Loading...
2016, 03-01 Study Session MINUTES SPOKANE VALLEY COUNCIL MEETING STUDY SESSION Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers Spokane Valley,Washington March 1,2016 Attendance: Councilmembers Staff Rod Higgins,Mayor Mark Calhoun, Deputy City Manager Arne Woodard, Deputy Mayor Cary Driskell, City Attorney Dean Grafos, Councilmember Erik Lamb,Deputy City Attorney Chuck Hafner, Councilmember John Hohman, Comm. &Economic Dev. Dir. Ed Pace, Councilmember Chelsie Taylor, Finance Director Sam Wood, Councilmember Mike Stone, Parks&Rec Director Bill Gothmann, Councilmember Pro Tern Eric Guth, Public Works Director Lori Barlow, Senior Planner Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Mayor Higgins called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll; all Councilmembers were present. Mayor Higgins announced that there will be an executive session at the end of tonight's meeting. ACTION ITEMS: 1. Motion Consideration: Community Development Block Grant(CDBG) 2016 Funding, Blake Sidewalk —Deputy Mayor Woodard Calling a point of order,Councilmember Hafner said he read the minutes of the CDBG Advisory Committee concerning about funding discussions including discussions from Councilmember Wood and the water district which Councilmember Wood chairs, and he asked if Councilmember Wood would recuse himself on this issue due to a conflict of interest. Councilmember Wood said he previously spoke with the Mayor and Council concerning this and his intent tonight was to recuse himself,and he asked to be excused. Mayor Higgins excused Councilmember Wood and he left the room at 6:03 p.m. It was moved by Councilmember Pace and seconded by Deputy Mayor Woodard to authorize the Acting City Manager to finalize and execute a letter to the Spokane County Board of Commissioners stating that the City relinquishes its right,for 2016 only, to receive 20%of the Community Development Block Grant funds allocable for 2016. Deputy Mayor Woodard explained that he sits on that Board, and prior to an explanation of the process of applying for funds and the decisions of that Board,asked Public Works Director Guth to explain the basics of the project and what they did on the weekend. Mr. Guth explained that a meeting was held here on the evening of January 20 to discuss the project with the neighborhood;that the project proposed is to add a sidewalk on Blake Road from Appleway Trail up to 8th along the east side of Blake Road; at that meeting there was opposition from the residents to the sidewalk; there were questions and discussion regarding the sidewalk and its placement relative to driveways, mailboxes, front yards,trees, landscaping, etc.; after that meeting staff discussed about having a site visit to try to layout in appropriate spatial terms in the field where this might fall relative to those things;he said that last Saturday the 27th staff went out at 9 a.m. and marked generally speaking where the right-of-way was and where the sidewalk would fall within that right-of-way in order to give the residents an idea of where, if it were to go forward, how it would fit in the neighborhood and location,how it would fit along the street, and how to accommodate things such as trees. Mr. Guth said there were about ten to fifteen residents who came out and spoke with us; said the majority of those residents not in favor of the Council Study Session:03-01-2016 Page 1 of 10 Approved by Council:03-22-2016 sidewalk; everyone on the east side were not in favor and there were one or two on the west side who were not necessarily opposed to it. Mr. Guth brought Council's attention to the materials on the dais,of a recap summary and some photos. Deputy Mayor Woodard said the CDBG Board convened at 4:00 p.m. January 14 to look at the grant applications; said there were fourteen applications this time compared with thirty-nine the first year; said funding is always a problem, with $2.6 million being applied for yet only having about $981,000 in available funds, of which 20% does come off for Spokane Valley's project if one is submitted. Deputy Mayor Woodard said that most of these projects are submitted from such towns as Latah, Millwood, Cheney, Rockford and other small cities in the County and they apply for their water districts or sewer systems;said once in a while a sidewalk project might be included,but not really because it is not considered an essential need particularly in the small towns. He said that two years ago, Spokane Valley challenged that or went to the County Commissioners and they forwarded it on to HUD, the entity which funds the grants, and plead our case of sidewalks with 93,000 people, is indeed an essential need, especially where they are close to the schools, like safe routes to schools,because we really don't have them,so people were walking in the streets and in the mud; so we succeeded in getting sidewalks for Spokane Valley in the low to moderate-income areas accepted by HUD to qualify. He said that in the past, sidewalk projects that had been done in the valley were ADA-ramp projects to make sure that our handicapped,wheelchairs,walkers, senior and others, could get around in our city; and said that those had always qualified under CDBG. He further explained that now we have $981,000; take $271,000 or our 20% away from that leaving about $600,000 to spread over$2.8 million minus our$337,000 project; said it is quite a challenge; said there are two directives from the Board of County Commissioners: (1) fully fund the project or not at all, and (2) they will usually have a priority they'd like to see move forward;this year that priority was sewer hookups in the valley; said there are still about 700-800 left to hook up; they requested for$220,000 of the CAPA program that does that. He said that is the County's first priority, and they could make the Board go back again and again until the Board comes up with something that makes sense to the County Commissioners, if the Board doesn't at least give it some consideration and a vote; and sometimes several votes. Deputy Mayor Woodard explained that sewer system hookups are not limited to low to medium-moderate neighborhoods, but who those who usually haven't hooked up yet are those poorer and older neighborhoods; and he said this would have funded about forty or forty-two hookups at approximately $5,000 each. He said the CAPA program is not a grant to the homeowner but is a no to low-interest loan, which is recovered when the people sell their home. So the County gets that money back, and 75% of it will come back to the CDBG program to be re-allocated in the future. He said that is why it was a high- priority project, it's because some of those funds will come back when people start selling their homes and need the sewers hooked up. He said there are about twenty members on the Board,three from the Valley, and he represents the Council. Deputy Mayor Woodard said the Board went through the whole thing probably about three times before getting hung up on how to provide the money in full for some projects that was felt by the committee, and he said he would agree with them, that were more important than a Spokane Valley sidewalk. He said this happened early January; he had a December meeting where the neighbors came out in force and did not want the sidewalk project; he said that opinion stunned everyone as Council has never had anyone object to a sidewalk.In that light,he said,when it was motioned originally from one of the Valley representatives to go to $270,000 from the $330,000 he seconded the motion. He said there was some discussion and the Board went on through some more, and the Board discovered they were still $1 million shy of getting where they needed to go on the approximate$981,000 worth of projects that would get funded at some point. He said when you have cities like Rockford,Latah, Cheney,our own Carnhope Water District, east Spokane over by Millwood and others that apply, and they don't have a tax base to find money anywhere; 400 residents in Rockford and they have one well, which is 40-50 years old and they are starting to see some problems; so$330,000 seemed to him to be a more important project than the sidewalks; so when it came back to Spokane Valley again of what is wanted, he suggested someone make a motion as all he could do is, he can't give our money away, but might agree with the Board that it Council Study Session:03-01-2016 Page 2 of 10 Approved by Council:03-22-2016 should probably be eliminated, but he said he can't, doesn't have the authority to give Spokane Valley's money away. Deputy Mayor Woodard said it was voted on, and he objected, he voted against it when it came to$200,000 and then when it went to zero;he said he voted against both times; said he may agree but he still voted against it. He said what happened is the CAPA project that benefits only people in the corporate boundaries of Spokane Valley and Carnhope, both got full funding for their projects, which is why Councilmember Wood recused himself. Deputy Mayor Woodard said that Carnhope is the poorest area in Spokane Valley,and they need water lines for fire protection and maybe some re-development; said he felt that in the fact that we still got about$290,000 for Spokane Valley projects, it was a good trade-off this year if we were going to have to make a trade-off at all. He said as a Council,Council can demand that $271,000, and that is what tonight's decision is about. He said there are two things that are starting to be talked about: (1)CAPA will be eliminated and so will Carnhope; and(2)the other thing that became a real discussion among the Board was that all Spokane Valley projects, whether submitted by Spokane Valley or not, should be counted in Spokane Valley's allocation. He said he has been pretty successful for our Valley projects over the five years; real successful;and he's been real successful in helping argue for those other water districts and/or sewer projects,CAPA projects,other things that benefitted our citizens over the years to the point that we've gotten way beyond our allocation; and said he thinks it will become a discussion in the future that all valley projects will be counted as valley, as opposed to "Spokane Valley" gets their percentage,and everyone else vies for it;he said he will be attending the Thursday,6 p.m.hearing at the Health Building, then they meet on the 10111 for final recommendations to the County; and it will depend on Council as to what will be happening on Thursday night; and said he will argue for and"go for the gusto" on whatever the decision is; and said he could not do other than what he did when people need water and sewer as opposed to a place to walk; said he likes sidewalks and has never voted against one. Councilmember Grafos asked Mr. Guth if this sidewalk project would benefit about 1400 citizens and that there were about fifteen or sixteen people at the meeting, and Mr. Guth replied there were about ten to fifteen people at the Saturday meeting; and the meeting held previously here at City Hall had about twenty people attend. In response to Councilmember Gothmann's question, if the citizens were aware staff was coming out Saturday. Mr. Guth said a letter went out to property owners of all of the properties lining both sides of Blake from Appleway Trail to 8111 Avenue; said the letter described what staff was planning to do Saturday, and included a map conceptually showing the improvements on the east side and how it would all fit, an aerial map, and for the properties on the east side, an enlargement of each property was included and how it would relate to the west side of their property with this improvement; and