
staff report regarding this study.
*10) Department of Transportation Permit Efficiency Project
Enclosed under tab #10 is a report concerning a new contract project
with Department of Transportation. The Executive Director will review
and discuss this project with the Board.
*11) Emergency Management Project
Enclosed under tab #11 is a report concerning the progress of the joint
Emergency Management Project being conducted by WSAC and AWC.
The Executive Director will review and discuss this report with the
Board.
*12) National League of Cities Update
The National League of Cities Annual Congress of Cities and
Exposition will be held December 8 -12 in Nashville. A memo outlining
the AWC events held in conjunction with the Congress of Cities is
enclosed under tab #12.
*13) Member Services Update
Enclosed under tab #13 is a progress report outlining member service
activities to date. Staff will discuss the report with the Board and answer
any questions you may have.
*14) Staffing Update
Enclosed under tab #14 is a new organizational chart. The Executive
Director will review and discuss'the AWC organizational chart and
staffing with the Board.
*15) Next Board Meeting
The next AWC Board meeting will be held on November 20 and 21 in
Renton at the Hilton Garden Inn. Enclosed under tab #15 is the updated
Board Calendar.
16) Other Business
17) Adjournment
M;\MY DOCUMENTS BOARD OG DIRECTORS.9CARD MEETIX{3S5500303 AGEHDA.DOC
u
8) Conference Committee Report
AWC Conference Committee Chair, Mary Place, will report on the
activities of the Conference Committee and will lead a board discussion
on the policy implications of recent trends in conference venues, pricing
and contracting.
City Boundary Adjustment Policy Study
The AWC Executive Director will update the Board on the status of the
policy study on city boundary adjustments. Enclosed under tab #9 is a
staff report regarding this study.
*10) Department of Transportation Permit Efficiency Project
Enclosed under tab #10 is a report concerning a new contract project
with Department of Transportation. The Executive Director will review
and discuss this project with the Board.
*9 )
*11) Emergency Management Project
Enclosed under tab #11 is a report concerning the progress of the joint
Emergency Management Project being conducted by WSAC and AWC.
The Executive Director will review and discuss this report with the
Board.
*12) National League of Cities Update
The National League of Cities Annual Congress of Cities and
Exposition will be held December 8 -12 in Nashville. A memo outlining
the AWC events held in conjunction with the Congress of Cities is
enclosed under tab #12.
*13) Member Services Update
Enclosed under tab #13 is a progress report outlining member service
activities to date. Staff will discuss the report with the Board and answer
any questions you may have.
*14) Staffing Update
Enclosed under tab #14 is a new organizational chart. The Executive
Director will review and discuss•the AWC organizational chart and
staffing with the Board.
*15) . Next Board Meeting
The next AWC Board meeting will be held on November 20 and 21 in
Renton at the Hilton Garden Inn. Enclosed under tab #15 is the updated
Board Calendar.
16) Other Business
17) Adjournment
M :MY OOCUMENTS180ARD OF D1RECTORS58.OARD M ETINGS',1003O3 AGENDA.000
?o 'cl
LOCAL
GOVERNMENT
SECOND
JOINT LEGISLATIVE
PROPOSAL
2004 Legislative Session
9896 6£b 90? 'ON XU1
Draft as of September 29, 2003
'JOdJia vqs aaJjamoo uri R : fl NOW Pnn7.- m-r14S
E0 'd
-ASSOCIATION PRINCIPLES
The Association of Washington Cities the Washington l,fc els Acknowledge that the
and the Washington Association of County
Washington State Legislature during the 2003 se i onl o the L s sl en td
en to address the fiscal plight of Washington's g
legislation in response to the problems facing cities and counties.
THE TRI- ASSOCIATION ADOPTED PRINCIPLES IN THE FALL OF 2002 AND
NOW REAFFIRMS ITS CO NT TO
• Assist uniquely impacted jurisdictions tose cure sufficient t resources and
assure that all cities and counties are able to provide
• Recognize the need to enhance revenues of' cities and coun and with a
focus on securing permanent resources for criminal j
health.
Ensure that cities and counties are provided flexibility in the use of
• revenues.
• Support legislation that reduces or eliminates state- imposed mandates and
p responsibilities or secures slate reimbursement for those
activities.
• Seek legislation that removes the restrictions that limit the efficient
delivery of local government services.
• Assist city and county officials to inform their citizens of the impact of
insufficient revenues on the provision of basic services.
965V 6St 90Z '0N Xd.i
2 -
1 . 1 0 1 ! V ES .rl,e l gn°0 4id 6b ; bO NOW £00Z- 6Z —d3S
1 "•
bfl 'FI
TRI- ASSOCIATION
LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL
To assure the capacity of cities and counties to meet criminal justice needs, protect
public health, and provide other critical services, the TriiAssoc`ati°n recommends
that the Legislature:
PROTECT LOCAL GOVERNMENT
• Pass no legislation that adversely impacts cities and counties
• Provide state assistance to local governments that suffer a sizeable loss of general
revenues essential to assure that they can provide basic levels of service.
ENk1ANCE REVENUE FLEXIBILITY
• Capital Purposes: Loosen restrictions on the usage of the current Real Estat4
Excise Tax (REET) to allow for all capital purposes. CiAA '■«
• Community Priorities: Eliminate or reduce restrictions on the-expasteetit of
local governments to spend money on programs of lesser local priority.
OPTIMIZE USE OF EXISTING RESOURCES
Local Government Operation
Efficient Purchasing: Eliminate outmoded purchasing and bid requirements;
•
and, amend local government purchasing laws to clarify collective purchasing
authority.
• Economic Development: Clarify the authority of cities and counties to engage in
economic development activities.
• Tax Incrennent Finance: Support tax increment finance program authority that
benefits cities and counties.
▪ Tort Costs Limitation: Set reasonable limits on tort liability for governmental
activities and services.
-3 -
QRQb RPb Qfl? nw SHa lJOdJq. FPS aaJ.l.algnoli Wn Rb:bfl iflU s.nn ?.- R7. -4
SO 'd
Capital Projects
• Speed up public works projects by eliminating delay
Public Works Projects: Spe P p
caused by the redundant approval process for Public Works Trust Fund projects and
allow jail projects to qualify for Public Works Trust Fund financing.
Law and Justice
Local Courts: Reduce court costs by allowing jurisdictions to downsize or
consolidate courts to recognize Chang government e in local gove boundaries, caseload
reductions or achieve economies of scale.
Court Judgment Interest Rates: Reduce interest rates paid by governments on
court awards and judgments to reflect current interest rates.
