2008, 03-04 Study Session MinutesMINUTES
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
Tuesday, March 4, 2008
Mayor Munson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and welcomed everyone to the meeting
Present:
Councilmembers:
Rich Munson, Mayor
Dick Denenny, Deputy Mayor
Rose Dempsey, Councilmember
Bill Gothmann, Councilmember
Gary Schimmels, Councilmember
Steve Taylor, Councilmember
Diana Wilhite, Councilmember
Staff:
Dave Mercier, City Manager
Mike Jackson, Deputy City Manager
Mike Connelly, City Attorney
Kathy McClung, Community Development Dir.
Neil Kersten, Public Works Director
Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney
Rick VanLeuven, Police Chief
John Hohman, Senior Engineer
Gloria Mantz, Stormwater Engineer
Scott Kuhta, Senior Planner
Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer
Greg Bingaman, IT Specialist
Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk
ACTION ITEM
1. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 08 -002 Uniform Development Code (UDC) Amendment Indoor
Kennels — Kathy McClung
After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Denenny and
seconded to approve ordinance 08 - 002 as drafted. Community Development Director McClung
explained that the ordinance has not changed since the first reading; that staff was asked to research the
possibility of adding the requirement of staff if the facility has overnight care of animals. Ms. McClung
said staff contacted five different analogous businesses, and of the five, two do not have overnight
boarding and three have overnight boarding, and of those three, one doesn't have staff and the other two
do. Ms. McClung also mentioned she spoke with Nancy Hill of SCRAPS who commented that the animal
shelter does not have overnight staff; and that it is staffs recommendation if we require this for one
facility, we should require it for all; and that this is more of an animal control responsibility than a zoning
issue. Deputy Mayor Denenny said he would like to have feedback later from animal control to address
any future developed problem and /or address this later depending on zoning. Ms. McClung explained
that if we get a complaint about noise, which is the one legitimate concern, there is a requirement that the
building be soundproofed, so that would be a code compliance issue. Mayor Munson invited public
comment; no comments were offered. Vote by acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None.
Abstentions: None. Motion approved.
REGULAR STUDY SESSION ITEMS
Councilmember Taylor explained that we been engaged in the process for several years about the future
of Spokane Valley; that a community survey was conducted prior to finalizing the Comprehensive Plan,
where the public said there is a lack of an identifiable city center and that was a major issue with Spokane
Valley's identity as a new city; that there was great support for establishing a city center and when asked
where such city center should be located, the public chose University City; that this is a multi -year
process which included a couple years of public comment; that all that has cumulated in the Plan we see
around the room and in the hall; that we will soon need to coordinate with all appropriate entities like the
Library District in their efforts to build a new central library at the City Center, and we will have to
determine what type of funding is needed to enact the first part of this revitalization plan.
Study Session Meeting Minutes: 3 -04 -08 Page 1 of 7
Approved by Council: 03 -25 -08
Councilmember Taylor said that now we need to determine what do we need answered, what other
decision points need to be made, and where are we in public education process before we determine
where funding will come from to address improvements of Sprague and Appleway to take care of this
first phase.
Deputy Mayor Denenny explained that we also need to see how the library meshes with us; that this will
involve the potential city hall facility and placement; that he feels the public is not well aware of what the
focus groups have already done and time already involved in this development; that we need to be on a
parallel track to examine potential funding sources including federal and state grants; and while we are
educating the public regarding what we are doing to revitalize this area, we also need to have the public
recognize that this is a single component of the re- development of the whole area. He said he would like
to have staff give us a broad gambit of options available, how to implement those incrementally; and
regarding the library bond, we need to recognize that the library placement in the city center will include
needed infrastructure, so he would like to examine the funds and determine what we need to do and when
it needs to be done.
In pointing to the maps on the wall, Mayor Munson said that the Plan is a phased approach, and the first
phase is the City Center; that the direction change is only from Dishman to University Ave; that there will
be some funding options other than just asking the public to pay for it, but that Council has not decided on
the plan yet; that the Plan has not been voted on nor has a vote been taken on how many lanes will be
involved in Appleway. Mayor Munson said the rest of the phased developments are a long way off.