the property owners on the west side of the street got the overall map and the letter; he said if there were renters, the property owner would have received the notice; but added that he spoke to a couple who were renters and they met at the property. Mayor Higgins asked Mr. Woodard to confirm that if the City takes the money, it can only be spent on the sidewalk.Deputy Mayor Woodard replied yes as that is the only project our city submitted. Mayor Higgins asked then, if the citizens don't want the sidewalk, and we have $271,000, what happens to the funds? Deputy Mayor Woodard replied that the CDBG is a timely grant and must be used in a specific time in order to be granted the money;the fact that we have already missed the project submission time,that money would automatically go back into the fund and the committee would reconvene to decide what to do with those funds. In returning to the amount of$270,000, Councilmember Grafos said that the actual allocation or set-aside amount as per the interlocal agreement with Spokane County, was $358,000. Deputy Mayor Woodard disagreed and said that was not what was presented to them and in documentation; said at the beginning of the meeting they started with$1.3 million,there were some ad-ons,minus the 20%the County takes for managing the project, then our City's allocation amount as being what it is, but that has never been taken off prior to allocating funds; and reiterated that amount of$271,000. Councilmember Grafos referred to a list showing the HUD allocations, with $1,342,593 allocated to the County, and a percentage of funds to go to the City of Spokane Valley on our population,of$358,790,and the project type is sidewalk and not water districts. Deputy Mayor Woodard surmised about the document; and said if you go there, Council Study Session:03-01-2016 Page 3 of 10 Approved by Council:03-22-2016 before it's managed,that could be the number,but that he has never seen that number and it wasn't a number given to them; but even it if was, 20% would be taken from that prior to the money that can actually be allocated because of Spokane County's management fees. Councilmember Grafos said he wanted to put it on the record. Councilmember Grafos mentioned that the 20% in management fees in round numbers on $300,000,that's why the part that was approved,the amount available for the sidewalk,was about$338,000, which was the cost of that sidewalk to the taxpayers of this city. Mayor Higgins invited public comment. David Starr, Spokane Valley: said he doesn't live on that block but he has plenty of Facebook comments from people who do live on that block, who are against it; said this is the first place where citizens can address their government; and if you fail to take them into account in making these decisions more than you take into account the federal money that is coming here,you disenfranchise them, and him and all the citizens; spending the money because the government has it to give to us is not an excuse to spend it; if we need it, then sure; but arguing about the amounts doesn't bode well for the public perception of Council, and said he finds it disappointing; and feels most important, is that Council needs to take the citizens' opinion into Council's deliberations on this. Crisinda Marshall, Spokane Valley: said she was there on Saturday to greet the public employees,and said that it didn't start off very well; said she spoke with Ray Wright who was very nice, but he came in there and said that we're only here because City Council wants to proceed with this project;she said that instantly made her wonder because she was here last Tuesday and spoke with Mark Calhoun who said they were there to answer questions, not because City Council said this is want we're doing; said right after that she called Councilmembers Ed Pace, Sam Wood, Deputy Mayor Woodard and Mayor Higgins, and said she is confused and asked if someone could let her know what the meeting is about because she felt betrayed, as if someone on the outside if saying we're going to put these sidewalks through, but we're going to tell you we're just going to ask questions. She said they have all repeatedly stated their case and she feels Council is here to listen to the public; when a Councilmember said this would benefit about 1300 citizens, where are those citizens' comments; and that the only comments Council has heard have been negative; she said she loves her neighborhood,but there are several changes that need to be made before this sidewalk comes in; she said just because someone gives you free money, and said it is not free money as she has paid her taxes; she said this grant money comes from someplace, it's not free, she's already paid for it; she said it's not that we are saying no to it right now,we just need other issues fixed in our neighborhood. She said she also spoke with Eric Guth who as he mentioned, received a lot of negative feedback; there were a couple of people who were ok with the project. She said they had somebody else,Steve Worley,who came in there and said leave our public employees alone, let us be, and let them do their job. She said they were letting them do their job;we followed them;they were marking our sidewalks and our streets,and they were taking public comment. There were no issues whatsoever. Tony Lazanis, Spokane Valley: said there are outside sources or the County trying to tell you what to do; I think you are doing a good job, you should do a better job and do whatever you can to help the people in the Valley; you have a good tax base and you should do the right things;that he appreciates what Council does and encouraged them to do better. Randy Kimm, Spokane Valley: said he has lived in this neighborhood for about 48 years; said he lives five houses off of Blake on 7111; said he knows what it is like to ride bikes and walk his grandkids in the neighborhood;said what he sees going up and down Blake and down 7111,61''and 5°i,are three very unmarked intersections where more people don't treat it as such; and if the sidewalk proceeds, it will make this neighborhood less conducive to safety in that respect; cars are going fast enough and people aren't looking and we have already had some serious accidents at these intersections, and as a more thoroughfare is being promoted, we'll see even more accidents; said when he drives up and down 8th Avenue, where sidewalks are really needed because there is one lane of pavement and there are dirt shoulders and said he is constantly driving around people who are trying to stay off the dirt; said he does not know where the figure of 1300 Council Study Session:03-01-2016 Page 4 of 10 Approved by Council:03-22-2016 to 1400 people would benefit from this sidewalk; more sidewalks will make the area less quiet and more dangerous because of the increased traffic flow;and said he hasn't talked to anyone in favor of the sidewalk; and he urged Council to listen to their constituents, and work on areas that truly need the protection. Nina Fluegal, Spokane Valley: said she lives two houses away from the Blake and 4th intersection; of all the sidewalks to have, that she has one that doesn't make any sense at all as it stops right at her property from the new development that was built right next to her;said the intersection on 4th and Blake is extremely dangerous;there are no sidewalks or curbing on the west side of 4`h leading to McDonald;the curbing is on the east side of 4th on the other side of Blake; concerning the four-way intersection, said they have been trying to get a four-way stop for a long time because the traffic has become immense; so even if a sidewalk were put in, how would anyone cross safely if that is a complete through street,and said that 4'h'has been a racetrack since the last few years; and it directly intersects with Blake, and leading to the sidewalk and to the Appleway trial is just terrible; no one wants it as it will increase more traffic; and said the sidewalk on Blake is a fruitless endeavor and makes no sense at all. Gabe Chambers, Spokane Valley: said we should not be spending that money on things that people don't want; it is ridiculous; as mentioned in the handout, most people are not ok with it; he suggested Council spend the money on other things; said the Appleway Trail is just terrible; no one wants it;no one says they want the sidewalk. There were no further public comments. Councilmember Gothmann stated that he previously served on the same committee as Deputy Mayor Woodard, and did so for six years so is aware of how the committee works, and said that Deputy Mayor Woodard described it perfectly; said he also rides his bike daily and one of his favorite places to ride his bike is the trial; and said in the process, he is constantly going up and down 4th and has found 4`'' an outstanding place to ride; said there's not much traffic and the cars are very cooperative; and on a ride a few days ago he rode up and down Blake; and he understands that there are neighborhoods that don't have sidewalks and the reasons they don't; said Carnhope was mentioned; that it is a very small water district, and one of the things that has happened to that water district, is it is along the freeway and there were many houses removed along there so Carnhope has been hit hard by the North/South freeway; the grants are offered for specific reasons, and if we don't take the money, it will not be available for some other project; he said he supports the motion made, that we have given adequate opportunity for the neighborhood to comment and if they don't want it, they should not have to have it; said he is looking forward to the completion of the Appleway Trail as he rides it daily, and it is very heavily used by walkers, bike riders, parents and kids and is a great trial and a great addition to our city. Councilmember Grafos said the people on the CDBG committee are tasked to work in the best interest and represent the interest of the City of Spokane Valley, and based on what he has just learned,he is calling for an investigation by the Washington State Attorney General's Office to look into possible political favoritism and corruption by Deputy Mayor Arne Woodard,and that this is in regard to his role as the City of Spokane Valley's representative on the Community Development Block Grant Committee. Mayor Higgins interrupted and suggested that this is neither the time nor the place. Mr. Grafos said he has before him the minutes of the January 14, 2016 meeting and he'd like to place it in the record for the public to review. Councilmember Hafner suggested that Council should be allowed freedom of speech,while Mayor Higgins replied that he does not feel this is the time or the place to be making charges against Councilmembers; said he feels there is a time and a place but this isn't it. Councilmember Grafos said he wants to talk about this report that is going into the record; he said that the money that was allocated to the City of Spokane Valley and our citizens and taxpayers was $338,000; the project cost for Spokane Valley sidewalks was $337,000; now entering into the mix is the Carnhope Irrigation District application; the motion stated, seconded by Arne Woodard, and then approved;that award totals $73,440, which then was subtracted from the remaining funds leaving the $270,000 for the sidewalk project; then there was a discussion that followed on sidewalk funding on the remaining $270,000. Mr. Grafos quoted from the Council Study Session:03-01-2016 Page 5 of 10 Approved by Council:03-22-2016 materials, a statement from Deputy Mayor Woodard: "I will say that this has the capability of cutting a block or two off if we need to