Loading...
2015, 04-21 Study Session MeetingMINUTES SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING STUDY SESSION FORMAT Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers Spokane Valley, Washington April 21, 2015 Attendance: Councilmembers Staff 6:00 p.m. Dean Grafos, Mayor Arne Woodard, Deputy Mayor Chuck Hafner, Councilmember Rod Higgins, Councilmember Ed Pace, Councilmember Ben Wick, Councilmember ABSENT: Bill Bates, Councilmember Mike Jackson, City Manager Mark Calhoun, Deputy City Manager Cary Driskell, City Attorney Erik Lamb, Deputy City Attorney Mike Stone, Parks & Recreation Director Eric Guth, Public Works Director John Hohman, Community Development Dir. Morgan Koudelka, Sr. Administrative Analyst John Pietro, Administrative Analyst Gloria Mantz, Engineer Karen Kendall, Assistant Planner Carrie Koudelka, Deputy City Clerk Mayor Grafos called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL: Deputy City Clerk Koudelka called the roll; all Councilmembers were present except Councilmember Bates. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to excuse Councilmember Bates from tonight's meeting. 1. Proposed Amended Interlocal for Prosecuting Attorney Services — John Pietro, Morgan Koudelka Administrative Analyst Pietro said this is a countywide change of indirect cost methodology impacting all County departments and our contracts for prosecutor and public defender services. He said in addition to the indirect rate change, there are also other cost methodology modifications and because the cost structure goes back a couple years, they look for better ways to describe the service provided. Mr. Pietro went through his PowerPoint presentation and explained we are proposing retroactive application of the changes to deal with the indirect rate. He said the last six years of the contract have been relatively stable. Deputy Mayor Woodard asked how far back it would be retroactive; Mr. Pietro said the indirect rate goes back to 2010. He said the net effect of the amendment is a cost savings expected to carry over from year to year. Deputy Mayor Woodard asked if the changes proposed are to align this contract with other County contracts in directing the costs of the contracts. Mr. Pietro confirmed and added that it is specifically the indirect rate and it will be a more accurate methodology. It was the consensus of Council to move forward for motion consideration on a future agenda. 2. Historic Preservation — Gloria Mantz, Karen Kendall Development Engineer Mantz said Council requested information on historic preservation in February and at the workshop. She said once the City becomes a Certified Local Government (CLG), we will need to maintain a historic inventory of properties in the City. The Historic Properties Inventory is a database used to archive the property inventory. She said the state has developed a statewide database called WISAARD with an estimated 264 Spokane Valley properties listed but after mapping the listings she said she estimates approximately fifty of those properties are not in Spokane Valley and said most of the properties listed have no historic value but are listed because they are more than fifty years old. She said Council Study Session: 04-21-2015 Page 1 of 4 Approved by Council: 04-28-2015 the museum also has a registry containing approximately 120 properties and they estimate half of those properties might meet the criteria to be designated a historic property. Ms. Mantz said there are no restrictions or expectations of property owners to list properties on the Historic Properties Inventory. Properties listed on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP), managed by the National Park Service and the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, need to meet certain criteria and go through a nomination process. Once the City becomes a CLG, staff will be able to review the nominations and provide recommendations for properties to be listed on the NRHP but the state makes the final decision. If the property meets the criteria, they are not required to be restored or go through a review board if they want to make changes or demolish the property, but they do qualify for incentives if they do rehabilitation work that meet the minimum standards. She said they can receive up to twenty percent investment tax credit if they are income producing properties and could qualify for special tax valuation. She said many local jurisdictions do not extend the special tax valuation to properties listed on the NRHP because there are no protections on the property but that would be up to the City to decide. She said only the properties applying for incentives would need to meet the minimum standards. Ms. Mantz said the Local Historic Register (LHR) is the registry the City would manage when it becomes a CLG and these are the only properties that can be protected because they would have to go through our commission to make changes or demolish the property. She said as