969V 6£V 92 ON XV.
-4
1JodJid GeJl°Igno1 bid 6b;170 NOW £OOd- 6d -d3S
,iSOCIATION OF
WASHINGTON CITIES
The efficient and safe movement of
people and goods, including congestion
relief and freight mobility, is not only
essential to a growing or recovering
economy - special needs along with
growth have increased the need for
adequate multi -model services.
As a result of population growth,
annexations, and incorporations, cities
( towns are responsible for more total
-street miles and have therefore increased
transportation needs.
For the first time in 13 years, the
2003 Legislature adopted a five -cent per
gallon gas tax that is predicted to raise
approximately $4.178 billion dollars
over a ten -year period. The revenue
package also included a .3% vehicle
transfer fee and a 15% vehicle gross
AWC
September 2003
Fact Sheet
Keeping Our Cities Transportation
System Working
weight fee. In previous years, the
Legislature recognized the need for an
integrated transportation system as an
essential element in the movement of
goods, people and service.
Consequently, local governments were
. provided a share of the revenue
packages.
Given that most of this legislative
year's emphasis was directed towards
patching up the state system and
adopting a relatively small revenue
package, little consideration was given to
city or county needs. Business groups,
along with Cities and Counties, fought
hard to fund local freight mobility
projects. Only two were funded in the
final days.
Transportation
Funding
AWC encourages the
Legislature to address
transportation as an integrated
system and respond to the long-
term transportation needs of
cities and towns, including
maintenance, upgrades, and
expansion of the transportation
system. AWC urges the
Legislature to ensure the
availability of state and local
resources to sufficiently fund all
modes of the state and local
transportation system..
Any newly created regional
transportation financing and
governance mechanism should
allow for meaningful city
participation and provide for an
equitable geographic distribution
. of funding and transportation
investments. For example:
• Creation of Street Utility
• Increased funding for
Transportation Improvement
Board Program, local freight
mobility and other local
government programs
Association of Washington Cities
1076 Franklin St. SE
Olympia, WA 98501 -1346
Phone: 360 -753 -4137
Website: www.awcnet.org
For More
Information
Jackie White
(360) 753 -4137
jackiew @awcnet.org
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL
ESTABLISHING THE TIME, PLACE AND DATE OF REGULAR CITY COUNCIL
MEETINGS AND PROVIDING FOR THE POSTING OF 1 IiE AGENDA.
WHEREAS, the Spokane Valley City Council desires to establish a regular meeting date,
time and location for its meetings pursuant to RCW 35Al2.110;
WHEREAS, the City Council is desirous of establishing a procedure for notifying the
public of the preliminary agenda for the City Council meetings pursuant to RCW 35A.12.160;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes that it is in the best interest of the citizens of the
City of Spokane Valley that all actions of the City Council be open and before the public with all
persons permitted to attend and, where appropriate, participate in the decisions of their
government.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it Resolved by the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley,
Washington as follows:
1. Regular Meetings.
The City Council shall hold regular meetings on every Tuesday of each month
commencing at 6:00 p.m. and ending at 10:00 p.m provided upon motion a one hour extension
of such meeting may occur upon majority vote of the Council Meetings shall occur at the
Redwood Plaza Building located at 11707 East Sprague Avenue in the City of Spokane Valley,
Washington.
2. Study Sessions.
It is anticipated that City Council may, upon proper notice, schedule additional
meetings as study sessions with limited action being taken. The purpose of a study session will
generally be to receive and review information relating to the business of the City.
3. Posting ofNotice.
The public shall be notified of the City Council Preliminary Agenda for the
upcoming City Council meeting by posting a copy of the agenda approximately 24 hours in
advance of each meeting at the following:
a. Interim City Hall located at the Redwood Plaza Building located at 11707
East Sprague Avenue in the City of Spokane Valley, Washington;
b. Spokane County Library located at 12004 East Main Avenue, Spokane,
Washington;
c. Trentwood Post Office located at 14409 East Trent Avenue, Spokane,
Washington and Veradale Post Office at 15202 East Sprague Avenue,
Spokane, Washington; and
d. Such Other Places as City Council May Direct.
4. Open Public Meetings Act.
The City Council shall not take any action including the passage of an Ordinance
or Resolution at any meeting which is not open to the public pursuant to the Open Meeting Act.
5. $everability.
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
RESOLUTION NO. 02 -05
The above places shall also be the locations where the City Council will
post notice of all public hearings at least 24 hours in advance. Further, the
City Council shall send a copy of the preliminary agenda to the City's
official newspaper and such other media as requested.
If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Resolution shall be fcy.ind to be
invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity shall not affect the remainder of said
Spokane
jUalley
October 14, 2003
To Whom It May Concern:
RE: Letter of Endorsement
The City of Spokane Valley, Washington strongly supports the efforts of the Spokane County Fair and
Exposition Center and the Spokane Regional Convention and Visitor's Bureau in their efforts to secure
the National High School Rodeo to be held in July of 2008 and 2009.
Sincerely,
Michael DeVleming, Mayor
MD:cb
11707 E. Sprague Ave. • Suite 106 • Spokane Valley, WA 99206
(509) 921 -1000 • Fax (509) 921 -1008 • cityhall @spokanevalley.org
•
111 sa. Atnp.d• at M1IA11.a.n.0 f4cl4u'
(71 S.. t:.etrrirrW Use linter
()I 5.• Vrrl.nra Alronraolly
FEE SCHEDULE COMPARISON RECOMMENDATIONS
Category
Current sv F..
Schedule
Spokane County
City of liberty
Lake
City of Spokane
Pruptsud
PLAT ACiMIHISTRAMN
(Binding 511. Plan
PrvH ninety
11 500
51,724 • $10 polo(
51,659.1101101
12.810 • 635lscse •
new+tpwp.r notice
51,500
Final
51,326
51.276
11,820 • $171 ecru
Modifications S1.300
60% of lee
61,300
'hangs of Ca+ditlotn 5650
5850
Aggregatirx•Lno9S *lions
CnrtirKtrkf t0E.emtyty0n 595
S0
l of Itrn_ raj•slment
1100
5100
5100
1100
5165 pat tine
1165
5100
5100
Lot Imo cllrrwranon
Pre -1978
567
184
Beaman 5 and 10 acre.