as a city;"the next discussion,sidewalk funding remaining was $200,000; at that point the discussion talks down the sidewalk project. Mr. Grafos continuing reading the quote by Mr. Woodard: "The criticalness of these projects to these small towns and whatnot far exceed into our smaller water districts," which Mr. Grafos said is a private company and not a city project— "our smaller water districts even in the Spokane Valley far exceed the need of the valley for a sidewalk." Quoting again from the meeting minutes: "I tend to look at the cumulative benefit of the valley as opposed to,we have a project. Carnhope has a project. They are all separate but they are all valley; they may not be my project but they benefit the valley." In summary, said Councilmember Grafos, with Arne's coaching, the city projects receives no funding; and Councilmember Sam Wood, chairman of the Board of Carnhope Water District, walks away with his water district enriched with $72,000 of the taxpayer's money, a private company; Rockford walks away with $224,000 from the 2015 allocation; and added to the $212,000 diverted 2012 funds, city funds, courtesy of Arne Woodard, he said Mr. Woodard took 11% of that allocation in 2012, and he said this has resulted in a loss of several hundred thousand dollars of funding for Spokane Valley. Mr. Grafos said he thought Mr. Woodard represented the city of Spokane Valley, not all those others. Councilmember Pace said that he understands that if Council passes on this, Council won't accept the federal money this year, and it would be used for some other project in the greater Spokane area that will do the public some good somewhere; he agreed that water districts are private but said they are still public utilities;he said he doesn't care where it goes as it will benefit some area in Spokane County;said it is clear that the citizens that live along Blake or in the neighborhoods around Blake,don't want this;so he suggested Council not do it.Councilmember Hafner said he looked into the minutes from the CDBG because he heard we went from the original amount of$337,000 down to $279,000, down to $200,000, down to zero, and said he wondered what happened to our funding; said we had an interlocal agreement with the County that stated we would receive 20%of funding,which amounted to approximately that$278,000,or originally the $337,000; they call that a set-aside amount of money, which is for our city officials to use in whichever way they feel is best for the city exclusive of all the others; he said others had an opportunity to apply for grant money too; said this dedication was done in 2004 and was done for a reason, because we were the highest populated city around and it was felt that there should be a set amount of monies that we could use as a city. Councilmember Hafner said he has tried not to get emotional, and just wants to look at the facts and have his decision based on those facts. Councilmember Hafner read from the minutes of that CDBG meeting, a staff report from Pat Stretch, CSHCD Staff: "This is a sidewalk improvement and ADA compliance curb cuts on Blake Road.Proposed to serve approximately 1,130 individuals, 47% low-moderate housing. For those of you who know the Valley it's located on Blake Rd from 8th-Appleway trail.Asking$337,075.This application does address a high priority need for sidewalk improvements in the City of Spokane Valley and does meet infrastructure goals and objectives. It addresses a high priority need also of removal of architectural barriers making sidewalks ADA accessible with curb cuts. Meets National Objective of benefitting low-moderate income persons based on area-wide benefit.Service area is census tract 12701 block group 1,which is low-moderate at least 50%of housing; and that neighborhood is primarily residential. We recommend full funding in the amount of $337,075 since it is eligible and all costs requested are appropriate for CDBG funding." Councilmember Hafner said he looks at that information for what it does for a particular area of our city, and that his responsibility is doing,approving what is best for this city and not necessarily all the time what you may think is best for a particular segment; he said he goes by what it is trying to do; not necessarily for right now but maybe a few years from now; said he asked himself why we went from$337,000 to none, so he went through the minutes to find out why that happened. To give an indication that this committee is made up of numerous small cities, which all have their needs and wants and that there is never enough money to go around; but he said this amount of money is dedicated for the City of Spokane Valley; but there have been times when they have gone below that; and there's a quote in here where one of the committee members asked Deputy Mayor Woodard why the City didn't yell and scream a few years prior Council Study Session:03-01-2016 Page 6 of 10 Approved by Council:03-22-2016 when the City didn't get the amount of money allocated; adding that it is Deputy Mayor Woodard who is on the committee as our city's representative; and said that Mr. Woodard's reply was not to worry about it, as usually he doesn't have to go to the Council for approval,but if you want me to go down to zero he could have a problem, and that he would talk to the Mayor but the Mayor's not the problem—the City Manager is the problem.Councilmember Hafner said as everyone now knows,it is no longer a problem with the City Manager; and that Deputy Mayor Woodard was going to go ahead, and no matter what he had determined that it is the small critical areas that were going to get the funding; and Councilmember Hafner asked why should they have the opportunity to take away money that is justifiably ours. Councilmember Hafner said if people would like, they can get a copy of those meeting minutes, as the minutes tell the story of what went on in this committee and why we came down to a zero amount of money; and he asked why are we giving up $279,000 when it's not necessary. Councilmember Hafner said sidewalks are for the citizens' benefit,as eventually,there will need to be ADA curbs for the best of our community,which this application addresses. In paraphrasing from those minutes,Councilmember Hafner said a question was asked,what would happen if the citizens didn't want this project and were able to convince the council not to move ahead with it;and could another application be substituted or whatever?The answer was it would have to go through another competitive process. The Town of Latah said, so if the Valley has this set-aside funds but there is no approved application, then it can't be spent, is that right?Councilmember Hafner said the application was approved by the people who approve all those projects for these people. Continuing with the minutes, Councilmember Hafner said then there was a motion to go down from the $270 to $200,000 because the $270 was not approved; and that was when there was discussion about the small critical projects needed like for the water district; but that Mr. Woodard (in the minutes) said that maybe we could go down from $200,000 to 2nd or 5th and do the balance on another project. Again in referring to the minutes, Councilmember Hafner said the $270,000 that was recommended and reduced to zero; said the $200,000 supposedly went for two projects: $200,000 for sewers and $70,000 for the Carnhope Water District; said that was exactly the amount of money that we were going to receive. Councilmember Hafner said the chair of that committee,who was from the City of Spokane Valley,said"I am responsible in saying that the City of Spokane Valley has 20% set aside of$271,000; what are they going to do if they vote no and we lose $271,000;"and then finally a motion passes to fund Spokane Valley at zero. Continuing with the minutes, Councilmember Hafner said that Tom Hormel, City of Spokane Valley, said that this isn't the first time we were under the set-aside;two years ago we went under the set-aside so this will be the first time I think we didn't fund anything but going under the set-aside the City didn't throw a tantrum;"and Mr. Woodard said "well they did,you just didn't hear about it. I granted that because I probably can do that without the vote of the council; but a zero is a different story." And from the Town of Latah: "I look at the $271,000 set- aside and to say down to zero, is kind-of in your face and not just procedurally from the standpoint of equity basis that this is all established on . . . . I just feel like it is the wrong decision to be taking in light of the set-aside amount we all understand is the basis for how funds are allocated." Councilmember Hafner said our representative, Deputy Mayor Woodard, in response to that said"I'm going to be talking to the mayor tomorrow; he's not gonna be my problem. It's really gonna be the City Manager. The City Manager does not set policy the council does. I just don't know if I have their votes to go zero. I'm going to argue for the small critical, not the small projects, but the small critical projects for the other communities, and that's what I'm going to do." Councilmember Hafner said he won't argue that, but said not to argue and take away money that we have set aside and worked so hard for; said that the two projects that took our money away was the Carnhope Irrigation District for $73,000, and the sewer projects for $200,000. Councilmember Hafner said under the circumstances, what he thinks there was a lot of misinformation, said he can't look at saying we lost$279,000 simply because we couldn't work it out and make sure it was done correctly; and said that he will not vote for this motion at this time. Deputy Mayor Woodard said that in addition to his presentation, of the 14 projects, only two were not recommended for full funding; so there were more projects approved for full funding then there was money Council Study Session:03-01-2016 Page 7 of 10 Approved by Council:03-22-2016 available. Councilmember Pace said there is a proposed sidewalk project and the people living along the street who don't want it; and then the government expert comes along and tells them they do need the sidewalk because it will be of benefit; said he will vote on the side of the people who live along the streets, which will give the money back and prevent the sidewalk from being built. At the request of the Mayor, Councilmember Pace re-read the motion: to authorize the Acting City Manager to finalize and execute a letter to the Spokane County Board of Commissioners stating that the City relinquishes its right,for 2016 only, to receive 20%of the Community Development Block Grant funds allocable for 2016. Councilmember Gothmann said he thinks there is a misapprehension about how these projects are created and he explained the process for the call for projects and the submittal of those projects; said in the past the projects were evaluated by staff and approved by HCDAC; the problem in the past was that the City of Spokane Valley was competing with Rockford,and that the City of Spokane Valley had twenty times more people than Rockford; which was why this agreement came about with a set-aside for Spokane Valley;and if the set-aside is not taken,the question is what to do with the funds which will go back into the fund to be used for someone else; he said we cannot go back and rescue the money; we submit a project and if this Council disapproves the project, HCDAC would not approve it. Councilmember Gothmann moved the question, which stops debate:vote by acclamation:In favor:Mayor Higgins, Deputy Mayor Woodard, and Councilmembers Gothmann and Pace. Opposed: Councilmembers Grafos