Mayor Munson said we have to have proof that the City Center is working and is seen as a dynamic
business center. He further explained that there has been conversation centered around paying for phase
one options and of identifying those phased funding options as well; that he is not as concerned about the
rest until we find out that the city center is a viable dynamic business center we can call downtown
Spokane Valley; and he stated that the library is a key element of the downtown center. He explained that
he would like to concentrate discussion on Phase one funding options to address immediate needs rather
than needs that could be decided later. Councilmember Gothmann agreed with Mayor Munson's
suggestions and comments, and added that this is meant to be a twenty -year plan.
Councilmember Taylor said that the next point would be some particular action items and a schedule in
terms of what comes next; that we are waiting for delivery of the Plan and updated codes for the subarea
plan from the Planning Commission; that during that cycle we need to think clearly of how to move
forward in what phase and how much that phase will cost including options available, and to get that into
public discussion. Local taxation, grants, and tax increment financing are options, he explained, and we
need to determine which is best prior to putting the taxing options to the public for a vote. He said that
we still need a vote from the people to determine whether this is the direction we want to go; and he
emphasized that we have based a lot of this plan on the initial reactions of the public to have an
identifiable City Center to establish our identity. Deputy Mayor Denenny said this could follow somewhat
similar to the process used by the STA during their discussions for various light rails; that they came in
with a gambit of options, and that over a period of time as we bring in components of the City center, that
perhaps we could have a specific outline of funding as was done with that STA exercise. Councilmember
Wilhite asked about the time frame and stated that perhaps we should move forward sooner rather than
later. Mayor Munson mentioned the upcoming March 13 Planning Commission public meeting as another
opportunity for public comments; that phase one will be emphasized during that meeting, and those
public comments will be brought to Council as a first step; that he is uncertain of the timing, and needs to
ask staff of their time estimate.
Deputy Mayor Denenny asked what is needed and how long will it take to help bring the public up to
speed as far as presenting them the concept to explain what they will be funding; that at this point there is
only a conceptual plan. Mayor Munson mentioned that key to the library is the road from the library in
city center to Sprague, and that Council will need a commitment 45 days from the date the ballot is
certified; and that we will have to arrive at some funding options as soon as possible. Councilmember
Study Session Meeting Minutes: 3 -04 -08 Page 2 of 7
Approved by Council: 03 -25 -08
Wilhite expressed her desire that the library issue pass, and is hopeful the Library will join us in talking
with the public about the overall City Center. Councilmember Gothmann suggested we start the process
now of cost analysis of the minimum infrastructure needed for the City Center, and to get a needs analysis
of the intersections of University and Sprague, and Argonne and Sprague, as well have a traffic analysis if
any decision will affect traffic. Mayor Munson said he favors the idea of a work plan concerning timing
and in response to a question of when that might appear before Council, Mr. Mercier said it will take a
few weeks to address the menu of suggestions. Councilmember Taylor stated that there is the broader
priority of kick - starting the City Center, and that in the longer term implementing revitalization plan
along the entire corridor and understanding the twenty to twenty -five year nature of that endeavor; that
roads and infrastructure, city hall, library, developer agreement and finalizing the agreement with the
current land owners is something to bring before the public for comment, and to complete that in the next
couple months, adding that next Tuesday's vote will have considerable impact. Mr. Mercier said the
redevelopment plan will move through the Planning Commission and back to council the end of May or
early June. Councilmember Taylor stressed that it is important for the public to realize that no decision
has been made on the direction of the couplet and the Plan is not yet a "done deal."
2. Jail Expansion Project — Lt. Mike Sparber, Gerry Winkler
Lt Mike Sparber introduced Sgt. Phil Tyler and Architect Gerry Winkler, and explained that this
presentation is to inform Council of the Detention Facility Master Planning Programming and site
analysis. As Lt. Sparber explained the PowerPoint slides, he mentioned that the ten possible sites for the
new jail have been trimmed down to four: Spokane County Campus, Medical Lake Interchange, Tshirley
in the Valley, and Raceway Park at Airway Heights; that it will take approximately five years to get into
the new building once approved, and the site decision's target date is April 15 after a final presentation to
the Board of County Commissioners. Mr. Winkler mentioned that the next step in the process is to meet
Monday with the Core Planning Group to put together recommendations to carry forward to the Board of
County Commissioners. It was also mentioned that ideally they will break the stakeholders group into
smaller disciplines and give them all the information so that they can determine what they want to see
based on that information submitted, and that does not yet have an exact time frame.