1100
596
Minor lot line A joatnwlnt
506
AB others
587
584
•• Vscat•on Application
f�00
• GhtsiWl
l_rating Iola / petrels allowing a
• per•
5398 • 512 per
(=pier Ow.linp and
lot
5367 4 112 lot per
duplex (welling unit.
lot
In malfunction wdtt a Preliminary ►'tat
Prollmmaty Short P1a1
533
5371
Ptdim.roty Ptak V.rebpn or atetallan
of Final Plat. Shat Mal of filndirtp Site
Plan, 7nna Riaaarfication or PUP
5•4
eian.nery Short Plat Preliminary
at Stu Plan; Temporary Use
Top Sod Removal. Variance;
• 1 Um, Shorans* and erg
n
i 'minge in Condemn
139
vision.
Ttntallve Plat 5250
110
Prairnwnay Plat 17000 • 125 per lot
51698 • 114 per lot
St,633'314/Wt
52000 • 525 per lot
F rnal Ptat 11,000 • 110 per lot
5882 +1110 per lot
1829 +110 of
11.000 4 110 par lot
Put Moudlraaixn Vacation
Subdivision 5650
1664
5650
Short plat 5265
5265
5263
Binding See Plana
5691
Myer mange to Pieta, Short Plats
Binding SIM Plana
PM
1
tteaolubon Congo to Plots, Short
Plats, Bklding Mat Plans
5318
Short Plat • 2d Lobs
I
TontetN. Plat 1250
50
Pn•16rrwwy Plat
$1 326 • $12 par lot
51 = 512/L0 4
21011
5500
5330
5636
1900
5500
3lo1.a
5498
1956
51,350
4 Lois
11,820
Final Pte
2 lob
5800' 110dot
5318
5450
1800 +S t Oilot
3 lot.
5479
1870
4 lots
1638+5121oh 4
5900
Short Pill • 64 lots
Tentative Plat 5250
10
Pne Plat 51,000 • $25 par lot
S1.326 • 512 per Id
S 2 . 0 3 5 . $ 1 8 0 0 1 1 0 1
over 5 lots
51 000 • 525 per lol
Final Plat, 1600 • 110 per tot
5663 • 112 per lot
52.035 • 116 per lot
own 5 lots
5.800•S10 per lot
Steal Pod nppe.>w 5200
aol
Stmdtvktb.
Preliminary Hat 52.000
51,696 +514/101
51 633.514401
12.000+625101
Final Plat 51.000. 510/1ot
$882•510401
5829 +510101
51,000•510/101
� a o lot Lir
$330 • 5Td par lot
5318 +510 par lot
!1
•
111 sa. Atnp.d• at M1IA11.a.n.0 f4cl4u'
(71 S.. t:.etrrirrW Use linter
()I 5.• Vrrl.nra Alronraolly
FEE SCHEDULE COMPARISON RECOMMENDATIONS
Category S
Current SV Fce C
Spokane County L
City of Liberty
City of Spokane P
Prop:: :
ZONING ADMINIETRATION
Adniedstratla tntwpnlaram
Appeal of Damon 1
1250 5
5205 5
5 100 0
0
Aral Singi. I army R.sdenee 1
1100
lml
Appeals of ANY ArankOstrs IW
Decisions (includes building.
ricoludes code anbercemsrtU D
Deocnpt1on change 5
5255 5
51.000
Appose or Hoodoo E:ea nil r $
$300 5
5300 5
5300
Conraink9,13fshlet 5
51 000 s
so
Comprehensive Plan Amanil taalf e
51.500 n
52 015.566010
51 500
Conditional Use Permit 5
5500 1
1454 1
1438 $
$800
41en0'Mll 1
16♦
Extension of Tana 5
5225 5
5217
Home OCtMpa00n Pont* 5
5300 1
180 5
5T
►tome Industry Permit $
$80 S
SOO
Pre- application Conlertm ce $
$01 5
538 -558 5
50
SO Occluded h Was
PUO
lent omo $
$250 1
10
Plan 1
11,500 • 525 per lot $
$1.435 5
57.020 5
51, 500 • 525 pot lot
NfodlFlcaUon
trYhOr 1
1250 1
1500
Molar $
$750
Furl Plan 5
5748
r
Review at Pormament Sign[ $
$150 1
10 5
550
Review 0t Tonnorry Sign 5
575 1
10 5
550
Plan Revere 5
5250 r
80% nl :ono 5
50% of zone. 1
1250
SMe P
1.4 15
Die 30 drys 1
1100 5
5150
31 t 90 clays 1
1250
2-month period 5
5101 5
597
4 -month period $
$201 $
$194
6•madh period 5
5304 5
529:
8 -month penal 5
5404 5
5389
renewrl 5
530 5
538
V arran cis 5
5681 5
5910
Aammistnervo 5
5300 5
5300
Signs and ail other, 5
5750 s
se
S4r 4o-bmdly Resldenbal 5
5300 $
$ (P
Pubic Hering' I
Includes ALL requiring 5
51
L of Line 1
1330 • 510 par 101
e L
$1 1
11.500
r oiling
1383
— 13 ' 180 •root 1
or i
$500 n
11,500
41) See Mows err Aareweseve (wow ,
OI ldse C+rdaane live Permian
01 See Venoms AAemwmahre
FEE SCHEDULE COMPARISON RECOMMENDATIONS
(1) 5s Appeal d Aeanare*.e Odear
rnl Sae Castrate use Pains
ft) gas Varome As arwa ave
FEE SCHEDULE COMPARISON RECOMMENDATIONS
3
CITY of LAN
Spokane County Lake
Ctty of Spokane
Proposed
•Category
Current SV Fee
Schedule
E NVIAO•YEHTAL ADIWNISTRAT)ON
� Crlbcel Anus Permit
3300
taent
Environmental Impact Starrt
Impa
S2 - 000
$810
/NJ min dep•add'I
3 if derma labs
below $100
37.000
SEPA aheckttat
375 per lour
5150
Single Dwelling
5100
$300
3250
5100
5300
f 0 1°1
All other developments
Appal
Shoreline
SubetullYd Development Permit
5800
*1100
$2,50010 310,000
*825
510.001 to $50,000
3870
550,001 to $250,000
51.455
5250.001 to 51.000.000
33.310
over 51,000,000
54.135
50 to 525,000
3398 • advertising
5383 • .Overkeuy
525,000 - 576,000
$477 • advertising
*4584edvenlsnQ
575.000 - 5300,000
1835 • adverlhalp
5617 • advertising
Over $300.000
$795 • advertising
*7115 • advermn0
Candleonal Use
5800
same as *Pam
* 1 410
3 0 "
Vaftaroe
*800
same Olt Owns
51.125
10 "
Appeal
5100
5 0''
(1) 5s Appeal d Aeanare*.e Odear
rnl Sae Castrate use Pains
ft) gas Varome As arwa ave
FEE SCHEDULE COMPARISON RECOMMENDATIONS
3
C56990 y
Current 8V Fee
Schedule
Spokane County
City of Ley
Lab
City of Spokane
r
Proposed
Otk1.L' N(, MOATS (Typical - Laud
o n V.UUr!i
Surcharge
0%
22%
22%
1895
096
Reid nkal ' 3500
635 00
335.00
135.00
570 50
15925
F'len Check
314.00
127 70
Surc
$T 70
5170
53 75
rOT Ai. Resident :Ai ., 3500
140 00
342 70
14270
123 T8
$99 95
Rardentia112,000
$8925
383.25
30325
153 50
369.25
Plan Cheri
327.70
377 70
Sub+erpn
31392
113.02
5. 58
TOTAL Reardnneal 32,000
39606
577 1
177.17
142 O6
196 96
Rea0oe8a1 325,000
130125
$352 00
5352.00
$326 19
3301.25
Ran Cherie
5168.50
$156 50
Surchet4c
177 44
377.44
$52 19
TOTAL Resn1en8el 325,000
3647 75
3429 44
1429 44
1376.39
3547 75
Residential 560,000
3643 75
3550 00
3580 00
$439.95
3843.75
Ran Check
$25730
3257 50
Surchr ate
3177 BO
3127.80
_ 173.39
.
