Loading...
2007, 12-04 Study Session MinutesMayor Wilhite called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m., and welcomed everyone to the meeting. Present: Councilmembers: Diana Wilhite, Mayor Steve Taylor, Deputy Mayor Dick Denenny, Councilmember Mike DeVleming, Councilmember Bill Gothmann, Councilmember Rich Munson, Councilmember Absent: Gary Schimmels, Councilmember MINUTES CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION Tuesday, December 4, 2007 Staff: Mike Jackson, Deputy City Manager Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney Kathy McClung, Community Development Dir. Ken Thompson, Finance Director John Hohman, Development Engineer Greg McCormick, Planning Manager Rick VanLeuven, Police Chief Mike Basinger, Associate Planner Morgan Koudelka, Senior Administrative Analyst Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk It was moved by Deputy Mayor Taylor, seconded, and unanimously approved to excuse Councilmember Schimmels from tonight's meeting. Employee Introductions: Finance Director Thompson introduced new Accounting Manager Dan Duffey; Deputy City Manager Jackson introduced Chris Thompson, Office Assistant for Center Reception; Senior Engineer Hohman introduced Engineering Tech Mary May; and Senior Engineer Worley introduced Senior Engineer Ken Knutson. Council greeted and welcomed new staff members. 1. Tourism Promotion Area Funding Model — Dan Zimmerer and Jody Sander Spokane County Hotel /Motel Association (SCHMA) President Dan Zimmerer and TPA Commissioner representing Spokane Valley Jody Sander, spoke as advocates for the removal of the "sunset clause" from the Tourism Promotion Area funding model. The agreement's termination was not slated to expire until the end of 2008, but Mr. Zimmerer explained, with assistance from Ms. Sander and Mr. Sladich, that they need the flexibility of negotiating events to come to this area as far in the future as 2014, and as other surrounding communities have adopted the model, there is increased competition region -wide, which explains why having the agreement extended in three -year increments also would not function well. Mr. Zimmerer spoke of the increases in room nights over last year, and that the TPA's strongest economic development tool in the hospitality community has been the main driver behind the increase in their region, adding that the sunset clause hampers planning several years in advance. In response to questions about "checks and balances," Mr. Zimmerer noted that the interlocal includes language to allow the hotel community to disestablish if there were a misuse of funds, or they felt they were not getting the needed return on the investment; and that the Board of County Commissioners can also dismantle it if necessary. Mr. Sladich added that they are not certain at this point if the cities of Spokane and Liberty Lake will participate, although he said there are no signals yet that they might not. Deputy Mayor Taylor said he has not heard from any Valley hoteliers concerning the sunset clause; to which Ms. Sander said she represents the Valley and that no Valley hoteliers are having a problem with the removal of the clause. There was Council consensus to place this issue on the next Council agenda for a motion consideration to amend the agreement and remove the sunset clause. Study Session Meeting Minutes: 12 -04 -07 Page 1 of 4 Approved by Council: 01 -08 -08 2. Site Selector — Morgan Koudelka, Dr. Brooks, Ian VonEssen and Robin Toth Administrative Analyst Koudelka introduced Dr. Kerry Brooks from Washington State University, Robin Toth of the Greater Spokane, Inc., and Ian VonEssen from Spokane County to discuss the updates on the site selector, adding that Council approved funding for one year and wanted a progress report at the end of the year to allow Council opportunity to consider future funding. Dr. Brooks explained that the Consortium launched its website to allow access of business information research to regional real estate sites; that the website has been operating since June of this year, and that the Consortium continues to work to refine their tracking data capabilities. Ms. Toth also explained that they have been pleased with the website and the traffic generated from it; that they have experienced some growing pains; that the original intent was to bring data from the commercial brokers' websites from Seattle; that "Choose Washington" decided not to renew their contract with the Commercial Brokers Association, so they did an agreement with Commercial Brokers Association, and the consensus from that association is very strong. Dr. Brooks then described the plans for the second phase of reporting and their use of the Google product URCHIN which will assist in determining how many times a property has been selected and where the selection came from; and said that they are continuing to learn about those capabilities. Brief discussion ensued regarding use of this site for other than realtors; the idea of gathering data on people who have moved here after visiting the website, or as a result of using the site selector; careful tracking; additional training; educating sales people about the site; doing more outreach and encouraging more brokers to share their data. Mayor Wilhite thanked the presenters for the information, and said this item is set in the budget for funding, and the matter is set for a motion consideration at the December 11 council meeting. 