Deputy Mayor Denenny mentioned having a needs assessment on alternatives to incarceration, which is a
major problem throughout the nation, and that he doesn't believe we can build our way out of this jam,
especially when dealing with so much non - violent crime. Lt. Sparber mentioned that they need to affect a
plan that reacts to and motivates change; and he discussed some of the positive things they are doing,
such as seeking additional subsidized treatments, the idea of offering child protective services classes as
part of their program, and of addressing the issue of the large percentage of mental health issues and of
the need to secure agreements from other agencies; that they want to shift Geiger to a more program -
based entry model and have more programs for jail inmates to assist in the transition of moving back to
the community. Mr. Mercier asked Lt. Sparber if he is aware of efforts from some states to shift
corrections to state government rather than counties as is proposed in Maine, and Mr. Winkler said he is
aware of states running corrections in Alaska, Hawaii and Rhode Island.
3. Library Presentation — Mike Wirt
Mr. Wirt explained that he wanted to give Council an overview of the proposed project in terms of the
issues on the ballot and what it would do, keeping in mind we are all bound by the Public Disclosure
Commission on what can or cannot be discussed prior to the ballot certification. Mr. Wirt then gave his
PowerPoint presentation of the "Greater Spokane Valley Library Capital Facility Area Election March 11,
2008."
4. Stormwater Manual Update — John Hohman, Gloria Mantz
Engineer Hohman reported that they are "closing in" and moving toward adoption of the manual along
with the revised UDC language. He explained that tonight's presentation is background and he will
highlight the changes proposed. Ms. Mantz also explained that we have been using the County's manual
which was adopted in the 1980's and is outdated; and that our city along with the City of Spokane and
Study Session Meeting Minutes: 3 -04 -08 Page 3 of 7
Approved by Council: 03 -25 -08
Spokane County have been working together to develop the Spokane Regional Stormwater Manual
(SRSM) with the intent to have one manual for the entire region. She also explained that the Department
of Ecology has determined the SRSM to be technically equivalent to the previously adopted Spokane
County Stormwater Guidelines for Stormwater Management, and the three jurisdictions are in the process
of adopting the SRSM; and that our ordinance amendment is scheduled for a first reading at the March 25
council meeting. In response to questions about when the manual is scheduled for adoption by all
jurisdictions, Mr. Hohman said that the County is in front, followed by our City, and then by the City of
Spokane, and all hope to have this completed by May.
5. Aviation Ordinance — Mike Connelly
City Attorney Connelly explained that this is the second administrative report on this overlay zone which
addresses density restriction in zone 6 of the overlay zone, to prohibit less than 2.5 acres for residences.
He explained and highlighted his Request for Council Action Form by highlighting the background of the
issue including previous council action, and explaining that the current ordinance meets the statutory
criteria concerning airports and airport overlay zones; and that previously council asked if changes were
made would that affect liability, and how would any change impact development in that area, and those
potential liability concerns are addressed in the Request for Council Action form. Mr. Connelly also
brought Council's attention to Mr. Basinger's February 26 memorandum and accompanying attachments
regarding the airport safety zone analysis. Mr. Connelly mentioned that a change could also have the
requirement of title notice to property owners or potential owners. Mr. Connelly said the Council's
choices are to do nothing, or to send the issue to the Planning Commission with specific
recommendations for the Planning Commission to review and then send back to Council.
There ensued lengthy discussion of the underlying zones, of what was changed previously (mention that
everything north of 16 was set at 7500 square feet which was the R3 zone and the only areas precluded
where those already set up at R4); that an analysis of zone 6 was already performed but staff would need
to re- examine the map to make sure nothing was omitted; the 3500 foot conical zones which Mr.
Connelly said staff could also re- examine; the significance of the "green" area on the accompanying map;
mention that zone 6 is the broadest and least impacted and other zones are direct impact zones; and of
Councilmember Taylor's concern with the one unit for 2.5 acre restriction in place which amounts to a
de -facto residential moratorium for this area. Councilmember Taylor said he feels the Planning
Commission needs to examine the existing rate of density per acre as to what is there now and what
will /could be done to help some property owners who want to divide their lots, and to send only that
recommendation for zone 6 to the Planning Commission.
Councilmember Gothmann said he prefers not to do anything for now; that the County is already in the
process of changing theirs and he feels this would be a poor thing to do now; keeping in mind that as Felts
Field grows the dangers increase, and safety of citizens should be the first consideration in adopting an
ordinance.