and Hafner. Motion carried. Vote by show of hands on the main motion: In Favor: In favor: Mayor Higgins, Deputy Mayor Woodard, and Councilmembers Gothmann and Pace. Opposed:Councilmembers Grafos and Hafner.Motion carried. City Attorney Driskell left the room to notify Councilmember Wood of the end of this discussion, and Councilmember Wood returned to the dais at 7:10 p.m. NON-ACTION ITEMS: 2. Comprehensive Plan Existing Conditions Report—John Hohman, Lori Barlow Director Hohman said tonight is an opportunity to discuss the comprehensive plan existing conditions report, which was previewed with Council back in November and to bring it back tonight to set the stage for further discussions of the comprehensive plan update which will be going on for the majority of this calendar year;said these reports form the basis of our economic trends as well as transportation conditions; and said Ms. Barlow will discuss some of the planning items as well as the visioning report. Senior Planner Barlow explained about the authority to plan; the recommendation for the population forecast; discussed the report's housing and economic trends, including demographic trends, housing tends, economic trends, land uses; then talked about the significant changes of those development trends since the recession; discussed residential land capacity and acres buildable by zone; went over the medium density residential zoning, mixed use zoning, office zone including why office and garden office are not developing; neighborhood commercial zoning and the issue of can we develop small scale retail uses in neighborhoods; then moved into the land uses and key destinations in the transportation system showing population density, commute characteristics, and pedestrian, bike and public transit facilities; and noted some of the overall challenges and opportunities. Mr. Hohman mentioned that next week's agenda includes presentations on the retail and the tourism studies. At 8:01 p.m., Mayor Higgins called for a recess; the meeting reconvened at 8:14 p.m. Mayor Higgins explained that in the interest of time, the Public Safety Oversight item and the 2015 Accomplishments report will be switched,with the Public Safety item coming on next. 4. Public Safety Oversight/Advisory Committee—Councilmember Pace Mayor Higgins invited Sheriff Knezovich to talk about the existing advisory committee. Sheriff Knezovich explained that recently he solicited feedback from the Sheriffs and Chief's Association, on the number of advisory boards and so far, none have been found, although he said he will still need to check with other jurisdictions that he has not heard back from,such as Seattle and King County. Sheriff Knezovich said that the City of Spokane and the Spokane County Sheriff's Office does have Oversight and have had for several Council Study Session:03-01-2016 Page 8 of 10 Approved by Council:03-22-2016 years;said they have both internal and external oversight.The Sheriff said his office must submit an annual report on the number of complaints; and he went through his PowerPoint showing a variety of statistics on the number and disposition of complaints, both internal and external, as well as a breakdown of the origination of those complaints;number of jail medical lawsuits,and other lawsuits.Sheriff Knezovich then discussed the composition of the external oversight committee, as well as the Citizens Advisory/Review Board, adding that twelve out of the seventeen members on the Advisory Board are Spokane Valley residents. He said public safety officers take their jobs very seriously, and hold themselves to a very high standard.He also mentioned there are two openings on the board and he would like to offer those to Council; and said perhaps they would need to speak with legal counsel because if a Councilmember were a voting member, there might be liabilities attached; but said the legal department can research that. It was noted there were several members of the board present,and at Mayor Higgins' request,they stood and introduced themselves. Sheriff Knezovich also that that the Board is trying to take their responsibilities to a different level and have requested the National Association of Civilian Oversights to do a peer review of the board in the hope that the Board can work toward becoming an accredited advisory board. The Sheriff also noted he distributed copies of the board's bylaws for Council's review. Councilmember Pace said he proposed the establishment of a Spokane Valley citizen oversight committee, to get input from the citizens; said public safety is our number one priority and public safety is 70% of our budget; that some of the reasons for the committee include power and transparency; power as noted in article 1 section 1 of the Constitution, and to protect and maintain individual rights; so a committee appointed by Council and who reports to Council, would bring that power closer to the people and the people closer to Council. He said transparency does not call for any closed-door sessions so the meetings would be open to the public;and he went over the information on his handout Discussion on a Public Safety Citizens Oversight Committee. Councilmember Pace said he hopes to schedule this discussion at a future study session. Councilmember Wood asked about coordinating with water districts and Councilmember Pace said that would fit in,as noted in Spokane Valley Municipal Code(SVMC)2.45 as part of the public health and safety functions; and said he proposed the Committee would be developing relationships and coordinating flow of information. Council discussion included comment from Councilmember Hafner that he feels we don't need an oversight committee since one is already in existence and that this would represent another layer of government. Councilmember Grafos said we are a contract city and most of the meetings this year have included discussion about law enforcement,adding that we have no control over fire protection;he also asked if this would involve increasing the size of city staff. Councilmember Pace agreed we don't have such authority for fire, but SVMC discusses all that as part of the public safety function the city has concern for; and concerning staff, he likened this to the staff's involvement with the Planning Commission. To give some perspective on SVMC 2.45, City Attorney Driskell explained that was adopted early in the incorporation process, in 2003, and we did not have a contract with the Sheriffs Office and were just finalizing many issues; that we did not fully know about fire protection at the time and had not annexed into the two fire districts until later;adding that nothing has ever been formally done in connection with SVMC 2.45 Mr. Calhoun said staff could attempt to gather some background research on this, and ask Mr. Driskell to initiate some discussions with the Center for Justice,and report in the near future.Deputy Mayor Woodard suggested not pursuing this until after the March workshop, with Councilmember Hafner adding that he would like to see more information on liability as well. Councilmember Gothmann said he feels we have adequate review now and seems ridiculous to add just one more; if people have complaints they can go to the website review board; and said he sees no reason for such a committee, doesn't think we can afford such a committee, and too is concerned about our liability protection. Council Study Session:03-01-2016 Page 9 of 10 Approved by Council:03-22-2016 At 9:00 p.m., it was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and seconded to extend the meeting for thirty minutes, or until 9.•30 p.m. Vote by Acclamation:In Favor: Mayor Higgins, Deputy Mayor Woodard, and Councilmembers Gothmann, Pace, Hafner, and Grafos. Opposed: Councilmember Wood. Motion carried. 3. Accomplishments Report for 2015—Department Directors In the interest of time, it was agreed to postpone this item until next week. 5. Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins The discussion of when to schedule future discussions on a public safety oversight committee resulted in consensus to have it scheduled for some time after the March 15 workshop. Councilmember Hafner asked about the status of the Governance Manual and it was agreed to wait to add that to a future agenda until after that committee has had a chance to meet. 6. Council Comments—Mayor Higgins Councilmember Hafner remarked on a recent newspaper article about a press conference and said he did not understand why he was not told about this and would like to have known and been a part of that. Councilmember Grafos also noted he was troubled by that press conference; that he was there but was troubled by the statement made by the Mayor that we were going to keep the sheriff's contract, and he asked how the Mayor could bind this City to a legal contract with first having a discussion with the Council. Councilmember Gothmann asked Mr. Calhoun if the issue of responsibilities and how the Sheriff contract gets renewed, could be on an upcoming agenda; and Mr. Calhoun said that would be discussed during the March workshop,that the four-year contract is automatically renewed January 1,2018,but Council has the option if desired,to notify the County within eighteen months, of a desire to terminate the contract, which must be done by mutual consent. 7. City Manager Comments—Mark Calhoun Mr. Calhoun mentioned an upcoming public works FMSIB (freight mobility strategic investment board) grant opportunity for$18 to$23 million state-wide,with applications due March 14; and said the idea is to apply for the grant for the Argonne Road Bridge widening; and asked for Council consensus to bring this item back next week as a motion item. There were no objections. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn into executive session for approximately thirty minutes to discuss litigation and potential litigation, and that no action would be taken upon return to open session. Council adjourned into executive session at 9:13 p.m. At approximately 9:49 p.m., Mayor Higgins declared Council out of executive session, after which it was immediately moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. r -.&,.hi dt ITO----Ire i''' '41". ATTES . L.R. Higgins, - a'rlir (itv-7.-h- c &O'. '/ � Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Council Study Session:03-01-2016 Page 10 of 10 Approved by Council:03-22-2016 AGENDA ITEM # 1 Sp #111°.11\11111111ft okane Valley 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 ♦ Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.921.1000 ♦ Fax: 509.921.1008 ♦ cityhall®spokanevalley.org Memorandum To: Eric Guth, PE - Director of Public Works From: Ray Wright, PE—Planning and Grants Engineer Date: February 29, 2016 Re: Blake Neighborhood Meeting Blake Road Sidewalk Project, 8th Avenue to Appleway Trail Spokane County 2016 CDBG Grant On February 27`h, staff conducted an onsite visit to lay out the preliminary alignment for the Blake Road Sidewalk Project. Staff arrived onsite at Blake Road a few minutes before 9 a.m. There was light rain. Several of the neighbors came out and expressed their concerns for the sidewalk. Staff listened while they marked the 15 foot travel lane and 5'-6" curb and sidewalk section. Marking began on the south end at 8th Avenue and was delineated north to the new Appleway Trail. City Staff Included: Adam Jackson, Community and Economic Development Chaz Bates, Community and Economic Development Eric Guth, Public Works Steve Worley, Public Works Ray Wright, Public Works Staff spent time answering questions, clarify the proposed improvements, and addressing the Neighborhood's concerns while delineating the proposed curb and sidewalk. Public Works laid out the centerline the day before on Friday afternoon. Because the right-of- way and the pavement width varies all along the street frontage, centerline doesn't fall in the middle of the paved road but gradually shifts between blocks to keep the new road section with curb and sidewalk within the existing right-of-way. Staff completed marking the new road, curb, and sidewalk section by 9:45 a.m. Comments were taken from the Neighborhood and these comments are included for review. 