CL i=u5dnnnnt $50.000
500125
3707 00
3707 60
353154
3901.25
Residential 5100,000
$993.75
$995 00
3695 00
1707 45
389375
Piw1 Check
3307 30
3397 50
Surcharge
3196.00
1196 90
1113 19
TOTAL Readsntal1100,000
31,391 25
$1.091 90
$1.091.90
382064
51,301 25
Rasidentel 3150,000
31,273.73
$1,145 00
$1.14500
3899 95
31,273 75
Plan Check
3500 50
3509 50
Marge
3231 90
3143 99
TOT Resrdonta11150.000
31,793 25
51,306.90
$1.396.90
31,04394
31,73325
Commercial < 3500
13500
$35.00
535.00
$20.50
364.18
Pen Chas
322 75
372 75
S22.75
313.93
34601
Surcharge
$7.70
m7-2g3ia!!!
sa ia2115
5114.26
389 25
545 01
TOTAL Commercial 4 5500
357.75
555 45
306.45
Comrrercai37,000
$60.25
363 23
563 25
Ftan Chock
145 01
541.11
541 11
Surcharge
31392
11302
TOTAL Canmerco132,000
3114.28
311526
1118.28
511426
3391 25
Carms+ercral 125.000
3391 25
3352 00
3352.00
Fien Check
3254 31
322E 80
3228 80
3251.31
Surcharge
377 44
177.44
352.19
TOTAL Catimavld 325,000
$645.56
$1150.24
5658 24
159140
5646 -59
1
Cannwrjial 550,000
3643 75
$580 00
3560.00
5469 95
3643.75
Ran Check
_
341844
3377 00
3377.00
$79646
1411144
Sudar90
3127 00
3127 50
373.59
TO 1AL Commands, $50,000
31,06219
51.064.50
31.064 60
163200
51,082.10
Correraroa1
1903 75
$805.00
3895 00
3707 45
3993.75
Plan Check
$845.94
3581 75
1581 75
3459.61
$64514
Surcharge
319690
3196 90
1113.19
TOTAL C.ornmerc Tel 31011000
11.839 69
51,673.65
11,673 65
31.280 40
$1,531136
Commaroet $150.000
51273.73
11,145 00
11.14500
1899 95
31,273.75
Plan Check
3621.93
5744
5744
1585
$827.93 i
Sursha ge
5751.90
5251 90
3143 99
TOTAL Commercial 1150,000
_
52,101
52.14115
$2,141 15 i
11,82591
$2,10118
C nmerc el $500K
13,22373
32,1335.00
$2.895.00
12,247 45
53,223 75
Plan Check
$2,101.94
5636.90
1636.90
$359 59
32,101 04
Suttrwgs
32295.74
12- 295.74
11,604.58
TOTAL Cammsecral 3500,000
$5.325.09
55,627 64
$5,327.64
54.301.82
$5,325.119
Cuma¢a13700K
34.183.75
53, 705.00
$3,705 00
52.90745
$4,183.75
Plan Chock
52,710.44
5515.10
3015 10
3465 19
$2,71944
&sctarps
32,038.07
52. 939.07
12.102 -22
TOTAI. Commensal $1
$8.903.19
17,458.17
$7,45817
$5,564.86
36,90110
Commercial 11 Mn llo
55,608.75
14,980.00
$4,980 00
13,697.43
$5,606 75
Plan Cheri
33.645 69
51,09560
51.01$560
5623.59
33.645 69
Suichesge
$3,94914
53.949 14
12,038.86
TOTAL Cormner:3e1 31,000.000 _
_ 39 44
310 74
310 074 74
57.459 72
59 254 44
1 5 s A9penis of Admkratern Lam. ur
G11 ba4 cendllrek1 the Perna
(618ar wanes Ntw
FEE SCHEDULE COMPARISON RECOMMENDATIONS
4
Background.
MOTION TO CLAIRIFY INTENT AND REAFFIRM
APPOINTMENTS TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
The Planning Commission was appointed on April 15, 2003 by nomination of the
Mayor and confirmation of the City Council. The appointees began serving their terms
immediately.
Ordinance No. 35 provides terms shall expire on December 31. For the one -year
appointees, this means December 31, 2003. To provide for at least a one -year temp (and
full terms for other appointees) it is recommended that the following motion be made.
Motion.
I move the Planning Commission Members be reappointed for their identified
terns, effective December 31, 2003, with the understanding that their respective
appointments and terns be measured from December 31, 2003 and not April 15, 2003.
This motion will clarify the Council intent with respect to the date from which the
individual terms are measured.
MOTION TO MODIFY HOTEL - MOTEL TAX DISTRIBUTIONS
Background.
The City collected Hotel - Motel tax shall only be used for certain authorized
purposes. Such purposes include "tourism facility development" and "tourism
marketing ". Two of the Council - approved distributions were for "facility" development.
For such use, the City must have a legally identifiable interest in the facility. To avoid
liability issues and additional time and resources necessary to negotiate and develop such
"interests ", it is recommended that the "facility" allocations be modified and reallocated
to "marketing" uses. The distribution amount and the entity receiving the award do not
change.
Motion.