3. Arts Council Project — Mike Jackson, Dr. Harken Deputy City Manager Jackson explained that the Arts Council is attempting to raise funds to place the "Walking the Line" bronze sculpture in Mirabeau Point Park; and that they recommend locating the sculpture closer along the trail, rather than out in front of CenterPlace. Dr. Harken said that the Arts Council is about three and a half years old, has 501c3 status, and has been growing continually; that in May of this year Peggy Doering asked him if they could put on an art event in connection with Valleyfest, and that they had acquired permission to use the Great Room at CenterPlace; that they moved forward with that activity and in discussing the arts with several arts council members, they determined there is a need for a specific piece of art to get public viewing; and that the artists agreed to provide this piece at wholesale; that these pieces generally cost from $100,000 to $300,000 each; that the Arts Council felt this is a good plan, and that they wanted to enter into an agreement with the artists regarding the funding, but didn't want to do so prematurely. Dr. Harken also mentioned the sculpture site will need light, and will need to be put on a base; and that the artist agreed to hold the price while the Arts Council works to raise funds. Mr. Jackson said the Arts Council proposes to handle the purchase and placement, and that the City will have some annual maintenance, unless the City wants to participate on some other level; that the Arts Council will have it installed; electricity will be a marginal cost, and the falls area has lighting. Mr. Jackson said he estimated an annual electrical cost less than $2,000. The natural area was discussed, and it was determined that the exact place will be left up to the Arts Council and Mr. Jackson; and it was Council consensus to bring this matter back as an action item for a motion consideration. 4. Stormwater Manual — John Hohman Engineer Hohman said that staff wanted to discuss the adoption process for the Spokane Regional Stormwater Manual and give Council an update on the manual since there has been much progress in this endeavor. Mr. Hohman explained that the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane, and Spokane County are working toward obtaining SEPA determination, with Spokane County acting as the lead agency; that staff plans to hold a study session with the Planning Commission January 10, and hold a Planning Commission public hearing January 24, with a public hearing for Council sometime in February, followed by a meeting in March to consider the Manual's adoption. Study Session Meeting Minutes: 12 -04 -07 Page 2 of 4 Approved by Council: 01 -08 -08 Mr. Hohman also noted that staff has been working with the Department of Ecology to obtain the equivalent requirements that the State has for the Eastern Washington Stormwater Manual; that there will be two environmental permits required: one for underground control and one for the NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) Phase II permit. He mentioned we are required to adopt the Eastern Washington Stormwater manual or have our own technical equivalent; and that staff has obtained a letter of equivalency for our Spokane Regional Stormwater Manual, which letter was attached with the Council packet material for Council's reference. Some discussion on overall process and the permitting process ensued, and Mr. Hohman said he will update Council at a future meeting to compare the changes in the previous manual and this; that they did not lose any ground from what the region came up with when Council was updated a couple years ago, that there were some technical aspect changes; and staff is working on a future presentation with more detail, and mentioned that they have hired some technical experts, including Stan Miller who is the leading groundwater expert, to further refine the study and look at specific soils; and that once complete, this will be the Spokane Regional Manual, and within that manual we will have a Spokane Valley specific area to show best management practices to facilitate in that manual and take advantage of our favorable conditions. Mayor Wilhite called for recess at 7:05 