Mayor Munson asked about the County's process and was informed by staff that staff could inquiry into
the County's schedule. Councilmember Taylor added that there are many other issues regarding
Spokane's International Airport and the County's land uses deal with a large area, but we would look
more closely at our situation on Felts Field and how it impacts our residents, adding that the military and
general transportation are factors which weigh in differently. Deputy Mayor Denenny said the reason for
area 6 was encroachment and he wasn't aware of any safety concerns, but Councilmember Gothmann
responded that the WSDOT statement said these areas were scientifically studied and recommendations
were based on studies of crash statistics. Deputy Mayor Denenny suggested staff get the answer to the
question if this was a matter of safety or encroachment; and Councilmember Gothmann suggested staff
ask WSDOT for proof that area 6 was constructed based upon crash statistics. Deputy Mayor Denenny
said if this issue were statistically validated in safety it needs further discussion, and if not the matter
should be sent back to the Planning Commission. There was Council consensus to send this to the
Planning Commission to determine what should be the proper zoning and underlying zoning agreed to on
Study Session Meeting Minutes: 3 -04 -08 Page 4 of 7
Approved by Council: 03 -25 -08
the UDC; that staff will review the current density restrictions in the overlay zone and determine if they
can be reduced to the existing underlying densities, and that this should focus on zone 6 to examine what
particular mitigation measures can be put in place for that overlay zone including the idea of adding
some kind of title notice.
Mayor Munson called for a short recess at 8:12 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 8:24 p.m.
6. Legislative Matters — Dave Mercier
City Manager Mercier explained that in following the capital budget appropriations, our $500,000 new
Greenacres Park received $300,000 from the House but nothing from the Senate, and our lobbyist
continues to work the bill through the conference committee in the hope of keeping the house allocation.
Mr. Mercier said that the bill regarding the municipal courts includes some "murkiness" in the enabling
legislation as they seem to address the situation in terms of what court services can be derived and still
keep their validity. In preparation for the Washington, D.C. trip and visit with Congresswoman
McMorris- Rogers, Mayor Munson mentioned that items for discussing would include (1) Bridging the
Valley, (2) the North /South Freeway and whether we can change the need model from congestion to
freight mobility; and (3) the TMDL and EPA's role in impeding the progress of building our wastewater
treatment plant. Councilmember Taylor added that he would like to see if Ms. McMorris- Rogers can
make an inquiry on our behalf to obtain some level of certainty so that we can move forward.
Councilmember Gothmann added that concerning the North /South Freeway, that perhaps an additional
argument could be included that the highway deals with economical development travel from Canada
southward; and mention of the continued support of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
funds.
7. UDC (Uniform Development Code) Lot Size — Mayor Munson
At Mayor Munson's request, City Attorney Connelly explained that pursuant to our new Code, to change
a UDC lot size there are three different types of development code amendments: (1) site specific which
this is not; (2) text change which this is not; and (3) area -wide rezone, which this would be. Attorney
Connelly explained that according to SVMC (Spokane Valley Municipal Code) 19.30.020, area -wide
rezones shall be "considered only in conjunction with updates to the Comprehensive Plan text and maps
to ensure full consideration of the cumulative effects of all changes;" and just like all Comprehensive Plan
changes pursuant to SVMC 17.80.140, he said that those Comp Plan amendments and area -wide rezones
may be initiated by the property owner or their representative; any citizen; or the department [Community
Development], planning commission or city council; and if the change is initiated by a non - applicant,
then the application shall be placed on the register of comp plan changes which follows the annual
schedule we are currently following for comp plan changes. Mr. Connelly said that the deadline for
submitting changes is November 1, so any change to be affected in 2009, must be submitted prior to
November 1 of this year; and Mr. Connelly mentioned that the approval criteria is as set out in "H" of
SVMC 17.80.140. and to pass such change, there must be a finding that the proposed amendment bears a
substantial relationship to the public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment; that the
change is consistent with GMA, and responds to a change in conditions, or corrects an obvious mapping
error or identifies some deficiency, and must be consistent with the comp plan. Mayor Munson explained
that for tonight's discussion, he would like Council to consider placing a resolution on the agenda to
generate further input. Attorney Connelly stated that Council can initiate an area -wide rezone by acting
to place the appropriate issue on the register pursuant to our ordinance; and Mayor Munson further
explained that tonight's discussion could result in a resolution added to this comp plan update process.