I move that the Hotel - Motel tax allocations for the YMCA Skate Park and
Spokane Valley Junior Soccer Association Concession Stand facility development be
modified so that the distributions are instead used by the above entity for tourism
marketing as set forth in the materials filed with the City Clerk.
Building Permit, total valuation
$1 - $500
$23.50
eliminated - included in
valuation to $25,000
Building Permit, total valuation $501
to $2,000
$23.50 for $500,
+ $3.05 each additional $100
eliminated - included in
valuation to $25,000
Building Permit, total valuation to
$25,000
$69.25 for first $2,000
+ $15 for each additional
$1,000
Building Permit, total valuation
$25,001 to $50,000
$391.25 for first $25,000
+ $10.10 for each additional
$1,000
Building Permit, total valuation
$50,001 to $100,000
$643.75 for first $50,000
+ $7 for each additional $1,000
Building Permit, total valuation
$100,001 to $500,000
$993.75 for first $100,000
+ $5.60 for each additional
$1,000
Building Permit, total valuation
$500,001 to 1,000,000
$3,223.75 for first $500,000
+ $4.75 for each additional
1,000
Building Permit, total valuation $1
million & up
$5,608.75 for first $1 million
+ $3.15 for each additional
$1,000
Except: Private garages (wood frame)
$19.00 sq ft.
Except: Private garages (masonry)
$22.00 sq. ft.
Except: Pole Buildings
$19.00 sq. ft.
Except: Open carport, decks. porches
$15.00 sq. ft.
Except: Sheds under 200 sq. ft.
$45.00
eliminated - no permit
required
min. basic building permit fee
V
$35.00
eliminated - included in
valuation calculation
Plans Review Fee (general)
65% of Bldg Permit Fee
Plans Review —Group R -3
occupancies (single family less than
7.999 sq ft)
40% of Bldg Permit Fee
Plans Review—Group R -3
occupancies (over 8,000 sq ft)
65% of Bldg Permit Fee -
Plans Review —U -1 and U -2
occupancies (sheds, barns. etc.)
25% of Bldg Permit Fee
Plans Review— temporary tent or
structure
25% of Bldg Permit Fee
early start agreements (foundations
25% of bldg permit fee
temporary certificate of occupancy
$50.00
fast track permits
not allowed
hourly rate set for city employees
$47.00
signs mounted on buildings
$45.00
sign and pole mounting
$65.00
TYPE OF FEE OR CHARGE
EXHIBIT A FEE RESOLUTION
DRAFT CHART OF PROPOSED FEES AND FEE CHANGES
CURRENT FEE
REVISED 10 - 14 - 03 4:00 p.m.
PROPOSED CHANGE
PLUMBING CODE:
basic fee per each permit
$35.00
basic fee each supplemental permit
$7.50
unit fees: for each plumbing fixture
$6.00
unit fees private sewage disposal
systems
$20.00
unit fees: water heater
$6.00
unit fees industrial waste pre-
treatment interceptor
$15.00
unit fees: repair or alternate water
piping, drainage or vent piping, each
fixture
$6.00
unit fees: lawn sprinkler system on
any one meter
$25.00
unit fees: for atmospheric type
vacuum breaker each
$6.00
unit fees: backflow protective device
$6.00
unit fees: medical gas per outlet
$6.00
unit fees: interceptors, each
$6.00
MECHANICAL CODE:
basic fee for permit issue
$35.00
basis fee supplemental permit
$7.50
Unit fee for furnace & suspended
heaters to 100.000 btu
$12.00
over 100,000 btu
$15.00
duct work system
$10.00
Heat pump & Air conditioner to 3
tons
$12.00
3 - 15 tons
$20.00
over 15 to 30 tons
525.00
over 30 to 50 tons
$35.00
over 50 tons
560.00
gas water heater
$10.00
gas piping system, each outlet
$1.00
gas log, fireplace & gas insert
installation
$10.00
appliance vents installation, relocate,
replace
$10.00 each
repairs or additions
$15.00
Boilers, compressors & Absorption
Systems
3 hp to 100,000 btu or less
$12.00
3 - 15 hp 100,000 to 500,000
$20.00
15 -30 hp 500,000 to million btu
$25.00
over 30 hp 1 million - 1,750,000 btu
$35.00
over 50 hp - over 1,750.000 btu
$60.00
air handlers: each unit up to 10,000
cfrn
$12.00
each unit over 10,000 cfm
$15.00
TYPE OF FEE OR CHARGE
DRAFT
CURRENT FEE
PROPOSED CHANGE
Draft Chart, Fee Resolution Exhibit A for 2004
Page 2of11
Coolers
$10.00
each fan connection to single duct
$10.00
each ventilation system
$12.00
each hood served by mechanical
exhaust
$12.00
incinerators: installed or relocation -
residential
$19.00
incinerators: install or relocate
commercial
$22.00
appliances, each
$10.00
unlisted appliances under 400,000 btu
$50.00
unlisted appliances over 400,000 btu
$100.00
Hood, type 1
$50.00
Hood, type I1
$10.00
LP storage tank
$10.00
wood or pellet stove insert
$10.00
wood stove system free standing
$25.00
ENERGY CODE:
Residential Removal /Addition
0
New Single Family
0
Tenant Improvement to 10,000 sq ft
$35.00
tenant improvement 10,001 +
$45.00
multi - family per bldg
$60.00
new commercial & industrial
$90.00
WSBCC surcharlie-Approved plans
$4.50
permit or any other permit
WSBCC surclrarie- mu hi- family
$4.50 for 1' unit
$2.00 each additional unit *
( *forwarded to Wa St Bldg
Code Council)
projects permit
DEMOLITION PERMIT
Single Family Residence
$44.00
a
g
$44.00
treat separately, see below
treat separately, see below
d
garaMe or accessort buildinli
$20.00
= _
associated with a residence or
commercial buildin
septic tank or underground flammable
tanks
$10.00
Commercial bldg
$125.00
4 . $20 for out bldg
$125.00
treat separately, see above
treat separately, see above
garage or
u
MISC FEES
Hourly rate for misc. inspections
$47.00
hourly rate for misc plans check
$47.00
i
hourly rate for permit specialist
$42.00
hourly rate for planners
$47.00
RG
Draft Chart, Fee Resolution Exhibit A for 2004
DRAFT
CURRENT FEE
PROPOSED CHANGE
Page 3 of II
OVERTIME CHARGES FOR
plans checker
inspector
permit specialist
planners
1.5 times their regular rate
hourly fees for contracted services
according to contract rate
hourly rate for special called
inspections
$47.00
Mobile Home Location permit &
inspection:
temporary mobile home
$60.00
mfg'd home per section
$50.00 plus
basement/crawlspace valuation
permit fee
HOUSE MOVING
Class IX, III moving permit
$60.00
inspection fee
$60.00
+ $47.00/hr after 1' hr
+ .50 /mile if bldg moved into
City
Minimum Housing Inspection Fee
$55.00
+ $47.00 /hr after 1st hour
Minimum investigative inspection fee
if permit is required
$55.00
SPECIAL INSPECTIONS
(requested by owner or tenant)
fire, wind, mud slide, flood damage
$60.00
day care
$60.00
nursing homes, hospitals, et
$60.00
+ $47.00/hr after 1 hour
special occupancies
$60.00
Excess inspections created by
contractor for given project
per inspection
$47.00
reinspections: residential &
commercial
$47.00
Condominium conversion plans
review & inspection fee
51-7.00 based on the value of
the conversion and LlBG
valuation
TEMPORARY TENTS,
CANOPIES, AIR SUPPORTED
STRUCTURES FOR PUBLIC USE
(does not apply to tents less than
200 sq. ft, canopies Tess than 400 sq.