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 7:12 p.m. 5. Comprehensive Plan Amendments — Greg McCormick and Mike Basinger Mr. McCormick and Mr. Basinger explained the process for the annual amendment of the Comprehensive Plan, which they explained runs from November 2 to November 1 of the following year; that applications received prior to November 1 are considered by the Planning Commission in late winter or early spring of the following year, with a decision by Council in late spring or early summer; and that this comp plan amendment schedule is not in accord with the aforementioned timeline due to the previous demand involved in the adoption of the Uniform Development Code. In response to Council question concerning the involvement of the County in our process, Mr. McCormick said that the County does not have a role in our comp plan, but we do send the amendments to CTED (Department of Community Trade and Economic Development). Mr. McCormick also explained that we received one privately initiated comp plan amendment, and that there were sixteen initiated by staff, and that staff withdrew one; that there are two types of amendments: amendments for text and amendments for the map. Mr. McCormick then explained the proposed comp plan amendments and the corresponding Planning Commission Findings and Recommendations; and mentioned that they included a policy under TP -2.4 and the same policy amendment in TP -11.6 which states: "Ensure the Appleway Boulevard right of way is the minimum width necessary to accommodate future street and high capacity transit improvements," and said that they felt it was critical enough to include in both areas as it is applicable to both transit goals and street and roadways goals. Councilmember Gothmann mentioned that the word "regional" is missing from the statement under TP -11.6. Mr. McCormick then brought Council attention to the maps at the end of the packet, which prompted discussion concerning the proposed Pines Road as a collector. Mr. McCormick said that they are just changing the designation, but he can ask at the Department of Transportation what is necessary to meet that criteria requirement. Several councilmembers asked about the process for amendments for 2008, and how they can have input in that process. Mr. Driskell said he will get a response to Council as quickly as possible concerning a regularly scheduled time in the future to specifically address any changes Council may want to initiate; and Deputy Mayor Taylor said he appreciated that research, as he prefers not to wait until November to have input for amendments for 2009. Mr. Basinger then explained the proposed map changes via his PowerPoint presentation; and said that the goal is to give Council the opportunity to see all the map amendments now, and that perhaps they could Study Session Meeting Minutes: 12 -04 -07 Page 3 of 4 Approved by Council: 01 -08 -08 review the maps in further detail separately between now and the next meeting. Mr. Basinger then briefly explained the proposed changes, with noted Planning Commission recommendations, or in the case of CPA 01 -07, there was no recommendation from the Planning Commission. The November 29, 2007 letter from Kathleen Ames was discussed, with Councilmember Gothmann asking how to cure what appears to be a mapping error. Mr. McCormick explained that this letter was received after the Planning Commission public hearing process and that while they missed the cutoff for this round of amendments, they can remand this back to the Planning Commission if Council feels it is appropriate to do so; and Mr. McCormick gave some history of the area and how the area was changed through the County's process; and that he mentioned that Mr. Kuhta was in contact with the property owner's attorney several months ago when this was brought to our attention. Deputy City Manager Jackson said that staff will add that to the list of items to clarify, including whether these issues must be amended collectively, or if one could be addressed separately; and Mr. Driskell said he will have that information prior to Council's first reading. Mr. Basinger then completed his review for Council of the remaining proposed amendments. 