Councilmember Taylor said he is not in favor of proposing a change. Deputy Mayor Denenny moved that
this subject be taken off the table [discussion stopped]; and subsequent vote proved four Councilmembers
opposed and three in favor. The motion failed and discussion continued.
It was moved by Councilmember Gothmann and seconded, to propose that the administration develop a
resolution to rezone north Greenacres in accordance with the previous recommendations of the previous
Planning Commission.
Study Session Meeting Minutes: 3 -04 -08 Page 5 of 7
Approved by Council: 03 -25 -08
Comments included referring this back to the Planning Commission as they defined the area; that the
parameters need to be defined; comment from Attorney Connelly that staff can attach a map for Council
ease in identifying the area; comment from Deputy Mayor Denenny expressing his frustration of
readdressing this topic after working tirelessly to have it as it is, only to change it within a few months
and that this creates an unwillingness from the community to work with us and thereby creates an
unattainable situation, that the matter was discussed thoroughly, and he feels we will create a detrimental
backlash to the community. Councilmember Dempsey stated that this only deals with one area, that those
neighbors applied for and paid $1800 for a rezone, just to have it taken away a few months later; and
added that this situation is unique. Other discussion included mention of the GMA planning goals
including encouraging multi -model housing and affordable housing which goals apply to this rezone; and
comment concerning whether the 10,000 square foot area was a significant change.
It was moved by Councilmember Taylor, seconded and unanimously agreed to extend the meeting to 9:15
P.m.
Councilmember Wilhite stated that she drove through the Greenacres area, and she feels citizens should
be able to sell property or develop to highest and best use possible; that we are not forcing anyone to give
up current conditions; and she is concerned with 10,000 versus 7,500; and said that changing numerous
times or changing the area back and forth makes it difficult for the community to know what to do, and
she prefers leaving the area as it is now at 7,500. Councilmember Schimmels commented that the lot size
for him is not the overpowering argument, but rather it troubles him that the people in the Greenacres
community "hounded us and we encouraged them to come in with a petition and go through the system,"
and then Council turned that petition down after the fact, and that he doesn't think Council was honest
with those people; and therefore he suggests moving forward. Councilmember Taylor said he disagreed
that Council was being dishonest with the residents; that a process is in place and the process was
followed; and that Council could be perceived of sending a signal to communities that we are not
consistent with development standards and those standards could change without substantiation; and he
suggested exercising caution on this issue so as not to confuse communities and send the wrong signal.
Councilmember Dempsey remarked that Council's former actions were arbitrary and discriminatory as
they took away the zoning that Greenacres had in the first place, and that making the change back to
10,000 would be correcting that action.
Mr. Mercier said that if Council desires to move forward, he feels this issue could generate several hours
of public comment and discussion, and that the earliest meeting to do so would be May 13.
Vote by Acclamation on the motion to propose that the administration develop a resolution to rezone the
north Greenacres in accordance with the previous recommendations of the previous Planning
Commission: In Favor: Mayor Munson, and Councilmembers Schimmels, Gothmann and Dempsey.
Opposed: Deputy Mayor Denenny, and Councilmembers Taylor and Wilhite. Abstentions: None. Motion
passed.
8. Advance Agenda — Mayor Munson
Mayor Munson mentioned that the issue of Transportation Benefit District will be upcoming as a means
to address deficits for street maintenance, and if a future vote will be necessary, he suggested adding this
issue on the advance agenda. Mayor Munson also mentioned that he and Mayor Verner discussed this
today and she'll bring this same level of urgency to her city to work on a formula to address funds to be
raised and controlled by the individual municipalities. Mayor Munson also mentioned that this topic was
previously discussed at the Finance Committee, but that staff will need to put together cost figures and
plan on a public education program. Councilmember Dempsey added that she would like to see some
provision made for low- income people to have relief from such added expense. Mr. Mercier also
mentioned that there has been some legal research but more specifics will need to be researched as we
work with other jurisdictions to draft an interlocal. Mayor Munson also mentioned the Turtle Creek Joint
Study Session Meeting Minutes: 3 -04 -08 Page 6 of 7
Approved by Council: 03 -25 -08
Planning Area and that significant progress was made with the County last Wednesday on negotiations;
that another proposal has been submitted and he hopes to see this goal accomplished by the end of this
month.
It was moved by Councilmember Gothmann, seconded and agreed to by all except Councilmember
Taylor, to extend the meeting to 9:30 p.m.