ft, camping tents, or tents used for
private, non - commercial events:
plans check fee
$13.00
basic permit fee
$60.00
TYPE OF FEE OR CHARGE
Draft Chart, Fee Resolution Exhibit A for 2004
DRAFT
CURRENT FEE
PROPOSED CHANGE
Page 4 of 11
Enclosing deck or patio: basic fee:
valuation of project (min
$3,000 valuation)
plans examination
20% 40% of basic fee
SWIMMING POOLS: (over 5,00
gallons)
$50.00
+ plumbing fees
Reroof permit
based on value of project
Change of use of occupancy
classification permit
$47.00
GRADING:
Permit Fees
50 Cubic Yards or less $ 20.00
51 to 100 Cu. Yd. $ 20.00
101 to 1,000 Cu. Yd For the first 100 Cu. Yd $ 20.00
Plus $7. for each additional 100 Cu. Yd.
1,001 to 10,000 Cu. Yd. For the first 1,001 Cu. Yds. $ 83.00
Plus $ 6. for each additional 1,000 Cu. Yd.
10,001 to 100,000 Cu. Yd. For the first 10,000 Cu. Yds $147.00
Plus $ 15. for each additional 10,000 Cu. Yds.
100,001 to 200,000 Cu. Yds. For the 1 100,000 C. Y. $368.00
Plus $ 15. for each additional 100,000 Cu. Yds.
200,000 or more Cu. Yds. For the 1 yds $503.00
Plus $15.00 for each additional 200,000 Cu. Yds.
Plans Checking Fees
50 Cubic Yards or Tess No Fee
51 to 100 Cu. Yds. $ 12.00
101 to 1,000 Cu. Yds. $ 20.00
1,001 to 10,000 Cu. Yds. $ 25.00
10,001 to 100,000 Cu. Yds. For first 10,000 Cu. Yds. $ 25.00
plus $ 7.00 for each additional 10,000 Cu. Yds.
100.001 to 200,000 Cu. Yds. $ 98.00
Plus $6.00 for each additional 100,000 Cu. Yds.
200.001 Cu. Yds or more $158.00
Land Clearing only - (without earth being moved) $ 65.00
FALSE ALARM FEES for repeated
malfunctioning false FIRE alarm in a
given 6 -month period
l' alarm
no charge
2n alarm
$30.00 .- - : ._ ,,.
3 alarm
$70.00
46 alarm
$120.00
5 alarm
Require a hired fire watch
FALSE SECURITY ALARM FEES
repeated malfunctioning false
security alarm in a j'iven 6- month
period
l n alarm
no charge
2 "' alarm
530.00
3' alarm
S70.00
TYPE OF FEE OR CHARGE
Draft Chart, Fee Resolution Exhibit A for 2004
DRAFT
CURRENT FEE
PROPOSED CHANGE
Page 5 of 11
4 alarm & subset cent
5120.00
FIREWORKS (4 max per RCW
70.77)
$100.00
+ $500 deposit or performance
bond
+ liability insurance $1 million
FIRE PREVENTION:
Plans check & inspection fee for new
commercial projects not mentioned
elsewhere
$40.00
Fire watch service (3 hr minimum,
plus hourly thereafter)
$140.00
After hour inspections, plans reviews,
consultations for projects not
requiring a permit & other special
services
hours fee: time and a half of the
hourly rate
Hourly rate
$47.00
Plans check - commercial fire alarm,
permit plans check & inspection
based on value
Fire alarm systems - residential - all
zones
$40.00
fire alarm systems - residential -
permit fee
$35.00
Sprinkler systems , tenant
improvements, less than 10 heads
$65.00
Sprinkler systems, tenant
improvements, 11 or more heads
$85.00
New systems: commercial: plans
check, inspection s& permit
based on value
New systems: residential - each riser
plus each plug or head
560.00
+$1.10 per plu; or head
Fire extinguisher system
$50.00
+ $1.50 each nozzle
Standpipe installation
Class I and II
$58.00
Standpipe installation Class III
$70.00
Fire pump installation
$55.00
power generators installation
$55.00
Flammable and combustible liquids storage tanks installation:
1. Underground, 1st tank $ 55.00
plus each additional tank on same site $ 35.50
2. Above ground tank $ 55.00
plus each additional tank on the same site $ 35.00
3. Annual permit fee for storage $ 30.00
Hazardous materials storage tanks installation:
1. Less than 500 gallons - each $ 75.00
2. 500 - 1,199 gallons each $104.00
3. 1,200 gallons or more $147.00
Liquefied s etroleum tanks: installation
TYPE OF FEE OR CHARGE
Draft Chart, Fee Resolution Exhibit A for 2004
DRAFT
CURRENT FEE
PROPOSED CHANGE
Page 6 of 11
1
1. Less than 500 gallons
2. 500 - 9,999 gallons
3. 10,000 gallons or more
$ 84.00
$104.00
$147.00
Gaseous oxygen systems installation:
1. Less than 6,000 cubic feet
$ 78.00
2. 6,000 - 11,999 cubic feet
$ 90.00
3. 12,000 cubic feet or more
$118.00
Nitrous systems installation:
$ 95.00
1. plus each outlet
$12.00
Medical gas systems installation:
1. Gaseous system
$ 90.00
plus each outlet
$ 12.00
2 Liquefied system
$ 95.00
plus each outlet
$ 12.00
Hazardous material recycling system installation:
1. 110 gallons or less per day capacity
$ 95.00
2. More than 110 gallons per day capacity
$117.00
Vapor recovery system installation: (per tank)
1. Phase I - tank truck and tank
$ 90.00
2. Phase II - vehicle fueled and tank
$115.00
Cryogenic tank installation: (1st tank)
$ 95.00
Each additional tank on same site
$ 35.00
Removal or abandonment, or any combination thereof,
of flammable or combustible liquid storage tanks:
1. First tank (commercial)
$ 84.00
2. Each additional tank on the same site (commercial)
$ 47.50
3. Contractors permit for removal or abandonment
of residential under - ground fuel tanks
$ 75.00
Fire Department fee for inspections and follow up.