1 Randall Hewson 615 S Blake Rd. (east side) Mr. Hewson is opposed to the sidewalk. He would like to see other improvements made to Blake Road before adding a sidewalk. He would like to see 4-Way intersections setup with STOP signs along some of the busier intersections on Blake. Mr. Hewson stated that he has experienced vehicular theft and vandalism over the years and doesn't want the project. Bill & Beth Sexton 623 S Blake Rd. (east side) Mr. Sexton is against the sidewalk project. He said that we have sidewalks and bike lane on both McDonald and Evergreen Roads. Michael & Krisinda Marshall 521 S Blake Rd. (east side) rir\ 4. l _ ADS 1" . '- ,y x ,..-p-:,..- . -,., , = - . -, ., .. ..... ,,,r,...___. , ..;, -41,4,,,,,, "zz .i .� .�. ._i,` ;i, 0'"'x,..5 • yam:- '2 , y, ik I., 1 C � New Sidewalk location at 521 S Blake, Looking South Mr. Marshall thought that this project is a waste of money and that sidewalks along Blake Road is a waste of money. The Marshall's landscaping goes up to the edge of the pavement which is about 7 feet within the City right-of-way line. Mr. Marshall doesn't like the idea that the street moves closer to his home, and he also stated that he's not convinced that placing the sidewalk along Blake will reduce speeds. He said that he likes the idea of sidewalks,just not on this portion of Blake. There are other areas that need sidewalks more, he stated. He would like to 2 see 4-Way intersections setup with STOP signs along some of the busier intersections on Blake. Mrs. Marshall has the same concerns she has had all along and that she's voiced with Public Works staff and the Council. She is fearful that the trail will provide access into the Blake Road Neighborhood, making crime worse. She thinks that sidewalks will encourage loitering and unwanted people in their neighborhood. She's concerned with traffic safety and has called the police several times because of speeding vehicles along her street. She says that there have been many accidents on her street and encouraging more people to use the road to access the trail will only make it worse. She's not convinced that sidewalks will slow down traffic and make it safer. She thinks it will only make it worse. Joel Mularski 515 Blake Rd. (east side) Mr. Mularski is a longtime resident and is opposed to the sidewalk. The new sidewalk encroaches into his landscaping and would remove about 10' of his lawn and a part of his hedge on the north side of his property. He doesn't want to see the loss of parking in front of his home. Pat Riordan 13510 E 5th Ave • 1010.1016* i New Sidewalk location at 13510 E 5th, Looking South Mr. Riordan took no issue with the new sidewalk and its location on his property. He has placed parking curb along his frontage to delineate his property line and the street. He currently is 3 maintaining lawn within the City right-of-way and thought the sidewalk would cut down on his maintenance. G L Stefonowicz 520 Blake Rd. (west side) Mrs. Stefonowicz has concerns with a sidewalk on her side of the road if placing the sidewalk would remove the tree from her front yard. Her tree is well behind the right-of-way line so the tree will not have to be removed if a sidewalk were ever to go on her side of the street. C & D Stark 13503 Blake Rd. Mr. and Mrs. Stark were concerned that the new sidewalk would encroach into their new driveway. They said that it made no sense that they had obtained a permit from the City and they located the driveway. The edge of the driveway is placed along the right-of-way line and the sidewalk could be placed on the west side of the driveway as poured. The Stark's were also concerned that they would lose parking on the street. They are not in favor of the sidewalk. 41''1 I � f - rr ^":7N Y 4 • New Sidewalk location at 13503 E 5th, Looking South 4 1 , vrf l:.4.4`. �( ' 1 ! • • - • r 11 New Sidewalk location at 13504 and 13505 E 4th, Looking North Jurgens Living Trust 208 S Blake Rd. (west side) Mr. Jurgens says that he isn't against installing the sidewalk when it comes time to put it in on the west side of Blake Road but that he has worked to make his front yard nice and does not want the City to move in and tear things up. The sidewalk improvements would not encroach significantly into his front yard because the right-of-way line fronting his property is well outside the area where he has made improvements (about 8' to the east of the landscape timbers delineating his lawn from the street). Mr. Jurgens expressed his concern with the Appleway Trail. He says that there are a few dark spots behind Shopko and people are hiding back there at night. He would like to see lights installed along the trail and at the intersection where the trail intersects Blake Road. 5 Spokane Valley City Council Study Session 3/1/16 DISCUSSION ON A PUBLIC SAFETY CITIZENS OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE Discussion Leader: Councilman Ed Pace OBJECTIVES OF THIS DISCUSSION 1. Public Safety Citizen Oversight Committee: Move forward with another discussion at a future Study Session to review this and other proposals for forming an ad hoc committee of citizens and councilmembers that would spend six months drafting policy and bylaws for forming a Public Safety Citizen Oversight Committee. 2. Public Safety Department:Schedule a discussion for a future Study Session on SVMC 2.45 which states in part: "The purpose of the department of public safety is to monitor, coordinate, and enforce the responsibilities of various public health and safety functions performed within the City, including, but not limited to, police services,fire protection and suppression services, public health and safety matters, and such other related functions and duties as may be assumed or assigned by the city council and/or city manager.The above services are collectively referred to as "public safety services." (Ord. 69 § 1,2003)." This Section of SVMC may relate to the Public Safety Citizen Oversight Committee. SCOPE OF THE PUBLIC SAFETY CITIZEN OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE • City of Spokane Valley city limits (as opposed to the Sheriffs Police Advisory Board which covers the entire County). • All public safety functions as laid out in SVMC 2.45. (as opposed to the Sheriffs Police Advisory Board which is limited to the Sheriffs Department) WHAT THIS PROPOSAL IS NOT • NOT about forming our own police department. • NOT based on criticism of any local public safety agency or function. AUTHORITY FOR FORMING A PUBLIC SAFETY CITIZEN OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE 1. Washington State Constitution says"All political power is inherent in the people and governments derive their just power from the consent of the governed." (Article I,Section 1). The people of the City of Spokane Valley own the City government including all public safety functions within the City.They delegate much of their power to the City Council.The proposed Public Safety Citizen Oversight Committee is a way of bringing the citizens closer to the City Council. 2. Spokane Valley Municipal Code 2.45 establishes a Department of Public Safety. 3. Spokane Valley Municipal Code 2.15.040 gives the City Council audit authority"The city council reserves the right to cause a performance of(should say"or")financial audit to be made of any department or office within the City and may select the persons or entity to make such audit without the advice or consent of the city manager.The scope of the audit and the results shall be reported directly to the city council.This audit authority shall be exercised in a manner consistent with the power of the city council to define the functions, powers, duties, compensation and working conditions of officers and employees, including the authority to create departments,offices and employments as necessary or advisable. (Ord. 23 §4,2003)." 4. Ad Hoc Committees.The City of Spokane Valley Governance Manual, B.3 (pg.42)gives the Mayor authority to appoint ad hoc committees consisting of Council Members and/or citizens. AD HOC COMMITTEE TO DRAFT THE STRUCTURE AND BY-LAWS OF THE PUBLIC SAFETY CITIZEN OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE • Duration: 6 months • Members appointed by Mayor- 1 Attorney from Center for Justice 1 Spokane Valley Police Officer 1 Police Officer from another agency 2 Council Members(1 serves as chair) 2 Citizens ONE IDEA FOR THE PUBLIC SAFETY CITIZEN OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE • Type of Committee: ad hoc • Duration: 1 year • Appointed by and reports to City Council • Five citizens with no connection to any public safety agency and with no "ax to grind." • Meeting frequency: monthly • Meeting functions: review public safety reports,take input from citizens,take input from public safety employees. • Report quarterly to City Council. • City Council determines whether items reported are administrative (and turns over to appropriate administrator with recommendation), policy,or information only. • Staff support:City of Spokane Valley Public Safety Department(similar to relationship between Planning Commission and Community and Economic Development Department). VERSIGHT INTERNAL AND EXTERNA Internal Oversight 015 Sheriff's Office I.A. Complaint Statistics There were 64 external complaints, internal complaints - sr inquiries in 2015 involving 99 members. (One xternal complaint involved 20 members of the SWAT earn) ere were 43 External complaints involving 78 members that resulted in the following dispositions: ■ Sustained: 3 Not Sustained: 2 • Exonerated: 5 • Unfounded: 2 • Changed to an Inquiry: 32iP • Still Pending: 1 11116 1 heriff's Office I.A. Complaint Statistics 10 Internal complaints involving 10 am — -suited in the following dispositions: onerated: 1 anged to an Inquiry: 3 'till Pending: 1 ere were 11 incidents entered and settled a `` Inquiries that involved 13 deputies. Office I.A. Complaint Statistics �k�Recrr iT r ::complaints or inquiries, it appears that: ®' stemmed from incidents that occurred the City of Spokane Valley. 3 4 of them stemmed from incidents that occurred J utside the City of Spokane Valley. of them stemmed from an incident that --ccurred in the city of Spokane ■ 1 of them stemmed from an incident that occurred at an unknown location. 0 2 deputies resigned in lieu of discharge in 2015; 1 as a result of a 2014 incident and 1 as a r- :e.� • .. 2015 investigation. 2 N,itizen Contacts vs Complaints ar Citizen External/Internal Percent Contacts Complaints d 122,847 64 0.05 114,302 69 0.06 112,302 75 0.06 .412 114,525 67 0.05 erage 116,075 68 0.055 ess than 1/10 of 1% (.05%) of citizen ontacts result in an external or internally 8 riven complaint. Accountability 8 Sheriff's Office personnel erminated/resigned/retire • 3 ail Medical Law Suits :'./2015 E.,Number of Bookings: Approx. 