Mr. Mercier brought council attention to the copy of the spreadsheet regarding the interoperability; he
said that yet another scenario has developed, that conversation is ongoing, and the intent is to have
working groups able to respond to questions.
9. Information Only: The items of Economic Bridging the. Valley, Barker Road Bridge Utility
Agreements, and Spokane Housing Workshop Report were for information only and were not discussed.
10. Council Check -in — Mayor Munson
Councilmember Taylor mentioned that concerning the Regional Planning Technical Advisory Committee,
that he and Mayor Munson as members of the GMA Steering Committee of Elected Official's, have
discussed the proposal on when the UGA boundaries would be voted on; that the Board of County
Commissioners heard from different jurisdictions on the newly revised timeline in 'reference to these
UGAs, and that it is now being proposed for December of this year; that he has registered his
dissatisfactions to the group as they have been waiting for months to hear an update and get a timeline,
and he is dismayed that no work has been done in finalizing these UGAs; that the County -Wide Planning
Policies are obviously not being followed and he wonders who needs to be held accountable for nothing
being accomplished in the past nine months, and he would like to see a process on how to move forward,.
and what are the necessary elements to get this rolling. Mr. Mercier said at last Wednesday's discussion
with Commissioner,Richard, Mr. Mercier asked if we had failed to supply any important data, and Mr.
Mercier said we were assured the County has all the information they requested.
11. City Manager Comments — Dave Mercier
City Manager Mercier mentioned that staff met with the Finance Committee concerning the high cost of
winter road maintenance and of the need to reallocate some funds within the street budget to offset the
cost of operations; that in conversing with Finance Committee members, they determined that the in the
2008 budget, the $250,000 contemplated for initiating a traffic impact study can wait until another fiscal
cycle; and that $100,000 will be reallocated for an update, as we have not yet received a billing for
February's work, and after that bill is received, the issue can be addressed with the Finance Committee in
further detail.
There being no further business, Mayor Munson adjourned the meeting at 9:25 p.m.
ATTEST
Ch it stine Bainbridge, City Clerk
Study Session Meeting Minutes: 3 -04 -08
Approved by Council: 03 -25 -08
Page 7 of 7
Greater Spokane Valley Library Capital Facility Area
fit
Tr') 5 1
Q:
A:
March 11, 2008
Q: New libraries?
A; Yes. Over the past SesreraI years, bawd on planning ii,r urban growth in the greater
Spokane ne Valley as well as community feedback, a new and lar Spokane Valley
library is need to grow with the community and imexpectatims.
Similarly,
the inning glt wth in the Veraiale and Green acres area creates a need for
a branch lid to mute crinv nieir an l raccessib library wrvices lbr theirtmidenta.
And while not a new library building, the Argonne branch is ready for the
expansion it was can inally signed for o k can horse more Iu - dernand ntaterrals
and computers.
Where would the twa new libraries
A site on the south side of 1) City on Apple way hai fete down for the new
Spokane Valley Library.
Land has been purthased for the new branch on Co' ai;lir, Road just sotrtli of
Spiague Avenue.
Q: 1 Why not remodeVexpand the current Spokane Bailey library?
A: The fatality built in 1955 and an extensive remodel. more than tripIrng SiZe,
was done in 1986. No lun -her expansion can he dome due iu the hrnited sire and
budding configuration.
Q: Vi hat would happen to the existing Spokane Valley Library building'
A: The District would sell the balling once the new library opened, The hinds #T,c,Id
go into i capirrl rewrrvc fund for f metre facility enhanzemenb or expansion.
Q: What would be new and different with each of these libraries?
A; The new Spokane Vaiky l would be a 58,6C1.3 square -Bair budding, more
than double the current size, would add 52,000 isdditional materials, 304- additional
compliers, more public meeting room s including= attains-Wm. 'net
children and teen ast 1, and more parking. To name a few!)
The new ',ranch on Conklin Raid would be 1'i.000 eggs feet and accommodate
50,0C1O new library materials, computer stations, and media Milk rr' als:
The Argonne branch expansion would add 2, so feet ro the building, making
room for several mow ei impact!: and high-detnand Allah such as
noveh ard DVDs.
Q: Who'll decide if these projects will be done and who'll pay for them?