For initial inspection, plans check and follow up inspections
as called for in the Fire Code the fire department will be
paid 65% of the fee collected for the permit. This payment
will be paid quarterly.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
PLATS: Subdivisions
Tentative plat
$250.00
eliminated - no such plat
preliminary plat
$2,000
+ $25.00 /lot
final plat
S1,000
+ $1 0.00 /lot
PLATS: Short Plats
tentative plat
$250.00
eliminated - no such plat
PE OF FEE OR CHARGE
Draft Chart, Fee Resolution Exhibit A for 2004
DRAFT
CURRENT FEE
PROPOSED CHANGE
Page 7of11
Preliminary 2 -4 Tots
$500.00
final plat 2-4 lots
$800.00
+ $10.00 /lot
preliminary plat 5 -9 lots
$1,000
+ $25.00 lot
final plat 5 -9 lots
$800.00
+ $10.00 lot
Short plat appeal
$200.00
eliminated - included in
appeal of administrative
decision
PLAT MODIFICATION
subdivision plat
$650.00
short plat
$265.00
BINDING SITE PLAN
$1,500.00
binding site plan modification
$1,300.00
binding site change of conditions
$650.00
AGGREGATION /SEGREGATION
Lot line adjustment
$100.00
Lot line elimination
$100.00
Certificate of exemption
$95.00
eliminated - duplicate fee
Zero lot line -
$100.00.1$ l O /lot
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
SEPA Checklist
single dwelling (when required)
$100.00
all other developments
$300.00
appeal of SEPA determination
$250.00
eliminated - included in
appeal of Administrative
decision (below)
environmental impact statement
review
$2,000.00
SHORELINE substantial
development permit
$800.00
Shoreline conditional use
$800.00
eliminated - included in
conditional use
Shoreline variance
$800.00
eliminated - included in
public hearing variance
appeal local
$100.00
eliminated - included in
appeal of administrative
decision
pre application conference
$61.00 - S145.00 dependin_i on
eliminated - include in base
fee
complexity
Critical areas
! S300.00
PERMITS
Home Occupation Permit
$300.00 $80.00
Home Industry Permit
580.00
Conditional Use Permit
$500.00
$800.00
temporary Use Permit 0 - 90 days
5150.00
temporary use permit to 30 days
$100.00
eliminated - see above
temporary use permit 31 -90 days
$250.00
eliminated - see above
Draft Chart, Fee Resolution Exhibit A for 2004
DRAFT
CURRENT FEE
PROPOSED CHANGE
Page 8 of 11
1
I VARIANCES
administrative
$300.00
single family residence
$300.00
eliminated — included in
public hearing variance
signs and all others
$750.00
eliminated — included in
public hearing variance
public hearings
51.500.00
PLAN AMENDMENTS
Comp plan amendment
$1,500.00
ZONING
zoning map amendments (rezone)
$1,500.00
zoning & subdivision code text
change
$500.00
$1,500.00
combining district
$1,000.00
eliminated — no such district
PUD tentative plan
$250.00
eliminated — included in PUD
plan
PUD plan
$1,500.00
+ $25.00 /lot
PUD Modification
5500.00
PUD minor modification
$250.00
eliminated — major & minor
modifications not separately
defined in Code
PUD major modification
$750.00
eliminated — major & minor
modifications not separately
defined in Code
SITE PLAN REVIEW
$250.00
Street Vacation Application
300.00
SIGNS
review of permanent sign
$150.00
$50.00
review of temporary sign
$ 75.00
$50.00
Code enforcement violation apps
appeal to hearing examiner
$250.00
Eliminated — state law
precludes charging for such
appeals
APPEALS
Appeal of decision
$200.00
eliminated — included in
appeal of Administrative
Decision
Appeal of Any Administrative
S1 000.00
Decision (excludes Code Enf )
Appeals of Hearing Examiner
Findings
$300.00
PUBLIC WORKS
Commercial construction site
engineering review
$250.00
+ hourly rate after 5 hrs
Residential construction site
•
S150.00
+ hourly rate after 3 hrs.
en
not available
$50.00
hourly rate after 1 S ` hour
Traffic Impact Fees Analysis
TYPE OF FEE OR CHARGE
Draft Chart, Fee Resolution Exhibit A for 2004
DRAFT
CURRENT FEE
PROPOSED CHANGE
Page 9 of 11
TYPE OF FEE OR CHARGE
Picnic Shelter (< 200 people)
Draft Chart, Fee Resolution Exhibit A for 2004
DRAFT
CURRENT FEE
PROPOSED CHANGE
PERMITS
Floodplain Permit
INSPECTIONS
Stormwater system review
Stormwater system inspections
Conditional use permits plus
inspeetien -fee
variances
true t-k4E1
Field monitoring or inspections of
grading residential sites
field monitoring or, inspections of
grading non - residential sites
Commercial, multi family and multi-
lot sites:
HOURLY RATE
public right of way obstruction permit
utility right of way permit
approach permit
Cash, certified check or bond for
right -of -way cleaning
ADMINISTRATION
COPY FEES: Copies of audio or
video tapes, photos, maps or other
records needing reproduction
copies of written records
copies of annual budget
NSF Check
PARKS & RECREATION
Basic Administrative Fees to be
considered when applying rates
$50.00
S30.00 0-00
14, ar -l.. , 1 after 1 ` f
$250.00/hr for engineering and
field inspection based on actual
time
$50.00
+ hourly rate after 1' hour
hourly rate
hourly rate
$200.00 plus hourly (four (4)
hour minimum)
industrial or mineral industrial sites
$225.00 plus hourly
$200.00 + plus inspection fee
hourly rate
shoreline permits
$250.00 plus hourly
$50.00
$16.00 +
review & inspection fee at
hourly rate
$16.00 +
review & inspection fee at
hourly rate
$25.00 +
review & inspection fee at
hourly rate
$1 , 0 00.00
at cost
.15 per page
$1
$25.00
$30.00 admin fee
$50.00 refuse fee
$30.00
Duplicated elsewhere on chart
550.00
+ hourly rate after 1'' hour
$250.00 flat fee
$16.00 + review & inspection
fee at hourly rate ($25.00
minimum at time of
application)
$16.00 + review & inspection
fee at hourly rate ($25.00
minimum at time of
application)
$25.00 + review & inspection
fee at hourly rate ($25.00
minimum at time of
application)
Page 10 of 11
Picnic Shelter (200-x- people)
$150.00
refundable deposit (<200 people)
$50.00
Refundable deposit (200 +people)
$250.00
Events — includes pavilion
$150.00
Non - profit applications will be
considered by the Spokane Valley
Parks Dept
$80.00
Mirabeau Springs Small Shelter &
waterfall
$150.00 (max 4 hours)
refundable deposit (<200 people)
$50.00
Mirabeau Meadows
shelter ( <200 people)
$80.00
shelter (200 + people)
$150.00
refundable deposit (<200 people)
$50.00
refundable deposit (200+ people)
$250.00
VALLEY MISSION ARENA
5100.00
RENTAL (per weekend- Fri/Sa /Sun
Deposit (renter responsible for on-
550.00
site preparation; requires liability,
insurance
AQUATICS
pool admission (age 5 +)
$1.00
pool admission (age 5 and under)
free
pool punch pass (25 swims)
$20.00
weekend family discount
1 child under I3 free w /paying
adult
reservation ( <50_
$100.00 /hr., min 2 hours
food fee (if applicable)
$25.00
reservation (50 -100)
$125.00/hr., min 2 hrs
food fee (if applicable)
$50.00
Reservation (101 to 150)
$150.00 /hr., min 2 hrs.