we develop the ordinance we have some control over how it is written and we can decide if the properties listed need owner consent to go through the nomination process and if a property owner can remove their property from the LHR once it has been listed. She said the state discourages property removal because we lose the ability to preserve those historic properties and landmarks. She said we could also extend the special tax valuation to properties on the NRHP for property owners that do not want to go through the review board of the LHR. Mayor Grafos asked how properties originally get on the National Register and Ms. Mantz said the property owner or a third party starts the process for a nomination but the owner has to provide consent. Mayor Grafos asked if the City has any properties listed now and Ms. Mantz said the Museum is listed. She said the review standards are somewhat subjective and while there are no prescribed standards that we have to adopt, we have to adopt standards. The Secretary of the Interiors Standards for Rehabilitation are recommended because they are companion guidelines that offer design and technical recommendations and standards for restoration reconstruction and preservation. Councilmember Hafner asked what "loss of historical integrity" means and Ms. Mantz said that any changes to the property that did not receive permission from the commission and changes to the historical aspects of the property. Councilmember Pace said one of the things they talked about was the ability of the property owner to demolish the property but this looks like the owner will need permission for that. Ms. Mantz confirmed and said once a property is on the local register the property owner will need to get permission of the commission to make changes or demolish the property. She referred Council to page nine, section three of the Model Ordinance for information as to what a property owner can do if the commission denies their request. She said the owner could apply for a waiver and the commission will try to encourage a different solution from demolition and if they do not come to an agreement, it may require mitigation. Mayor Grafos said the property owner decides to be on the register so they know the criteria and if they receive the tax credit, they will need to pay the penalty if they demolish the property. Councilmember Higgins asked if the City can put stringent requirements as to who sits on the commission and Ms. Mantz said the City can put that language in the ordinance and bylaws. Councilmember Hafner asked if a new property owner will have to comply if the property changes ownership. Ms. Mantz confirmed and said the special tax valuation lasts for ten years and the seller would pay the penalty if they sell to someone who does not intend to comply. Councilmember Pace said he wants to know who benefits from this program and what the incentive is to be on the registry. He said he does not see why anyone would want to do this and it will only make government fatter. Deputy Mayor Woodard asked if he wanted to nominate the Vera Pump site to be on the registration and they declined whether he could then recommend they be on the register. Ms. Mantz said we can put our own language in the ordinance so that only the property owner can nominate their property for the registry. Deputy Mayor Woodard said part of the problem is that when we start to put a more restrictive ordinance on what people can do, we can end up with a nightmare. He questioned if Council Study Session: 04-21-2015 Page 2 of 4 Approved by Council: 04-28-2015 there is a notification that tells the public a particular property is listed on the registry so when people research the property they know it is restricted and subject to certain criteria. City Attorney Driskell said he thinks it would be recorded and should show up on the title. Councilmember Hafner said if Council approves, they are simply allowing the homeowner to put their property on the historical register and he said he thinks that is a value as a City. Councilmember Pace said he sees a lot of cost in having a commission and selecting commissioners and searching through titles and said he does not see a benefit and that we should stay away from it. Councilmember Wick said we could say only the property owner can nominate their property and they are not automatically granted the incentive and this is only a ten- year agreement so the penalty would only be applied if they did not comply with the agreement during that ten years. He asked if the opt -out section of the ordinance could address future changes in Council so the property owner would not be faced with new requirements. Ms. Mantz said that sounds reasonable and she will ask the state. She said we have no jurisdiction over the tax credit. Mr. Driskell said he can look at the tax implications but it is likely we will be dealing with the state to see how much flexibility we can draft into the ordinance and still meet the intent of the program. Councilmember Hafner said he would like to move forward and get more information. Councilmember Pace asked if we would have to hire a consultant and Ms. Mantz said the recommendation is that staff manages the program but retains a consultant as needed but that is ultimately up to Council. Deputy Mayor Woodard suggested putting out a notice or survey to see how many people would be interested in putting their property on a historic registry. It was the consensus of Council to have staff do more research on the questions raised and bring forward on a future agenda. 