6. Outside Agency Funding /Cleft Palate — Councilmembers Denenny and Gothmann Councilmember Denenny explained that the Department of Health and Outreach Activities have agreed to fund the Cleft Lip and Palate Program, along with a local match of approximately $35,000; but that the $35,000 local match was allocated to other programs, and therefore, the County has drafted an interlocal agreement for cities to participate in this Program. Councilmember Denenny explained that rather than sign an interlocal agreement, he suggested Council participate by this one -time fund allocation of $6,848.00, given in two payments as we would know by the end of June if legislators reallocate their funding mechanism. It was mentioned that although the cities of Liberty Lake, Deer Park and Cheney have elected not to participate, their total contribution would not have been large, thus the other entities will likely absorb their portion. Councilmember Denenny also agreed with Deputy Mayor Taylor that this is a temporary "fix" and said that the needed funding is simply not available, but this is a way to take care of a problem until the end of next December. It was Council consensus to support this funding allocation, and asked staff to place this on the next council agenda for a motion consideration. It was also noted that a budget amendment would not be necessary. 7. Advance Agenda Additions — Mayor Wilhite It was noted that the Comprehensive Plan changes for the text and the map will be presented next week as an ordinance first reading. 8. Council Check —in: no comments. 9. City Manager Comments no comments. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:36 p.m. ATTEST Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Study Session Meeting Minutes: 12 -04 -07 Approved by Council: 01 -08 -08 chard M • :. 1, . ayor Page 4 of 4 17//r btri DRAFT Questions raised by the City Council 12/4/07 1. Can the Council segregate out one of the parcels being considered for a comprehensive map change and remand it to the Planning Commission and complete the rest of the changes to the Comprehensive Plan? The state law stipulates that the city can only amend their Comprehensive Plan once a year unless there is an emergency. This requires that if a parcel is remanded back to the Planning Commission, then 1) the rest of the parcels must be put on "hold" and all be adopted together or 2) the rest of the parcels can move forward for adoption and the separated parcel can be remanded and added to the parcels for the 2008 year. A consequence of #1 is that since the city can only amend their code once a year, if these requests are not amended before the end of the year, then it jeopardizes the city's ability to make changes for 2008. 2. Can the Council modify an application? (map change request) Section 17.80.140 (9) of the UDC states that the council can approve, deny, modify or refer the proposal back to the Planning Commission. It further states that if the council makes a major modification, then they must conduct a public hearing on the modified proposal. Specifically, if the council decides to consider a Community Commercial zone rather than the Planning Commission recommendation of Office, (CPA 04 -07) it would be considered a major modification because a wider variety of uses would be permitted on the property. The Council should also use the approval criteria outlined in Section 17.80.140 (8). 3. When can the City Council initiate changes to the Comprehensive Plan? /2e iZ yi7 Section 17.80.140 (1) of the UDC permits The Department, Planning Commission or City Council can initiate changes to the Comprehensive Plan. The Department must maintain a register of requested Comprehensive Plan Amendments. Number 5 of this section spells out the November 1 st deadline for all amendment requests to be considered for the following calendar year. I do not believe it is clear if the city council must adhere to the November 1 deadline. The conservative viewpoint would say that the list is final as of the end of the day November 1 Since the city council is the "policy makers" of the Comprehensive Plan, it is reasonable that they would be able to suggest additions to the list right up to the time the staff begins work on the amendment requests or until the public notice is issued. Once the public notice is issued it would not be fair to add additional items that the public does not get opportunity to weigh in on. Section 17.80.140 (5 c) does allow for emergency amendments to the Comprehensive Plan that are provided for under RCW 36.70A.130 (2) (a). If the Council wishes to make changes to the Comprehensive Plan, they should be added to the list for 2008 amendments which will be adopted in the first half of 2008. Since this requirement is a UDC requirement, the UDC can also be amended to make this section more clear. UDC amendments can be made at any time. DRAFT CPA -04 -07 Parcel No. 45103.0263 The Council received a letter dated November 29, 2007 regarding the above parcel from H. Kathleen Ames, Trustee. The property is located at the corner of Pines and Mansfield. The owner has asked that the property be zoned Community Commercial in order to facilitate a Purchase and Sale Agreement for a convenience store. If the council wishes to facilitate her request, the following is an option: The staff is recommending that the property be zoned Office. According to the Schedule of Permitted Uses Appendix 19 -A, the Office zone permits Fueling Stations. Convenience Stores