food fee (if applicable
$75.00
Field Use Rental
525.001" hour; 515.00 each
additional 11our
Professional Photo Permit
525.00 Annuallt•
Indoor use: O pe
52.00
$2,00
Indoor plarj round pro,'ra »t
520.00
S
admission (10 entries
room rentals
$10/hr., min 3 hr
gym rentals, practice, games
$15/hr., min 2 hrs
,
gym rentals, events, dances
$100.00
rental of Western Dance Hall
now handled by WDH
Draft Chart, Fee Resolution Exhibit A for 2004
DRAFT
URRENT FEE
PROPOSED CHANGE
Page 11 of 11
r
r
r
Y
fl
Ir
•• I
Z(
Al
V1
cei
mar
1
sari
all
F a
Par
e41,,re C �SSrJ�
RECEIVED
OCT 1 4 2003
Z3eZZ 9 4 - d
SPOKANE VALLEY
/7. d �°- �1�� N �f1PMENT _
C OMMt I OF
�a /444e �S
Re /de. u2/ C 7 M d c )T 4s)a,e.fe'mss
Unie Via_ee X T /Ve 7 erz 7
1 /9//.5' E 7�e, T / /mss
XP
, C 4 L a.e / Des
/49-5 eee,i ,4 Zo 7` n141 ,e 27 T /ZGvs � ,, 2 3e4
cii_a 4 /7 D 17.e0 ' C Ro a a Y cs .pr&
.�
7 ' c. s 4 Teo c ees-
7 c/&?( 1-Je/e /4 %e& iz a T
e /4 74,z, ,//c ayy/ GQVS
661 ,9i G' K Q zd e.,//r4
e /.D &e-Y'
i 7774 Do-57 e4 o5 ,±D .e 72f j ,o G
///, C o z' 77/ :moo <5 �.Z
m in a.S E /Yf�'Q� iC .� -5 5 UC_, Pft,so 2 C', ecs e_
c, de/ t T.s / /777x C.
/ d 7/ 774 :a4a' , .6. o(
t() T ,ie Le/dee •eo u it
L1I 7-17 12, //eat.' /e�
. L' 4e riCc. f oei ga , z
A;:eZ 71-%s /s , /7' fix' -2 Ovs7 ecz
o`�
,ea5'( /L e s�S � Gre �� ge, Ad 0a ie see /?(o,e
IT / Cz !e e fi 0 otitee /Ja aL 7"R oc, '
/ 0/4 43 ig/e /24t,e, 73 /7-teve,
.moo e,Cs ,
/
nZ 7 2o eT
7fre_
//z ase 2 o
604)/ ,D /4 T#
,ea&A' //I il
7;:ee Gz.)/f,_rJ r .Z �i, 7‘X.
e44, 6)n ,� /e,x pe,e Th r ,4 ,'
7/e / iP 9U.s, /1 ess • T // "ems r ecueue
AeXc 4ee T// 7 4 zzd 4/ea M' Z 5uEs
1211101
��ei ci ie ,9ir� �'u�� c 770 A) s 74a / T�
> , &sTc/ of 406 .,�Q.te UQ /(e.y �nGG ��i�"e�.
Wetdo A) 7 774/ .6
d
e•//I ,:5"/taC/Ie.C' T�i,l etey,c ri /xe, �Td
(Veal( O° r 7 74Rc!e//tei T L��bes .4ir r�
pe,e/A 1 TS. �w.�Ue� PCJei? Qf-fei? et/4'!S /&.Pc
7lre�[ oTec..,P2. Ti / go(--)
77-14_ Reit/t4/&v. ()Adv._ Me'? c5 //
?ri"/. gee P/ 7A¢4 GL)/Ca fifey $LcoeiL,e'
// ,P.Cee e_ //e .0'eJ4,4s
a ),() 4 0 e_Kzilelj Ze-adeze
(ae‘bge/y/-1‘) 7z Vie /i
/ Ue,eX d/5&5per, �e 4 7` o f1� .O
7-17, Ga�� �
74 /6/tt-e.1_-__ verok' 7`irke._
13.
14.
15. Pe
19.
20.
OCT 1 4 2003
Petition for Action vs RPC Rock b
NAME/SIGNATURE ADERESS RESIDENCE
Unti:led
L (i/A] 1E1L
ciz E
Page 1
AlY3( ,A - reu , reeN
RECEIVED
/i667 gfr-e-Le_1, I
z _ tat
.E:&IZAyE__F_A_ I L i
kiM
•
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38_
39.
NAME /SIGNATURE
I
ROCK BARN PETITTION
Petition for Action vs RPC Rock barn:
YEARS AT THIS
ADDRESS RESIDENCE
(34,a` ‘AD
d(A/„„
ccrit eLeic Pa-rily/
Page 1