3. Avista Electrical Franchise — Cary Driskell City Attorney Driskell said two years ago Council passed an ordinance granting Avista a natural gas franchise and this franchise applies to their electrical facilities and is proposed to be a twenty-five year franchise. He said we have a different franchise form than what Avista is used to but they have worked well with us and the negotiating has gone smoothly. Mr. Driskell said telecommunication franchises are typically ten-year franchises because of the frequent changes in technology; however, reviewing and negotiating franchises can be rather work intensive so unless there is a need to review it sooner, for this type of franchise the twenty-five year term is preferred. It was the consensus of Council to place on a future agenda as a first reading ordinance. 4. Advance Agenda — Mayor Grafos. There were no suggested changes to the Advance Agenda. 5. Council Comments — Mayor Grafos. There were no comments from Council. 6. City Manager Comments — Mike Jackson City Manager Jackson said the TIGER grant opportunity has an extremely short timeframe for application. He said the pre -application is due May 4th and the final application is due June 5th. He said last year we submitted an application for the Barker Overpass project and spent $65,000 on the application and the economic benefit cost analysis. He said this year staff has been looking at the Pines Underpass project and whether we should use that project to apply for a TIGER grant and focus on the state for the Barker Overpass. He said he is meeting with Patty Murray and they will discuss the best way to apply for grant funds. He said it looks almost impossible to put together an application for the Pines Underpass in thirty days and typically TIGER awards five or six of the applications and they keep tightening the criteria for matching funds and partnerships making it difficult to generate an application on a fast track. Mr. Jackson said he is asking Council for the authority to meet with Patty Murray and decide the best projects and grants for which to apply. He said it is a long shot to achieve the grants because there is only five million dollars for the whole United States so they do not fund very many projects. He said at the least the City has a strong application with the Barker Overpass and we have already done the benefit cost analysis if we want to use that to apply for the grant. It was the consensus of Council for Mr. Jackson to meet with Senator Murray to discuss grant opportunities. Council Study Session: 04-21-2015 Page 3 of 4 Approved by Council: 04-28-2015 It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m. b431 Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Dean Grafos, Mayor Council Study Session: 04-21-2015 Page 4 of 4 Approved by Council: 04-28-2015 ea\ k ADDENDUM TO THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR PROSECUTING ATTORNEY SERVICES IN THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY THIS ADDENDUM, is made and entered into by and among the City of Spokane Valley (hereafter referred to as "City"), Spokane County (hereafter referred to as "County"), and Spokane County Prosecuting Attorney (hereafter referred to as "Prosecuting Attorney"), hereafter jointly referred to as the "Parties". WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, pursuant to chapter 39.34 RCW (Interlocal Cooperation Act), the Parties have entered into numerous interlocal agreements whereby County has agreed to provide services to City and its residents; and WHEREAS, this Addendum applies to the "Interlocal Agreement for Prosecuting Attorney Services in the City of Spokane Valley (January 1, 2005 -December 31, 2005)" (the "Agreement") executed by the County under Resolution No. 06-0194, the City under signature dated March 1, 2006, and the Prosecuting Attorney under signature dated March 24, 2006, as modified by that document entitled "MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING" (the < "Modification") executed by the County under Resolution No. 09-0333, the City under signature dated April 9, 2009, and the Prosecuting Attorney under signature dated May 6, 2009; and WHEREAS, from time -to -time, the Parties review interlocal agreements such as this one for the purpose of analyzing the cost methodology to determine if it properly reflects the services being provided, and whether the costs of those