are also permitted in the Office zone as an accessory use per the ,land use chart. I don't know which is the accessory use and which is the primary use, but fueling stations and convenience stores usually go hand in hand. Definitions: Convenience store: A retail store of less than ten thousand (10,000) square feet in size engaged in the sale of personal or household merchandise, packaged foods and beverages, which may include fueling stations as an accessory use where permitted. Fueling station: An establishment engaged in the retail sale of gasoline and automotive fuels and lubricants. This seems a much better solution than rezoning to Community Commercial which would make this property an isolated piece of commercial surrounded by office and multifamily zones. Chris Bainbridge From: Steve Worley Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2007 6:28 PM To: Mike Jackson Cc: Greg McCormick; Neil Kersten; Mike Basinger Subject: Comp Plan Amendment - Arterial Street Plan Mike, Page 1 of 1 You requested information regarding the changes being proposed to the Arterial Street Plan as part of the current effort to amend the Comp Plan. I understand there were questions at Tuesday night's Study Session regarding this issue. In general, the changes proposed to the Arterial Street Plan are based on comments received last year from Glenn Miles of SRTC. Glenn requested that the federally classified roads (principal arterials, minor arterials, and collectors) match the official WSDOT classification map for Spokane Valley. We argued that the Comp Plan is a planning document and we wanted to show proposed future classifications for purposes of establishing right -of- way requirements for new developments. Glenn agreed that we could revise the Arterial Street Plan to indicate current classifications with a solid line and proposed future classifications with dashed lines. Therefore, the dashed lines on the proposed amended Arterial Street Plan indicate either a future street (for example, the extension of Appleway east of University) or a future reclassification of an existing street (for example, Conklin north and south of Sprague to be classified as a collector). A specific question came up Tuesday night regarding Pines Road from 16 Avenue to 32 Avenue; the proposed amended Arterial Street Plan shows a dashed yellow line. The current classification for this portion of Pines Road is a Minor Arterial. The Arterial Street Plan adopted last year shows this portion of Pines to be a Collector (solid line). The proposed Arterial Street Plan for this Comp Plan Amendment now shows a dashed line to indicate a future reclassification to a Collector. Adoption of this proposed Arterial Street Plan does not change any current classifications. Changes to federal functional classifications require an application to be processed and approved through SRTC, WSDOT, and FHWA. I trust this addresses the concerns brought up at Tuesday night's meeting. Let me know if I can be of further assistance. Steve M. Worley, P.E. Senior Engineer - Capital Projects City of Spokane Valley 11707 E. Sprague Avenue, Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 (509) 688 -0191 (509) 921 -1008 (fax) sworleyespokaneval ley.org 1 2/12/2007 Dave Mercier From: Derek Young [dyoung @gth- gov.com] Sent: Monday, December 10, 2007 8:13 AM To: Dave Mercier Cc: Tim Schellberg Subject: Urban forests initiative Attachments: EvergreenCitiesConcept- 11- 26- 07.pdf Dave, The Environmental Community has chosen 4 priority issues for the upcoming 2008 session. One is called Evergreen Cities. I've attached their concept paper... if possible could you or someone on your staff comment on this so I can get a response back to help shape this discussion for Spokane Valley? My questions are... 1. Would your city support it? 2. Would you want to oppose it or have concerns? Let me know why. 3. Would you just like me to keep you updated. 4. Does Spokane Valley have something similar in place — if so what? They're concerned about the lack of urban forests for recreation, aesthetic and health reasons. They want to develop statewide performance standards and grants to enable cities and counties to restore their urban forests, and require cities and counties to retain, restore and establish new urban forests through local ordinances and urban forest management plans. Regards, Derek M. Young Governmental Affairs Consultant Gordon, Thomas Honeywell Governmental Affairs 1201 Pacific Ave., Ste 2100 Tacoma, WA 98401 253.620.6632 — Office 253.225.5878 — Cell 253.620.6565 — Fax www.gth- gov.com 12i10i2007 1 a //,/ 7 1 Page 1 of 1 This? This? Which do you prefer? OR OR 2008 Legislative Campaign This? This? r . Audubon WASHINGTON EVERGREEN CITIES Protect & plant millions of trees in Washington's cities. 