A; Voters in a proposed Library Capital Facility 1 (LCFA) will decide in the
Manch 11, 2008 electiorillie LCFA houndattei were determined by *leant
Comity Library District's Board of Tmstees 10 represent the oographitl areti whose
residents woukl benefit from and use these libraries most. They're the ones who
would be taxed therefore I are the ones who approve or reject the ballot issue.,
(Map showing boundaries are available ut yosriszcid.oryfpsval_inainasp and in the
Spoliane Argot= and Otis Orchard branches)
What is the bond issue amount and what will it cost me as an
individual taxpayer?
A: 'The 10 general obligation bonds will to $33.4 million and the property tax
levy rate necessary to pay off the bonds will be approxirriately 25 cents per $1,000
,e,segseil valuation. For example, the owner of a $200,00C home would pay an
additional $50 per year.
Q: Why is the bond amount so high!
A; The vast majority of the $33,4 million price tag is for coristruction crists, which have
risen dramatically and will continue to de so. Other big ticket items are building
sires, furninirc and equipment, and new materials.
A detailed lireak-out of thc budget is at.miable at www.ctLrrg/g'a]_nirLap or
you can ask a gaff member for a copy.
Q:
If the bonds are approved, when would we get to start uEing our new
libraries?
A: The new Spokane Valley Library would orwn in late 2010, and completion iI the
new branch and Argonne expansion would follow in mid 2011.
If the bonds aren't approved, what then?
The Library District's Board oTrutet would attempt to determine the reasons and
possibly placr the i511C before voters again at a future election. 111e Board would
also te how hest to maintain library services tin the greater Spokane Valley
area with the limited building space, materials collection and computer access.
More questions! Please feel free to asli staff
or visit www.scW-org,
STREET NAME
ROAD ESTIMATE
STREETSCAPE
ESTIMATE
TOTALS
Plaza (2nd to Sprague)
S 1 048,649
$ 1,544.831
$ 2.593,480
Dartmouth Avenue (Appleway to Sprague
$ 1,619.440
$ 709,018
$ 2.328.458
2nd Avenue (West End to Dartmouth)
$ 282,785
S 197.922
S 480,707
Subtotal
$ 2,950,875
$ 2,451,771
$ 5,402,646
Sprague (Dartmouth- University)
$ 1,651.037
$ 642,735
$ 2.293.772
1st Avenue (Dartmouth - Plaza)
$ 186,012
S 253,425
$ 439.437
1st Avenue (Plaza - Oberlin)
$ 332,580
$ 433,707
$ 766.287
2nd Avenue (Dartmouth - Plaza)
S 235.333
$ 572,120
$ 1.046.172
2nd Avenue (Plaza- Raymond)
$ 238,719
Raymond (Appleway to 1st)
$ 755,550
$ 314,036
$ 1,069,586
Oberlin (1st to Sprague)
$ 243,869
$ 251.080
$ 494,949
Subtotal
$ 3,643,100
$ 2,467,103
$ 6.110,203
TOTAL
_<
$ 6,593,975
- -
$ 4,918,874
$ 11,512,849
ENGINEER'S OPINION OF PROBABLE CONSTRUCTION COSTS
Protect Name CITY CENTER
Prepared By
Checked By
Preparation Date
Updated.
Road Work
Stormwater
San Sewer
Water
Sub Total
PE (20 %)
Contingency (20 %)
CE (15 %)
Total
S ARLT /S. WorleylGlatting Jackson
January 11, 2008
5- Feb -08
S 3,498,348
S 375.184
S 200.645
$ 180.000
$ 4254.177
$ 850.835
$ 850.835
S 638 127
$ 6.593.975
Hardscape $ 2,348,635
Landscape S 999.538
Gen Cond/Mob (15 %) S 501,926
Contingency (20 %) $ 669,235
DesignfPermits (12 %) $ 401.541
Total $ 4,918,874
Estimate does not include nght -of -way or property acquisition costs nor demolition or removal of any existing
roads. buildings, or utilities or undergrounding of electrical power
Streetscape estimate includes 'Higher Cost' option for Plaza Road, 'Lower Cost' option reduces total by $279.241
Maintenance /Operation- combined radio shops
400,000
420,000
441,000
463,050
486,203
510,513
536,038
562,840
590,982
620,531
System Software /Hardware Support Agreement (can prepay /capitalize)