200,000 ►. mber of Claims: 55 Claims denied by the courts • Claims settled $54,755 -.0001% of booking resulted in settled law '- suits o Since 6/2015 approx. two claims, 1 settled $84,000 Law Suits 4 .. dministration o Current Administration ime frame: 87 months o 110 months .CSO &Jail o SCSO/Jail/Geiger •z,-,Number of claims: 460 o Number of: 338 eductible: o Deductible: ,250,000/claim $500,000/claim County Expense: o County Expense: $5,836,401 $4,642,237 a Insurance Paid: o Insurance Paid: $1,373,407 $2,334,393 o Total Expense: 7,209,808 o Total Expense: $6,976,632 4 Law Suits . . -xpenses increased approximately 1., %o per year since 2000 aw Enforcement legal immunities continue to rode each year ternal Oversight o e;Gounty Prosecutor's Office State Attorney General OJ S Attorney 'tizen Advisory/Review Board • 5 itizens Advisory/Review Boar • • " " ou or 17 Members are " . ..ty of Spokane Valley Residents'EMIMMMEa .: l�� Milltuiams (12.14.15) 11111MMII . l r) K. (11.27.04.n.AM • • .� A. - Secretary* X -- •-eoffrey (2.9.15) Mit XIII . nie (9.14.15) AM.! xi. •roles G. - Chairman 1, [ X -- EirriMrdi (4.13.15) AMRx �wani, Vijaya (4.9.07) ' i X amadi, Mehrdad * I ' 16 West, Bob (5.12.14) -Vice Chairman X 17 Winn, Kenneth L. * * . ** original members from beginning (2000-ish) 6 SPOKANE COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE CITIZEN ADVISORY BOARD (Bylaws) Article I: NAME The name of this entity shall be known as the Spokane County Sheriffs Office Citizen Advisory Board (CAB). Article II: AUTHORITY The present board was formed under the authority of the Spokane County Sheriff in the spring of 2000 and remains active today. Article III: MISSION The mission of the CAB is to create a forum of citizens and leaders from within Spokane County citizenry to collaboratively address the immediate and future needs of the Spokane County Sheriff by researching, planning, reviewing assigned cases and disciplinary actions, providing advice on department policies, and recommending solutions that will integrate and prioritize the best case practices. Article IV: PURPOSE Recognizing a close relationship between the Spokane County Sheriffs Office and the community is an essential part of a responsive and responsible Spokane County government. The benefits of such a relationship are immeasurable not only for the Sheriffs Office, but also the citizens and business community. The CAB will be a means of enhancing police/community relations, communications,transparency, and community confidence. Article V: FUNCTIONS The CAB when requested by the Sheriff or his/her designee shall do the following: A. Act in an advisory capacity to the Sheriff; B. Provide input and feedback to the Sheriff on issues and concerns involving interaction between the Sheriffs Office and citizens in the community; C. Review specific assigned cases, use of force inquiries, appropriate citizen complaints, disciplinary actions, and provide feedback as to outcomes and findings; D. Review departmental policies and procedures and the community-based philosophy of operation; E. Assist in educating the community to provide transparency and confidence between the department and citizenry of Spokane County; Page I 1 1/11/16 F. Assist in developing programs and projects to foster communication with various disproportionately affected groups; G. Communicate information about the Sheriff's Office and its goals to the citizens that are served, along with media inquiries as appropriate; H. Recommend procedures, programs, or legislation to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Sheriffs Office and to enhance cooperation among citizens of the community and the Sheriff's Office; and I. Strengthen bonds between the Sheriffs Office and the community,thereby ensuring equal protection and service for all citizens. Article VI: MEMBERSHIP A. Board membership shall be a diverse and broad-based representation of the community- at-large. Membership shall be comprised of not less than 15 or more than 19 appointed individuals. B. The CAB shall be comprised of citizens who are concerned about police and community relations, and who are sensitive to community needs and perceptions. C. CAB members must be residents of Spokane County. D. Members of the CAB can be recommended by the Sheriff or directly apply to the Board. Applicants will be appointed by a majority vote of the CAB. Prospective applicants will be required to undergo a criminal background check. E. CAB members must demonstrate an active willingness to commit themselves to community service for a period of at least two years and may remain on the CAB beyond that time unless removed by a vote of the Board. The Sheriff may make recommendations to remove members. The Sheriff will forward those removal recommendations to the Board for a simple majority vote. F. The Sheriff has the authority to disband the CAB without notice at any time. G. Vacancies occurring by termination, resignation, or expiration shall be filled in the same manner as the original appointments. H. The CAB shall elect a Chairman, Vice-Chairman, and Secretary in the first meeting of the year to serve one-year terms. Fiscal years will run from September 1 thru August 31 of each year. I. Proxies will not be allowed on the CAB. J. All new CAB members will be required to attend and successfully complete the Spokane County Sheriff Citizen's Academy along with a Sheriff"Ride-along." These must be accomplished within one year of appointment to the Board. Page 12 1/11/16 K. CAB members shall serve without compensation or remuneration. Article VII: MEETINGS, RULES,AND REGULATIONS A. All meetings shall be held in a public forum and announced in advance. However,closed meetings may be conducted as determined by the Sheriff,the CAB Chair, and/or their designee. A closed meeting is one in which only CAB members,the Sheriff, or their designees are allowed to attend. Advanced notification will be advertised and posted on the Spokane County Sheriff Website. Regularly scheduled meetings of the CAB will be conducted on the 2nd Monday of each month at 5:30 pm unless posted otherwise. Meetings will be posted at least 10 days prior to the scheduled meeting, along with locations, times, and agendas. B. The CAB shall conduct at least one regular meeting per quarter on such day of the month as determined by the CAB. Special meetings may be held as necessary. C. For purposes of conducting CAB business, a quorum shall consist of at least seven members. Any action taken by the majority of those present, will be considered official. D. The CAB shall adopt such rules of procedure, as it deems necessary provided such rules are consistent with local, state and federal law as well as these bylaws. The Chair will be responsible for conducting business with proper decorum. E. The CAB shall record or keep minutes of all meetings held and business transacted except when the meeting is in closed session. F. All records shall be open for public inspection, except those that may be exempt from public disclosure under applicable State law. G. Members who fail to attend three consecutive regular meetings may be considered to have vacated their positions and may be replaced at the CAB's discretion. Members are expected to attend meetings regularly however,there might be an urgent need or special reason for not attending and, therefore, notification of absence shall be given to the Chairman and an excused absence given. Article VIII: OFFICERS A. The Officers of the CAB shall be a Chair, Vice-Chair, and Secretary. Their duties shall be as follows: 1. The Chair shall preside over CAB meetings; develop the monthly meeting agenda in consultation with the Sheriff or his/her designee, and ensure publication is accomplished by the Secretary; appoint subcommittee and subcommittee chairs as deemed appropriate; report the CAB actions and decisions to the Sheriff as appropriate. Page 13 1/11/16 2. The Vice-Chair will preside over the CAB meetings in the absence of the Chair; conduct other duties and business of the Chair in his/her absence; perform other duties as directed by the Chair. 3. The Secretary shall take the minutes of all CAB meetings; ensure minutes are made available to all members on or before the next scheduled meeting; ensure notices are sent to all members by providing Sheriff support staff information (dates, times, and locations). Article IX: RESIGNATION A. If an occasion arises where a member can no longer fulfill his or her duties,the member should submit a letter of resignation to the appointing authority (CAB). It will be the responsibility of the appointing authority to appoint a replacement to complete the unexpired term. A list will be maintained of prospective applicants. New members will be considered from this list with seniority derived by application date. Article X: VOTING A. All members of the CAB shall have the privilege of voting on issues presented. In the event of a tie,the Chair will vote in order to break the tie. Unless provided to the contrary in these bylaws, Robert's Rules of Order shall govern all parliamentary procedure. Article XI: RECORDS A. In order to maintain an open and transparent process the CAB and Sub-committees shall keep public records of all actions as may be required by applicable laws. B. The CAB shall maintain a roster of its members. Member's names,together with the identification of the Chair, Vice-Chair, and secretary will be maintained and available for inspection as outlined above. ARTICLE XII: AMENDMENTS TO BY-LAWS A. In consultation with the Sheriff, these by-laws may be amended by a two-thirds vote of the existing CAB membership. All amendments must be presented in writing at a regular or special meeting with all members receiving a copy of the proposed changes at least ten (10) days prior to the final consideration of same, except where unanimously adopted by members present at a regular meeting. Any actions in response to the proposed change in the bylaws taken by the CAB will become effective immediately or unless otherwise specified. I ARTICLE XIII: EFFECTIVE DATE A. These by-laws shall go into full force and effect at the time of their adoption by a majority vote of membership of the CAB. Page 14 1/11/16 ARTICLE XIV: AUTHORIZATION OF EXPENDITURES A. Unless approved by the Sheriff or his/her designee, no member of the CAB or any entity thereof, will incur any debt or obligation in the name of the CAB. ARTICLE XV: CONFLICTS OF INTEREST A. Declaration: All members are expected to declare a conflict of interest prior to consideration of any matter causing a potential or actual conflict. B. Conflict defined: An actual conflict of interest exists when an action is reasonably certain to result in a special benefit or detriment to the member, a relative, or a business with which the member or member's relative is associated. C. Action: The member will declare the actual conflict and announce its nature. The member must then recuse themselves from further participation in the matter as well as any further communication with CAB members on the matter. Minutes will be reflected of the potential conflict and the member's name. D. CAB members may participate in political campaigns and/or organizations while not in the performance of their duties with the CAB. CAB members participating in these activities shall abide by the following: 1. At no time shall the member use, or appear to use, the member's official position or the CAB in connection with those activities; 2. The activity shall not adversely affect the responsibilities of the CAB members to remain impartial; and 3. While engaging in CAB business, CAB members shall not display campaign literature, badges, stickers, signs or other items of political advertising. ARTICLE XVI: SEVERABILITY If any provision or provisions of these Bylaws shall be held to be invalid, illegal, unenforceable or in conflict with the law of any jurisdiction,the validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining provisions shall not in any way be affected or impaired thereby. Page 15 1/11/16 eR�, SPOKANE COUNTY y'4NE coo "In partnership with the community, t t- 0 Dedicated to your safety • • SHERIFF OZZIE D. KNEZOVICH Terminations — Resignations — Retirements 2006 JAIL Employee IA# Reason SUMMARY Gary Delzer 06-0023 Terminated Sexual Harassment/Untruthfulness. Annette Ahlf 06-0045 Resigned Allegations of untruthfulness. Sue Taxter 06-0049 Resigned Relationship with offender. LAW ENFORCEMENT Joe Mastel 06-0035 Retired CS reversed termination. 