1t is time to .stop losing the trees and lnrests in our cities. keeping existing trees and planting new ones enhances quality of lih' !o, people, increases property values and gives us cleaner water and 'whim for birds and ►ti i1e11ife•. This proposal will help Washington's cities be ercr rcen. Evergreen Cities for the Evergreen State In Puget Sound, and statewide, declining water quality is compromising healthy communities and ecosystems. We are losing urban forests, and associated clean air and water, as our population increases and our cities grow. Washington's population is growing and by 2030 it will increase by 2.3 million or 37 %. At that rate, Washington's urban footprint will expand by 29 new cities the size of Spokane or Tacoma by 2050. Looking back, since 1971, we lost over 800,000 acres (49 %) of urban forest land surrounding Puget Sound. Environmental consequences are alarming: peak stormwater flows increased by 1.2 billion cubic feet (29 %); 35 million pounds of air pollutants are pumped into the air annually; Lost tree cover in our cities has cost taxpayers over $4 billion in stormwater and air quality management. years. Maple Valley Forest Conversion Urban forests are overrun by invasive plants. Many trees in these forests are at the end of their lifespan. Such dead and dying trees reduce forest habitat health, create hazards for citizens, impair ecological benefits and increase maintenance costs. Research shows 70% of Seattle and other cities urban forest parkland in will be ecological dead zones within 20 Proper forest planning, management and stewardship are necessary to reverse this trend. When Maple Valley incorporated ('97) most forests In this 100 acre reolon was lost. It is time for Washington to stop losing urban forests. We must reverse this trend and increase our urban forests to clean up Puget Sound, clean our air and water, and to make our neighborhoods and cities attractive and livable. The solution: Restore our urban forests • Develop statewide performance standards and grants to enable cities and counties to restore their urban forests. • Require cities and counties to retain, restore and establish new urban forests through local ordinances and urban forest management plans. Evergreen r 'rceru C'itics Concept l'aper .V fn. 26. 2007 Contact Moth Pa Laud 16f►'911.56d0 6Thalgatairidy lr,rn <riYorUna Purihello J60.786..90211 IJ* ibrllo(z'authiho Lurk What will the Evergreen Cities & Communities Act do? • Statewide grants and funding for local governments • Partnerships with volunteers to restore and maintain urban forests • Statewide performance standards for tree retention and canopy restoration • Local ordinances and plans to restore urban forests 1. Funding, Revenue, Costs & Partnerships • Amend RCW 80.28.300 to direct utility ratepayer contributions to local governments or their partners implementing this act with 1:1 state match. • Partnership with citizen groups for forest restoration, establishment and maintenance will be given preference in CTED's grant program. • Require DNR Urban Forest program coordination and alignment (i.e. grants and tech. assistance) to support with Evergreen Cities Act. • FY09 costs will be Tess than $500,000 for CTED for rulemaking and Evergreen Cities grant program development. 2. CTED, in consultation with DNR, will: • develop Evergreen Cities performance standards by rule by 2010 • review and comment on local ordinances and management plans • provide grants to cities for ordinances, management plan, plantings, program development, implementation and maintenance • report biennially to legislature 3. GMA Cities and Counties will: • Concurrent with GMA Comp Plan updates adopt Evergreen Cities performance standards (ordinances) for: o tree retention, on -site replacement / mitigation, o total forest canopy goals, forest restoration/establishment o canopy / stand diversity for birds & wildlife o energy conservation, greenhouse gas emissions reductions / offsets o civil penalties for violating the ordinances • Within 2 years complete and implement urban forest management plans • By 2035, cities / counties will achieve minimum standards 4. Counties: • Will apply city's ordinances to adjacent lands within urban growth areas • May use TDR / PDR programs to retain rural trees outside of the UGA • Not apply this statute or their ordinances to working farms or forest lands Eongreen Cilia Concept I'aprr - Na r 26, 200; 3 Contact: Heath Packard 360.790 56x0, •rg .n Ltti.i Parifwlb, 3AO ?NA 8020 IpariNello&isandub+n „�• Evergreen Cities Act - Frequently Asked Questions What are urban forests? "Land in and around human settlements ranging from small communities to metropolitan areas, occupied or potentially occupied by trees and associated vegetation. Community and urban forest land may be planted or unplanted, used or unused, and includes public and private lands, lands along transportation and utility corridors, and forested watershed lands within populated areas ". 