services are being accurately charged. These amendments reflect such an analysis; and WHEREAS, there are various components of the full cost of providing services by County, including the indirect cost allocation, which takes into account the cost of services provided by what is commonly referred to as County's central services, which include, but are not limited to, such components as facilities maintenance, administrative services, and insurance. In past years, the indirect cost rate has been calculated based on salaries attributable to the provision of each service. The Parties now agree that, effective with the 2010 settle and adjust and for subsequent years, it is acceptable to base the indirect cost rate on total expenditures in calculating the full cost of providing the services; and WHEREAS, the salary of the Elected Prosecuting Attorney is a component cost of Prosecuting Attorney Services provided to the City under the Agreement and Modification; and WHEREAS, in past years the salary of the Elected Prosecuting Attorney was allocated to Misdemeanors based on a flat allocation of $5,000 plus benefits, as specified in former Exhibit 2A of the Agreement. The Parties now agree that effective with the 2012 settle and adjust and for subsequent years the Elected Prosecuting Attorney allocation is included in the Countywide Indirect Rate and will not be allocated separately; and WHEREAS, in past years the Prosecuting Attorney maintenance and operations (M&O) costs were allocated to the City using a ratio of misdemeanor attorney full-time equivalent (FTE) positions out of total attorney FTE positions for the Prosecuting Attorney's office excluding Family Law FTE positions as specified in former Exhibit 2A of the Agreement. The Parties now agree that effective with the 2012 settle and adjust and for subsequent years the Prosecuting Attorney's M&O costs to the City will be included in the Countywide Indirect Rate and will not be allocated separately; and Page 1 of 6 WHEREAS, effective with the 2012 settle and adjust and for subsequent years the Parties desire to replace the former Exhibit 2B Infraction Services with a new Exhibit 2B in acknowledgement of numerous modifications to better account for the service currently provided; and WHEREAS, in past years criminal violations of zoning ordinances were billed at an hourly attorney rate which included the salary and benefit costs of a single civil attorney and a single paralegal, as specified in former Exhibit 2C of the Agreement. The Parties now agree that effective with the 2012 settle and adjust and for subsequent years the hourly rate will be based upon the total direct and indirect costs of the Prosecutor — Civil department; and WHEREAS, in past years the Prosecuting Attorney Administrative costs were allocated to the City using a ratio of misdemeanor attorney full-time equivalent (FTE) positions out of total attorney FTE positions for the Prosecuting Attorney's office as specified in former Exhibit 2A of the Agreement. The Parties now agree that for the 2013 settle and adjust and for subsequent years the Prosecuting Attorney's Administrative costs to the City will be included in the Countywide Indirect Rate and will not be allocated separately; and WHEREAS, the Parties desire to modify Exhibit 1 to more accurately describe the services currently provided by the County. The Parties now agree that the description of Infraction services provided by the County shall include contested traffic infractions, contested Commercial Driver's License (CDL) infractions, and contested animal control infractions. NOW THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual promises set forth hereinafter, and as provided for in the underlying document entitled "Interlocal Agreement for Prosecuting Attorney Services in the City of Spokane Valley (January 1, 2005 -December 31, 2005)" (the "Agreement") executed by the County i nder Resolution No. 06-0194, the City under signature dated March 1, 2006, and the Prosecuting Attorney under signature dated March 24, 2006, as modified by that document entitled "MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING" (the "Modification") executed by the County under Resolution No. 09-0333, the City under, signature dated April 9, 2009, and the Prosecuting Attorney under signature dated May 6, 2009, jointly referred to as the "Service Agreements" the Parties do hereby agree as follows: SECTION ONE: 1.1 Effective with the 2010 Settle and Adjust and for Subsequent Years. INDIRECT RATE SCOPE OF CHANGE. The scope and purpose of this subsection of the Addendum to the Service Agreements is to change the way the indirect costs the County charges the City are calculated, which is a component cost in determining the total actual cost for the provision of Services. Previously, the Parties calculated the indirect rate based on "salaries only" as adopted in the methodology set forth in former Exhibits 2A and 2B to the Agreement, but now agree that it is acceptable to calculate the indirect rate based on "total expenditures". 