2007 JAIL Employee IA# Reason SUMMARY Sheryl Cook 07-0061 Terminated Violation of Strip Search RCW's. LAW ENFORCEMENT Lee Bates 07-0061 Terminated Union filed complaint on Bates. Bates was terminated based on investigation. 2008 JAIL Employee IA# Reason SUMMARY Laura Lagerquist 08-0043 Terminated Violated corrective action plan. Jordan Olsen 08-0047 Terminated Unauthorized display of Dept. ID. Jerrod Ledford 08-0050 Resigned Unauthorized display of Dept. ID. Bruce Minor 08-0024 Resigned Lockdown procedure violations and insubordination. Jeff Sager 08-0063 Resigned Failure to maintain standards of conduct related to staff interactions with inmates and lying during an internal investigation. Page 1 of 4 2009 JAIL Employee IA# Reason SUMMARY Wayne Green 09-0017 Terminated Excessive use of force. Kenneth Downey 09-0089 Terminated Failure to conduct module rounds, lying during IA. Mike Wingenter 09-0042 Resigned Posting images in uniform on explicit website. Keith Barbor 09-0066 Resigned Sexual Harassment. Jeff Leavey 09-0091 Resigned Domestic Violence Allegations. Lloyd Nolan 09-0089 Resigned Insubordination, failure to conduct rounds. Timothy Manke 09-0064 In Lieu of Laid off in lieu of termination — Domestic Violence Allegations. Joel Lambert 09-0054 In Lieu of Laid off in lieu of termination — disparaging racial comments about co-workers. LAW ENFORCEMENT Tom Litts 09-0034 Terminated Comp. filed by shift members. Inves./Term. Union filed for arbitration, settlement after additional witness reported additional misconduct. Pete Bunch 09-0014 In Lieu of Resigned in lieu of termination - Arrested for obstructing and resisting arrest. David Fray 09-0079 In Lieu of Retired in lieu of allegations of DV, retired prior to disposition. 2010 JAIL Employee IA# Reason SUMMARY Larry Zoesch 10-0074 Terminated RCW violations related to strip searches reinstated employment after arbitration. Howard Bowman 10-0033 Resigned Asked another CO to lie during an internal investigation, and safety violations in a housing module. Nancy Cowles 10-0007 Resigned Failure to perform essential job functions. Andy Jennings 10-0016 Resigned Theft. Jesus Garcia 10-0025 Resigned Relationship with offender. Velven York 10-0032 Resigned Relationship with offender. Steve Snyder 10-0071 Resigned Lying during an internal investigation. Tom Metzen N/A In Lieu of Resigned in Lieu of- Medical Loudermill. LAW ENFORCEMENT Travis Smith 10-0048 Terminated Several complaints filed including allegations of criminal conduct all were sustained. Smith was terminated. Arbitrator sustained all findings but returned Smith back to full duty. Erik Nelson 10-0012 In Lieu of Resigned in Lieu of termination on or about 03-17-2010 after refusing to end an intimate relationship with a convicted felon and for lying. Page 2 of 4 2011 JAIL Employee IA# Reason SUMMARY Dustin Love 11-0044 Terminated Allegations of DUI and road rage. Ruth Wybrant N/A In Lieu of Medical Loudermill. Jennifer McLeish 11-0066 Resigned Relationship with felon. Stacey Fleming 11-0009 Resigned Relationship with felon. Mike Zimmerman 11-0015 Resigned Sexual Harassment. Amos Atkinson 11-0074 Resigned LCA positive UA for Marijuana, violated 2 screening for alcohol Jeff Harrell 11-0073 Resigned Unprofessional treatment of inmates. LAW ENFORCEMENT Bret Pierson 11-0003 In Lieu of Resigned in Lieu of being terminated on or about 02-03-2011 for DUI 2nd alcohol related offense while under a last chance agreement. Brett Peterson 11-0033 Resigned Federal indictment, took responsibility and resigned on 09-30- 2011 before causing agency any embarrassment. 2012 JAIL Employee IA# Reason SUMMARY Sean Moser 12-0010 Resigned Insubordination and lying during an investigation. Ken Richter 11-0070 Resigned Introducing contraband into facility. Wanda Schmitz N/A Resigned Medical Loudermill. Cathy Archer 11-0039 Retired Unprofessional behavior, insubordination, disparaging comments toward staff. LAW ENFORCEMENT Michael Brooks 12-0071 Terminated LCA on 08-31-2012"Terminate and reinstated" Union filed for arbitration but agreed to negotiate settlement, termination language removed from last chance agreement. 2013 JAIL Employee IA# Reason SUMMARY Diane Terry 12-0114 Resigned Resigned after allegations of disparaging comments towards another employee. Dwayne Nill 12-0121 Resigned Resigned after allegations he had a relationship with an offender and lied during the investigation. Richard Smith 12-0153 Terminated Lied during IA investigation about attendance related issues. Arbitrator returned Smith back to duty with 2 week suspension. Page 3 of 4 ary Hold 12-0133 Terminated Threatening statement to fellow officers, reinstated after signing LCA. 2013 continued Sheriff no longer responsible for the jail. LAW ENFORCEMENT Scott Kenoyer 13-0079 Terminated Admitted to having sex on duty. Terminated on 08-15-2013. Arbitrator returned him back to duty with 60 days suspension and 2 year LCA. Dale Toliver 13-0067 In Lieu of Was charged with felony domestic violence assault stemming from D.V. with his girlfriend on 05-11-13 in Lincoln County. Resigned in lieu of discharge effective August 16, 2013 following a Loudermill notification in internal investigation. 2014 LAW ENFORCEMENT Todd Saunders 14-0018 Terminated Spent hours at female's residence over a 7 month period while on duty Made misleading CAD entries, misused ACCESS and was untruthful during his IA investigation. Terminated on 05- 01-2014. Charles Sciortino 14-0011 Terminated Terminated on 07-14-2014 for numerous policy violations pertaining to duty work including attendance and work related dishonesty issues. Reinstated in a structured agreement to avoid arbitration. Dave Herrin 14-0020 In Lieu of Resigned in Lieu of being terminated on 08-16-2014 following allegations of criminal game law violations. 2015 LAW ENFORCEMENT Brian Hirzel 14-0083 In Lieu of Resigned in lieu of being discharged on 01-19-2015 over insubordination and disobedience issues regarding unauthorized use of department vehicles. Jeremy Jeske 15-0063 In Lieu of Resigned in lieu of discharge on 10-15-2015 during an IA investigation into issues of dishonesty. Page 4 of 4 -/--;_/V& i, - _ f1 .- - SPOT 2 �r .: , p - CO�� I rFF e.. c � CHRISTINE BARADA COMMUNITY SERVICES,HOUSING,AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE MINUTES ALLOCATION MEETING January 14,2016 ,s Note to personsreviewing this document: This is not a verbatim transcript. Whilan attempt has been made to document pertinent points,these Minutes contain only a summary of the discussion and voting. ,,reecording of the meeting is on file and available for review from the Housing and Community Development Division. , ;' ,, Members of the Committee: Shane Comer,Chair,City of Spokane Valley;Rustyarnett,Vice Chair,Member at Large; Jim Carollo:Member at Large;Dee Cragun,City of Deer Park,.Toin Hormel,City`fSpokane Valley;Larry La Bolle, Town of Latah;Cheryl Loeffler,Town of Fairfield;Bret L-tucas"` City of Cheney; Shiley !!ante,City of Medical Lake; Clyde Sample,Town of Spangle;Gary Wagner,Town of Rockford;Ralph Williams, Ci- 'of Liberty Lake;and Arne Woodard,City of Spokane Valley. <N r e lam , fF .r'.-57%� '��' ":'• Staff: Christine Barada,Director;Tim Crowley,D ion Manager; hard Culton,Project Administrator;Kathy Downs, Grants Manager; Christy Jeffers, Project A mims�trator, Kate Kennedy, Project Administrator; Tami Landsiedel, Secretary;and Pat Stretch,Project Administrator. fi"j.,^wT ,y yl1,' �'J'Oat-,,,, l.�Ai. cn.. Call To Order:4:00 p.m. - ;•- , Shane Corner,chair reviewed the'roject Selec4§&,.on Procedure - ` ~ "Y"yra,` `_Fy, eel . A 4' > Reports: fr. U:r f: = :;; Christine Barada thankededeyone forybemg�here<onight. '%¢ . Kathy Downs :�'�`gf fa brief overvie_ hof anticipated 2016 CDBG%funding. 41 Ado tin HCDAC V.k-4 p g mutAgraes of November 201 Sv- ,. Recommendation: Appr ;yed fn 7 New Business: k: ; L' 4,; Consideration of 2016 Community Development Block Grant App1wations for Affordable Housing Activities. ciFt 1. Consideration of the CDBG Application from Spokane Conservation District—Single Unit Residential Rehab—Requested Amount$225,000 A. Staff Report—Pat Stretch B. Motion made to approve funding for the amount of$225,000 Motion:Tom Hormel Second:Ralph Williams Passed C. Motion made to approve funding for the amount of$200,000 Motion:Arne Woodard Second: Tom Hormel Passed D. Motion made to approve funding for the amount of$225,000 Motion: Shirley Maike Second: Tom Hormel Passed-Project funded at$225,000 312 WEST 8TH AVENUE • 4TH FLOOR • SPOKANE, WA 99204 PHONE:(509)477-5722 • FAX:(509)477-6827 • RELAY SERVICE OF WA:1-800-833-6384 www.SPOKANECOUNTY. 2. Consideration of the CDBG Application from SNAP—Single Unit Residential Rehab—Requested Amount$150,000 A. Staff Report—Richard Culton B. Motion made to approve funding for the amount of$115,000 Motion:Arne Woodard Second:Rusty Barnett Passed C. Motion made to approve funding for the amount of$75,000 Motion: Shirley Maike Second:Bret Lucas Passed D. Motion made to approve funding for the amount of$82,717 Motion: Shirley Maike Second:Tom Hormel Passed-Project funded at$82,717 Ari 3. Consideration of the CDBG Application from The ARC of,Spokane—Single Unit Residential Rehab Requested Amount$182,840 A. Staff Report—Richard Culton No Motion Made.Project not funded ,ht, *�, %r. 4. Consideration of the CDBG Application from Spokane Housing Ventures' Multi Unit Residential Rehab Requested Amount$300,000 A. Staff Report—Richard Cul ton :..% pp funding for the amount f3$3 ,0 ` A". B. Motion made to approve Offieb �; Motion:Arne Woodard Sir ,;) -��%,Second:Rusty Bariietfu� Failed 5/6 C. Motion made to approve fundinglfor the3amount of$20000.0 r .,� ::fes Motion:Larry LaBolle Second:BretLucas % a . Failed-Project nb atinded Consideration of 2016:Community Development Block Grant Applications for Economic Development Activities144 '} - -�` 5. Considerationothe CDBG Ap lication from SNA Financial Access —Micro Enterprise—Requested Amonn 5;500 xri tail Report—Pt Stretch-fa B. otion made to ap oye funding for the amount of$55,500 Mo :Tom Horme LS econd:'`Arne Woodard PassedProjectfundedat$55,5500,; ';f2 WILD Consideration of 201;6:community Development Block Grant Applications for Public Improvements/Infrastructure AcilAties. 6. Consideration of the CDBGpplication from City of Spokane Valley—Sidewalks—Requested Amount $337,075 A. Staff Report—Pat Stretch B. Discussion ***see below for verbatim discussion regarding funding decision C. Motion made to approve funding for the amount of$270,000 Motion:Tom Hormel Second: Arne Woodard Passed D. Motion made to approve funding for the amount of$200,000 Motion:Tom Hormel Second: Shirley Maike Passed E. Motion made to approve funding for the amount of$0 Motion:Jim Carollo Second: Shirley Maitre Passed 312 WEST 8TH AVENUE • 4TH FLOOR • SPOKANE, WA 99204 • PHONE:(509)477-5722 • FAX:(509)477-6827 • RELAY SERVICE OF WA:1-800-833-6384 www.SPOKANECOUNTY.c'f F. Motion made to approve funding for the amount of$100,000 Motion:Larry LaBolle Second:Jim Carollo Failed-Project funded at$0 7. Consideration of the CDBG Application from Carnhope Irrigation District—Street&Water Improvements—Requested Amount$73,440 A. Staff Report—Christy Jeffers B. Motion made to approve funding for the amount of$73,440 Motion: Shirley Maike Second:Arne Woodard Passed-Project funded at$73,440 8. Consideration of the CDBG Application from City of Cheney—Mater&Street Improvements—' Requested Amount$135,620 :,-, E.