76.15.020 ROC What is the urban forest canopy? Thc total crown canopy formed by the leafy upper branches of trees within an urban forest. Why do we need a statewide law? Trees are one of the most cost effective investments we can make to improve water and air quality_ Thy state needs to provide leadership to ensure that The Evergreen State is full of Evergreen Cities. • Only 47 % of Washington's cities have tree retention ordinances - many are wcak. Only 10% of communities have up-to -date tree inventories; 12% of communities have management plans, indicating that few cities have clear goals objectives for tree care that are shared by local government agencies and the public; . 20% of communities do routine tree care. Communities face many challenges including: poor pruning practices, hazard trees, pests and disease, and replacement of removed trees; and need for better enforcement. {► Too often, developers consider violations of tree ordinances as the "cost of doing business." What % tree canopy goals are being considered? Goals will be regionally appropriate. Equally as important are the strategic placement, establishment and management of these trees. In Western Washington. 65% canopy cover is prescribed to maximize stormwater management benefits. Urban ecosystems are dramatically different in E. Washington. Goals may be lower due to water limitations and lower natural tree species diversity. How can this bill help cities reduce their greenhouse gas emissions? Heating and cooling energy reductions of 30! /o can be achieved by strategic placement of trees around businesses and homes. With new performance standards, communities will increase energy efficiency. Does the bill amend the Growth Management Act? No. it creates new Chapters in Title 35 RCW Cities and Towns and Title 36 RCW Counties. Does the bill apply to all cities and counties? No. It is compulsory for local jurisdictions fully planning under GMA, voluntary for others. Who currently supports this concept? Audubon Washington. Avista Utilities, Cascade Land Conservancy, Conservation Northwest, Earth Ministries, Environment Washington, League of Women Voters; Pacific Forest Trust, People for Puget Sound, Sierra Club, Thc Nature Conservancy. Washington Environmental Council: Washington Conservation Voters; Washington State Audubon Conservation Committee (26 Chapters), Washington Wildlife and Recreation Coalition... How does this relate to Green Cities Partnerships spurred by Cascade Agenda? This bill is complimentary to programs like the Green Tacoma, Green Seattle: and Green Kirkland Partnerships. Cascade Agenda is a key partner in this campaign. ergm„ Cities Concept Paper - An 26, 2007 C4)nlaLs. Nrulh Pu Aard 60. 7 4 40.SIS O kth1dA1rg/tjimJi+ /w1u.,JrF ur LAO Par114110 560 'W, ,1/4o 2n .nsuuhr n ner 4 DEC - -200 1p'20 SPOKANE REG. HEALTH DIST. 589 124 1507 P.01 /01 Accoroing to the CDC, Cleft lip and Palate is the most common birth defect in the United States. The American Cleft Palate /Craniofacial Association states that this birth defect occurs once in every 700 -750 births in the U.S. The fo�Iowing are the occurrence rates for Spokane County for the last few years. 2001 1/387 2002 1/55 2003 1/341 2004 1/456 2005 1/325 This program provides evaluation, planning and are coordination through a multidisciplinary team approach I am attaching a PDF file for the program brochure (2 pgs) for more information. The services that will be lost because of this funding cut are the public health nursing piece and the care coordination for the team. The team provides multiple surgeries, therapies and dental care required to help these children achieve a more normal appearance and function Team care for this population is the Standard ojare for this population. You can read about the standard of care through 2 sources on the Internet. 1 The Parameters of Care for Cleft lap and Palate printed by the Amencan Cleft Palate Association www.acaa-Cpf.org 2. The Critical Elements of Care for Cleft lip and Palate developed by the 4 teams in Washingtor state with a grant funded through the Department of Health www ,cshrr.,oreireSourcej/Cec.c'm Because this birth defect involves the baby's mouth, these infants cannot eat In the typical way that other infants can Breastfeeding Is often impossible and using a regular battle /nipple is difficult. The result is the baby doesn't gain and grow as it should. There are several special bottle /nipples that are designed for feeding infants with clefts. Deciding which bottle to use and closely monitoring the Infant's weight galn are critical so the baby Is healthy enough for the first of many surgeries. At the federal level, congress cut funding to the Maternal Child Health Block Grant. Because of cuts at the federal level, The