1.2 Effective with the 2012 Settle and Adjust and for Subsequent Years. ELECTED PROSECUTING ATTORNEY SALARY and DEPARTMENTAL M&O METHODOLOGY SCOPE OF CHANGE. The scope and purpose of this subsection of the Addendum to the Service Agreements is to change the way the City's share of the Elected Prosecuting Attorney salary and Departmental M&O cost is calculated. The Parties now agree that the Elected Prosecuting Attorney salary and benefits, net of State Funding, and Departmental M&O is allocated in the Countywide Cost Plan reviewed by the City of Spokane Valley annually and shall no longer be allocated as a direct misdemeanor cost. The cost of the Page 2 of 6 Elected Prosecuting Attorney and Departmental M&O will now be factored into the Countywide Indirect rate that is applied to total misdemeanor costs. 1.2.1 ELECTED PROSECUTING ATTORNEY SALARY ALLOCATION — The salary costs of the Elected Prosecuting Attorney will be allocated out to all units, departments, and funds that receive supervision. The basis of allocation is currently the total personnel costs of each unit, department, and fund. The State provided reimbursement of a portion of the salary costs of this position, currently at fifty percent reimbursement, shall be applied as a revenue adjustment. 1.2.2 DEPARTMENTAL M&O ALLOCATION — The prosecuting attorney M&O costs will be allocated out to all units, departinents, and funds that receive benefit from these expenditures. The basis of allocation is currently the total personnel costs of each unit, department, and fund. 1.2.3 MODIFICATION — In the event the Parties desire an alternate basis of allocating Elected Prosecuting Attorney salary and departmental M&O, the Parties agree that designated staff responsible for preparing and reviewing the Prosecutor Allocator within the Countywide Indirect Cost Plan may modify said basis from time -to -time upon written mutual agreement. The designated staff for each entity are as follows: the City Manager for the City, the Chief Budget Officer for the County, and the Elected Prosecuting Attorney. 1.3 Effective with the 2012 Settle and Adjust and for Subsequent Years. PROSECUTOR INFRACTION DEPARTMENT SCOPE OF CHANGE. The scope and purpose of this subsection of the Addendum to the Service Agreements is to change the way infraction costs are allocated within former Exhibit 2B Infraction Services. > The Infraction costs will now be determined as provided for in new Infraction Services Exhibit 2B in recognition of various methodological changes specified within. The total infraction costs determined by the methodology outlined in new Exhibit 2B will be removed from misdemeanor costs prior to applying the "City's usage rate. 1.4 Effective with the 2012 Settle and Adjust and for Subsequent Years. CRIMINAL VIOLATIONS OF ZONING ORDINANCES AND ADULT ENTERTAINMENT ORDINANCE HOURLY RATE CALCULATION SCOPE OF CHANGE. The scope and purpose of this subsection of the Addendum to the Service Agreements is to change the hourly rate computation used for billing the City for costs associated with the criminal prosecution of zoning ordinances and adult entertainment ordinances. Previously in former Exhibit 2C, the hourly rate included the salary and benefit costs of a single attorney and paralegal. The Parties now agree, als referenced in new Exhibit 2C, that the hourly rate will be calculated by adding 1) the total costs for the "PA Civil" department, and 2) the indirect costs of the "PA Civil" department. The sum of these costs will be averaged by the number of direct civil attorneys to determine an "Average Annual Cost." This cost will be divided by the total annual productive work hours (currently 1,653) to arrive at a "Civil Attorney Hourly Rate". 1.5 Effective with the 2013 Settle and Adjust and for Subsequent Years. DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF METHODOLOGY SCOPE OF CHANGE. The scope and purpose of this subsection of the Addendum to the Service Agreements is to change the way the City's share of Administrative Staff costs is calculated. The Parties now agree that the Administrative Staff is allocated in the Countywide Cost Plan reviewed by the City of Spokane Valley annually and shall no longer be allocated as a direct misdemeanor cost. The Page 3 of 6 cost of the Administrative Staff will now be factored into the Countywide Indirect rate that is applied to total misdemeanor costs. 1.5.1 DEPARTMENTAL ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF SALARY ALLOCATION — The Prosecuting Attorney Departmental Administrative staff salary will be allocated out to all units, departments, and funds that benefit from these expenditures. The basis of allocation is currently the total FTE of each unit, department, and fund. 1.5.2 MODIFICATION — In the event the Parties desire an alternate basis of allocating Prosecutor Departmental Administrative Staff Salary, the Parties agree that designated staff responsible for preparing and reviewing the Prosecutor Allocator within the Countywide Indirect Cost Plan may modify said basis from time -to - time upon written mutual agreement. The designated staff for each entity are as follows: the City Manager for the City, the Chief Budget Officer for the County, and the Elected Prosecuting Attorney. 