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