Children with Special Health Care Needs (CSHCN) Program in Washington State lost 5208,000. the S1S5,000 spent on this population went to 4 regions in the state. Spokane (East Region), Yakima (Central Region) and Tacoma (Southwest Region) all have active Marlillofacial Teams. Seattle King County (Northwest Region) does not have an active team as the children in this area are served by Seattle Children's nosp'ta. Sea-King CSHCN program ' eceived 59000 of the $155,000 for some related PR/education around Cleft hip and Palate. The Spokane team got 550,370 of these funds to run a program serving 11 counties in Eastern Washington. They include Spokane. Asotin, Adana, Columbia. Garfield, Ferry, Lncoln, Okanogan. Pend Orielle, Stevens and Whitman counties. The 550,370 tnat the Spokane Team received Is used Wong with 561,000 of Administrative Match funds from the Federal Government through linkage /outreach activities, and 535,000 of local dollars was put in by Spokane Regional Health District to fund the program. Without the money from the Department of Health, the Federal match monies are no longer available. It takes 5146,222 to administer this program for Eastern Washington. All 3 Funding pieces are critical in keeping this service available to families In 11 counties. The DOH money pays for the Regional Review Board activities for the 11 counties. The rest of the funds pay for PHN Care Coordination for families that live in the Spokane area. y TOTAL F.01 About the Inland Empire Maxillofacial Team I nfants and children with maxillofacial anomalies are best cared for by an interdisciplinary team of specialists with clinical expertise m the diagnosis and treatment of these birth defects. Outcomes in surgical, speech, hearing, dental, psychosocial and cognitive domains are measured throughout the child's life by the interdisciplinary team. "4 • A referral to the maxillofacial program provides the family with intensive home visits with the public health nurse coordinator who will: • assess feeding and provide appropriate feeding devices • monitor growth and development • prepare child & family for the first surgeries • provide care coordination • collaborate with primary care physician while considering the family's resources and insurance coverage to assist in choosing team providers • assist families in understanding and implementing their treatment plans The coordinator also provides consultation to physicians, hospital staff and community providers to increase the awareness of the Parameters of Care for Cleft Lip /Palate or Other Crcwiofacial Anomalies and the W ishington State Critical Elements of Care for Cleft Lip and Palate. Referrals to the Maxillofacial Team • (509) 324 -1652 Providers... MixilloFacial Program Coordinator Laurie Vcssey RN RSN PUN Spokane Regional Health District Surgery Plastic & Reconstn.iclive: Robert Cooper MD Lynn Derby MD Elizabeth Peterson MD Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery: Melanie Lang. MD DDS Bryan McClelland DDS Mark Paxton DDS Audiology Jeff Nye MS (CC Genetics Jude .lartin MD Orthodontics Ron Ellingson DDS Steven Gregg DDS Joshua Johnson DDS Diane Paxton DDS Gerald Phipps DOS Otolaryngology Karen .1hlktrom MU Gary C antlon MD Michael Olds MD Al Pokorny MD Pediatric Dentistry Jared Evans DMD Dale Ruetnping DDS Speech and language Pathology Sandra Bassett MA CCC -SLP Susan Davis MS CCC -SLP Susan Gentry MS CCC -SLP Charles Madiwon PhD C CCS Social Work Audrey Bll{7 ACSW The goals of treatment for the child with cleft lip and/or palate or other craniofacial anomalies are to repair the birth defect while achieving normal speech, language and hearing, as well as a functional dental occlusion and good dental health. Throughout the child's care. the team is also focused on optimizing psychosocial and developmental outcomes for the child while minimizing the costs of treatment as well as facilitating ethically sound, family- centered, culturally sensitive care. T he inland Ernpire Maxillofacial Team provides care for infants and children with maxillofacial birth defects who reside in 11 eastern Washington counties. • Adams • Asotin • Columbia • Garfield • Ferry • Lincoln • Okanogan • Pend Oreille • Spokane • Stevens • Whitman For more information about this publication, please contact: SPOKANE • REGIONAL HE/ILTH 0 1 S T R I C T Children with Special Health Care Needs Maxillofacial Program 1101 West College Avenue Spokane, WA 99201 -2095 TEL 509.324 -1652 I wr 324 -1464 I Fax 324 -1699 www.srhd.org • nta 1Q07 Inland Empire Maxillofacial Team SPQ)1.I( • RECI)NLL H LTH D I S T R I C T — Loo1 - Uli' t atlon of care Is necessar because of r the compk x tv of the medical and social factors that must be considered in tt t it 1tic111 decisions. 1, Children with Special Health Care Needs (CSHCF1) Maxillofacial Program Referrals: (509) 324 -1552