1.6 Effective January 1, 2015. MODIFY EXHIBIT 1. The scope and purpose of this subsection of the Addendum to the Service Agreements is to acknowledge that the Prosecuting Attorney represents the City not only in contested traffic infractions, but also contested animal control infractions and contested CDL infractions. The Parties agree that Exhibit 1 to the Agreement shall be modified to provide as follows: (Underlined and highlighted language added, lined -out and highlighted language deleted.) EXIIIBIT For the purpose of this Agreement, PROSECUTING ATTORNEY Services shall include prosecution of violations of state statutes that are punishable as misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor offenses that occur within CITY'S jurisdiction and that are comrnitted by adults as well as any appeals to Superior Court, Washington State Court of Appeal, or Washington State Supreme Court. PROSECUTING ATTORNEY retains sole prosecutorial discretion in conjunction with providing Services under the terms of this Agreement from charging decisions through complete disposition of the case, including appeals to Superior Court, Washington State Court of Appeals, or Washington State Supreme Court. Provided, however, CITY may take over prosecution of any misdemeanor case upon written notification to PROSECUTING ATTORNEY. For the purpose of this paragraph, misdemeanors shall include criminal violations of CITY animal control ordinances. PROSECUTING ATTORNEY agrees to represent CITY in contested traffic infractions, contested animal control infractions and contested CDL infractions. PROSECUTING ATTORNEY also agrees, when requested by CITY, to represent CITY with respect to criminal violations of its zoning ordinances at the hourly rate set forth in new Exhibits 2A, 2B and 2C. PROVIDED, such representation shall not include challenges to the constitutionality of any zoning ordinance. The CITY shall retain responsibility for defending any constitutional challenge to any zoning ordinance or other CITY ordinance which may be involved in providing Services. Page 4 of 6 CITY agrees to take appropriate action to ensure police officers and CITY staff are available at no cost to PROSECUTING ATTORNEY for all trials or judicial proceedings where PROSECUTING ATTORNEY determines their presence is necessary. All misdemeanor, gross misdemeanor, and zoning services to be provided by PROSECUTING ATTORNEY in courts under the terms of this Agreement shall be provided in courts located within the Spokane County Courthouse Complex. All traffic infraction, animal control infraction and CDL infraction services to be provided by PROSECUTING ATTORNEY under the terms of this Agreement shall be provided in either courts located within the Spokane County Courthouse Complex or courtroom(s) in the Spokane Valley precinct. In the event CITY requests such court services be provided at a location other than that provided for herein, the PARTIES agree to meet and mutually negotiate. 1.7 Effective with the 2013 Settle and Adjust and for Subsequent Years. REPLACEMENT OF EXHIBITS 2A, 2B, and 2C. The Scope and purpose of this subsection of the Addendum to the Service Agreements is to replace former Exhibits 2A, 2B, and 2C in the Service Agreements with new Exhibits 2A, 2B, and 2C and a new exhibit labeled "2 -Summary" all of which are attached hereto as Attachments "1" and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION TWO: DURATION = This Addendum shall be in full force and effect as to the Agreement as modified by the Modification for the remaining term of the Agreement, or any extension of that Agreement. SECTION THREE: REMAINDER OF :INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT TO REMAIN THE SAME - The remaining provisions of the Agreement and Modification will remain unchanged by this Addendum. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Addendum to be executed on date and year opposite their respective signatures. DATED: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON TODD MIELKE, Chair ATTEST: SHELLY O'QUINN, Vice -Chair Clerk of the Board Page 5 of 6 AL FRENCH, Commissioner DATED: ATTEST: Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM ONLY: Office of the City Attorney CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Mike Jackson, City Manager DATED: SPOKANE COUNTY PROSECUTING ATTORNEY Page 6 of 6 Lawrence H. Haskell, Prosecutor DRAFT ADVANCE AGENDA For Planning Discussion Purposes Only as of April 21, 2015; 8:00 a.m. Please note this is a work in progress; items are tentative To: Council & Staff From:. City Clerk, by direction of City Manager Re: Draft Schedule for Upcoming