1 400,000
440,000
484,000
532,400
585,640
ICPT Grant $4 million
PSIC Grant $2.5 Million
CAPITAL
COSTS
D
Civil design and
construction
Radio /Microw
ave System
Subscriber
Replacement
(portable, mobile
radios)
Transition /traininq
Contingency
OPERATING COSTS
REPLACEMENT COSTS
4%
$1,700,000
External Engineering Consultant
Civil Consultant/Tower Structural Engineer
Full Time Internal Project Coordinator
Site Investment
System equipment 60%
Services 40%
design
stage
install
optimize
Total Capital
Total Operating
TOTAL COSTS
8%
$3,600,000
56%
$25,200,000
27%
0.5%
5%
Year 1
Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10
5%
$2,250,000
15%
$6,750,000
47%
$21,300,000
Adcomm
4%
$1,760,000
200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000
60,000 60,000 10,000 10,000
10%
$4,600,000 600,000 1,500,000 1,500,000
$24,900,000
27% 23%
0.5% 1.0%
$225,000 $225,000 $200,000
5% 5%
Spokane Regional Interoperability Communications Program
10 Year Cost Analysis (constant dol ar costs - excludes inflation)
Plan /Design /Civil
s Permitting
Build
1111111MIMINII 1E111=1
100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000
8,000,000 3,560,000 3,560,000
6,000,000 2,040,000 2,040,000
$12, 000,000 $12,000,000 $10,000,000 111. 6,000,000 • s i i s I •
Transition Operation
200,000 III
III
$2,250,000 $2,250,000 $2,100,000 450,000 450,000 450,000 450,000 450,000
$44,975,000 $44,775,000 $43,560,000
,410,000 16,310,000 13,860,000 12,560,000 575,000
400,000
420,000
0
1,810,000 16,730,000
441,000
463,050
486,203
0 2,000,000
14,301,000; 13,023,050 3,061,203
Project Phase
910,513
2,000,000
2,910,513
976,038
2,976,038
revised 3/3/2008
Post Warran 0 • eration
2 00
1,046,840
1,123,382
2,000,000 2,000,000 . 2,000,000
1,206,171
10 year Total
800,00(
140,000
500,000
3,600,00C
15,120,000
0,480400
2
15,120, 000
10,.000
,000,000
225'.000
2.250.000
44,71 5,000
5,031,157
2,442,040
7,473,197
3, 000, 0001 13, 000, 000
3,046,840 3,123,382 4,206,171 65,188,197
,440, 000
3,600,000
25,200,000
1 z.aoopt
12,000,000
2,250,000
Spokane Regional Emergency
Communications Initative
10 year Total
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
1,206,171
7,473,197
976,038
1,123,382
910,513
1,046,840
*system software support begins in 2014
400,000
420,000
486,203
463,050
Radio System Operating Expense
441,000
Radio System Replacement Expense
0
0
0
0
2,000,000
2,000,000
2,000,000
2,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
13,000,000
Crime Check Delta Expense
1,260,197
1,323,207
1,389,367
1,458,836
1,531,778
1,608,366
1,688,785
1,773,224
1,861,885
1,954,979
15,850,624'
1,257,78.9',
"Reverse 911 Notification" Expense
100,000
105,000
110,250
115,763
121,551
127,628
134,010
140,710
147,746
155,133
911 Operating Expense Shortfall
0
0
30,985
184,918
343,729
507,833
667,662
853,666
1,036,313
1,226,313
4,851,419
6,169,326
7,542,596
42,433,029
5,154,340
5,466,495
5,814,440
4,483,260
1,971,602
2,222,566
1,760,197
1,848,207
Estimated debt payment finance costs
$44 million 110 years
5,150,000
5,150,000
5,150,000
5,150,000
5,150,000
5,150,000
5,150,000
5,150,000
5,150,000
5,150,000
51,500,000
6,910,197
6,998,207
7,121,602
7,372,566
9,633,260
10,304,340
10,616,495
10,964,440
11,319,326
12,692,596
93,933,029
8,200,000 8,446,000
8,699,380
8,960,361
9,229,172
9,506,047
9,791,229
10,084,966
10,387,515
10,699,140
94,003,810
Estimated Sales Tax Revenue
*3% annual growth
over /under
1,289,803
1,447,793
1,577,778
1,587,795
- 404,087
- 798,293
- 825,266
- 879,474
- 931,811
- 1,993,456
70,781
1,289,803
2,737,596
4,315,374
5,903,169
5,499,081
4,700,789
3,875,523
2,996,049
2,064,237
cumulative
2,737,596
4,315,374
5,903,169
5,499, 081
4,700,789
3,875,523
2,996,049
2,064,237
70,781