Council Meetings Friday, April 24, 2015: Special Meeting: Council of Governments, 9:30 a.m. to noon, Conference Facility located in Expo Complex, 404 NHavana Street. Hosted by Spokane County Board of County Commissioners April 28, 2015, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Mon, April 20] 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) (5 minutes) 2. Second Reading Ordinance 15-006a CPA -2015-002 (Reconsideration) — Marty Palanuik (15 minutes) 3. Second Reading Ordinance 15-007a Zoning Map CPA -2015-0002 (Reconsideration) — M Palanuik (10 min) 4. Second Reading Ordinance 15-009 Adopting Mining Moratorium Findings — Erik Lamb (20 minutes) 5. Second Reading Ordinance 15-010, Beekeeping — Micki Harnois (10 minutes) 6. First Reading Ordinance 15-011 Avista Electrical Franchise — Cary Driskell (10 minutes) 7. First Reading Ordinance 15-012 Gambling Tax Amendment to SVMC 3.25 — Mark Calhoun (10 minutes) 8. Motion Consideration: Bid Award for Broadway Stormdrain Retrofits — Steve Worley (10 minutes) 9. Admin Report: Used Oil Signage Ordinance — Erik Lamb (20 minutes) 10. Admin Report: Advance Agenda (5 minutes) 11. Info Only: (a) Proposed 2016-2021 TIP; (b) 2016-2021 Stormwater CII' (c) Sullivan Rd Street Preservation Proj ect; (d) Dept Monthly Reports [*estimated meeting: 115 minutes] May 5, 2015, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. ACTION ITEMS: 1. Motion Consideration: Bid Award for Sullivan Rd Street Preservation #0188 NON -ACTION ITEMS: 2. Proposed 2016-2021 Six Year TIP — Steve Worley 3. Admin Report: 2016-2021 Stormwater CIP — Eric Guth 4. Advance Agenda [due Mon, April 27] — Steve Worley (10 minutes) (25 minutes) (20 minutes) (5 minutes) [estimated meeting: 60 minutes] May 12, 2015, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. [due Mon, May 4] 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) (5 minutes) 2. Second Reading Ordinance 15-011 Avista Electrical Franchise — Cary Driskell (10 minutes) 3. Second Reading Ordinance 15-012 Gambling Tax Amendment to SVMC 3.25 — Mark Calhuon(10 minutes) 4. First Reading Used Oil Signage Ordinance — Erik Lamb (20 minutes) 5. Admin Report: Advance Agenda (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 70 minutes] May 19, 2015, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Advance Agenda May 26, 2015, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 2. Second Reading Used Oil Signage Ordinance — Erik Lamb 3. Motion Consideration: 2016-2021 Stormwater CIP — Eric Guth 4. Admin Report: Advance Agenda 5. Info Only: Dept Monthly Reports June 2, 2015, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. Draft Advance Agenda 4/21/2015 8:02:30 AM [due Mon, May 11] (5 minutes) [due Mon, May 18] (5 minutes) (20 minutes) (10 minutes) (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 40 minutes] [due Mon, May 25] Page 1 of 2 1. Advance Agenda (5 minutes) June 9, 2015, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Proposed 2016-2021 Six Year TIP — Steve Worley 2. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 3. Admin Report: Advance Agenda 4. Info Only: Mansfield Avenue Connection Project #0156 — Steve Worley [*estimated meeting: 30 minutes] [due Mon, June 1] (20 minutes) (5 minutes) (5 minutes) June 16, 2015, Special Meeting: Budget Workshop, 8:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Spokane Valley Council Chambers No evening meeting June 16, 2015 June 23, 2015, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 2. Proposed Resolution Adopting 2016-2021 Six Year TIP — Steve Worley 3. Motion Consideration: Bid Award for Mansfield Avenue Connection Project #0156 4. Admin Report: Advance Agenda 5. Info Only: Dept Monthly Reports July 7, 2015, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Advance Agenda July 14, 2015, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 2. Admin Report: Advance Agenda July 21, 2015, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Advance Agenda July 28, 2015, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda (claims, payroll, minutes) 2. Admin Report: Advance Agenda 3. Info Only: Dept Monthly Reports *time for public or Council comments not included OTHER PENDING AND/OR UPCOMING ISSUES/MEETINGS: Admissions Tax Bus Shelters Coal/Oil Train Environmental Impact Statement Governance Manual LID (Local Improvement District) Marijuana, Minor in Consumption Nat'l League of Cities (Nashville, Nov 4-7) Outside Agency Presentations (Sept 1) Public Safety Quarterly Costs Referendum Discussion Setback Requirements Sidewalks and Developments TPA (Tourism Promotion Area) [May, 2015] WSDOT Presentation: I-90Barker Interchange [due Mon, June 8] [due Mon, June 15] (5 minutes) (10 minutes) — S. Worley (15 min) (5 minutes) [due Mon, June 29] (5 minutes) [due Mon, July 6] (5 minutes) (5 minutes) [due Mon, July 13] (5 minutes) [due Mon, June 15] (5 minutes) (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: minutes] Draft Advance Agenda 4/21/2015 8:02:30 AM Page 2 of 2