„` A. Staff Report—Richard Culton " B. Motion made to approve funding for the amount of-$1 5�62O Motion:Bret Lucas Second: Shirley Maike s`':>, TF„� Passed-Project funded at$135,620 ._ ..; • 9. Consideration of the CDBG Application from-Crty of Airway Heights Priorrt_y#1—Water&Sewer Improvements-Requested Amount$168,269%x% • A. Staff Report—Christy`Jeffers `(,,it-A, /-5',,,,, • ,` t -f<. F "mo;7a. No Motion Made.Project notfunded f. ..,mss , fQ ./fKfln`-,; ,f,. 10. Consideration of the CDBG Applica n oImCity of AirwayyHeights Priority#2—Water&Sewer Improvements—Requested Amount$103,401 ,. _- . A. Staff Report—ChristyJeffers Gfr. e F >-- No Motion Made'o�ectnotfunded;z --0:,.-3,-;-> ,,,,a0,..„... t . +� 11Y-V-&- ••. -iii .<. . . �� a��� S� Y/'.SFE yt:�+.3•`�.- 11. Consideration of II :k.ABG App cation from-Town%of Latah (Vater&Sewer Improvements— Requested Amount1221,032 i4 - fY A. Staff Report—Pat.St etch 4:,,., ;*, B. Motion-iiade to app ve; ''d ng�for the amountof$221,032 .moi::4,17'4'f :Z-ft.,oeae,00/ rf ; _0 4 on: . o• - :ol1e ,4 :;Secon/�d�:•Gary Wagner C.�'' otion made to approve fun%ung for the amount of$0 N�o•"fi'on:Ame Woodadl Second:Larry LaBolle Pro ectfanded at$0 '''''#"`"•;A. = ., 12. Consideration ofi he CDBG Application from Town of Rockford—Water&Sewer Improvements Requested Amontt$224,578 A. Staff Report—0 -geffers B. Motion made to approve funding for the amount of$224,578 Motion:Arne Woodard Second:Bret Lucas Passed-Project funded at$224,578 13. Consideration of the CDBG Application from Town of Spangle—Water&Sewer Improvements Requested Amount$155,510 A. Staff Report—Christy Jeffers B. Motion made to approve funding for the amount of$155,510 Motion: Shirley Maike Second:Rusty Barnett Passed-Project funded at$155,510 312 WEST 8TH AVENUE • 4TH FLOOR • SPOKANE, WA 99204 PHONE:(509)477-5722 •FAX:(509)477-6827 • RELAY SERVICE OF WA:1-800-833-6384 Www.SPOKANECOUNTY;C G 14. Consideration of the CDBG Application from Habitat for Humanity—Street Improvements—Requested Amount$250,000 A. Staff Report—Pat Stretch No Motion Made.Project not funded Adjournment: 6:22 ***Verbatim discussion regarding#6-Consideration of the CDBG Application from City of Spokane Valley—Sidewalks—Requested Amount$337,075 Consideration of the CDBG Application from City of Spokane Valley—Sidewalks Requested Amount$337,075 Staff Report-Pat Stretch,CSHCD Staff:This is a sidewalk improvement_ oind ADA compliance curb cuts on Blake Road.Proposed to serve approximately:1,330 individuals,47.74%low-mod •those of you who know the Valley it's located on Blake Rd from 8"—Appleway trail.Asking$337,075,levet-40111,580/$11,580/$253 person.This app does address a high priority need for sidewalk improvements in the City of Spokane ?allkand does meet infrastructure goals and objectives.It address a high priority need also of removal of architectural barriers>making sidewalks ADA accessible with curb cuts.Meets National Objective of benefiting low-mod i co ''epersons basedonfarea—wide benefit. Service area is census tract 12701 block group 1,low-mod 47.74%and that e neighborhood isrimae y residential.We recommend full funding in the amount of$337,075 since it is eligible and allzcosts requested are appropriate for CDBG funding.Any questions on the Spokane Valley project? ! 'h Arne Woodard,City of SV asked this;Pat answereda+St-rct`c' FCSg"" S`a`m: What wou)happen Pat,if citizens didn't want this project and where able to convincefihe`council not to move ahead with it. Could another application be substituted to whatever?I believe I know the answer�;butLI would like to`hear.it from staff because we could probably have a different project.I like this project believe me.It'sYnot like is sn't a good one but if the outcry we heard the other day is anything close to what I think we will hear a week from now,at?a public hearing,we will have with those neighbors; I'm less inclined to move aheadwith this project. So,could something else be substituted or if that was the case,what = �:et ;,.:;�:., ''� ,s >_ 'tl,. would happen? ,..., **-.. Pat Stretch,CSHCD Staff: I willaprobably defer to Mr.Crowley,but my understanding is the application would have to be an eligible activity _ d o through e com etitive processJand so we would have to treat it as a new app just like we pi 'on would any new ap '� nd they wouldlcave missed the boater . Arne Woodard City of Spokane V ley:Th s„what I thought. Pat Stretch,CSHCD Stall: it would alsohiave to Piave the citizens participation requirements and everything along the • way too.I don't know tha a would evenlbe.able too feasibly,even if we wanted to be able to through the process to have it in for this year's� `% Arne Woodard,City of Spokan`eValley ,Thank you for that answer WCV Pat Stretch,CSHCD Staff:But let menake sure that is correct. Tim Crowley,CSHCD Staff:That is correct. Arne Woodard,City of Spokane Valley:That being such,the city council very much wants this.We have had all the public comments we need and such but T will say there is a certain amount of opposition to this and so I am torn myself and I do have a recommendation at some point on this project.But that's neither here nor there at this point.I just wanted to ask the question Larry LaBolle,Town of Latah: So if the Valley has this set-aside funds but there is no approved application then it can't be spent,is that right? Pat Stretch,CSHCD Staff: We would spend it on a different project. 312 WEST 8TH AVENUE • 4TH FLOOR • SPOKANE, WA 99204 PHONE:(509)477-5722 • FAH:(509)477-6827 • RELAY SERvicE OF WA:1-800-833-6384 WWW.SPOKANECOUNTY.0 Larry LaBolle,Town of Latah:-A different project? • Pat Stretch,CSHCD Staff:But one of the projects here. Arne Woodard,City-of Spokane Valley: is this discussion? Tim Crowley,CSHCD Staff:Not at this point.We are just going through presentations.Hold that thought. Funding Discussion: Shane Comer,City of Spokane Valley:#6 project moving on is the City of Spokane Valley sidewalk and ADA curb cut project.Their request is for$337,075.As a reminder, Spokane Valley has a 20%set-aside of about$271,000.Is there a motion? f`04 Afir Motion made to a rove fundingfor the amount of$270 000 . PP ,,,WV ,V''r:7rh Motion: Tom Hormel Second:Arne Woodard ..� ;� Passed ..3.4, ``u%^ Jim Carollo,Member at Large:Tom,how did you cr ? y ome uXth$270,000 ,, ,.fes Tom Hormel,City of Spokane Valley:They get a set-aside of;$271,000,so I,just roundedad`oown to make our numbers art ,.�.:2,� even in the end.A thousand dollars the City of S pokane Valley canhandl'enot getting. The sidewalks and things are very important and-if you live where there's not,people4spcecially this time ofyear.Last year we passed the sidewalks near Green Acres Elementary and junior high and I live tl ereeand watch these kids every day and drive that way every day and this time of year they are walking home after sporis, .,the delle lof the stieet,because the snow is up against where they should be walking.This is a public endangerment issuein myYopinion.I'd fund^t all the way but they can make up the difference. IA plane`Valley:Mill 11 say that thisis a capabilityoflcutting a block or two off if we need to as a Arne Woodard,Cityof S o city. Quite frankly the other pro ee we've done since the CoAtty allowed us to do sidewalks as a part of CDBG which it didn't used to be that you could do ars dewalkr ro.ect.We've really concentrated on routes to schools.It's close to some but not a direct route, o or your'o, . or'mation-it_isn't at the same criticalness a main road to get kids out of the g. road and on to the,-dewaslkcw_eretraffic goes by fast. ;r' v f� r+_flj'i ::-.3„_,.....4-„,---,-,r ?= Shane Comer,Gbit ...of Spokane Valley;:.Any morediscussion?There is a lot of foot traffic throughthere down to the local Shopko and h`" a'ng down Sprague to Target and,other places. Motion passes � , zt roo RV After the committee discusses funding projects 7-14: Motion made to approve funding f--O. a amount of$200,000 Motion: Tom Hormel Second: Shirley Maike Shane Comer,City of Spokane Valley:Any discussion?I will say once again that it is up to the City of Spokane Valley council's discretion to lower that amount,to go underneath the 20%set-aside. Arne Woodard,City of Spokane Valley:The criticalness of these projects to these small towns and what not far exceed and to our smaller water districts even in the Spokane Valley,far exceed the need of the Valley for a sidewalk,as much as we need them.But some of these other projects for$200,000 maybe we can go from 2nd-5th or something and do the balance on another project. Shirley Maike,City of Medical Lake:I think that's important to recognize that you are able to reduce the scope of work of your project,where as some of the other towns cannot.It's either all or nothing. 312 WEST 8TH AVENUE • 4TH FLOOR • SPOKANE, WA 99204 PHONE:(509)477-5722 • FAX:(509)477-6827 • RELAY SERVICE OF WA:1-800-833-6384 www_SPnxANRC.fT Ni-v./.4S Arne Woodard,City of Spokane Valley:Exactly.I tend to be very,very friendly to the small towns and other communities that do not have the tax base we do.I will get chewed out but good,but I think there is some much needs that are higher priority projects then the sidewalks right now. Larry LaBolle,Town of Latah:As an aside,I would say that if you used that as a measure we would not fund your sidewalks every single year. So there has to be some balance.As long as you feel it strikes a balance,then that's okay. Arne Woodard,City of Spokane Valley:We have to do something,small towns have to get some of these projects, some are under mandate from ecology to get them done and if we don't,what are we gonna do,make another ghost town? We do have to weigh some of these and there will be a time when I come back when there are a few more funds and say we would really like to have a project at full funds.Please remember we have been generous in the past. Motion passes to fund at$200,000 Motion made to approve funding for the amount of$200,000 for Spokane C nervation District. Shane Comer,City of Spokane Valley:Any discussion? %y`f EN 'S?, Jim Carob°,Member at Large:I would think that sewers are<more important tlianssidewalks. Ralph Williams,City of Liberty Lake:Can I ask A questa h?You,Jim,rejected the sidewalks one?I wasn't sure when you said no,were you rejecting that it shouldn't be funded orr"ddyou have ;other number`•you wanted to pose to the group. . ;,, j� ;:sem,, .•, :. yam: 09 Jim Carollo,Member at Large: Lower number`s,--4eof.;?,, i }:i Ralph Williams,City of Liberty Lake:I kind of agreewiththatas�well andwould say this,I almost would rather say because I do have an issue on the s,dwalk thing.If I amtcorrectybre useythis is'a public works you guys do not have a internal sidewalk crew that sim p'l.rdoeS41a t hich means m you have`to�go out for public bid which means in theory you are payingprevailingages ev e you o� ro ect.Is`tha o sect? g x ,-) j , 0- ,a,n tom'/. r`" vs, Arne Woodard,City of Spokane 'al ey:We4w`'ould have.The fact is we are a contract city,everything we do is by re -.e.-0,,,. s- • .. '7., :. contract. �f• :7,---t",.,,,�-��� f�;; �ti'r� .s�,-. •f�,.:. r t 'ii -. Slf• tUsZ:`FS i�• •X Ralph Williams, ty of Libeake:It is on-contract so` 7,00have internal works on stuff like that and that is an issue. So anytime you a,project,nothing:f ainst 6e7ntirs just that how the city is arranged.You are always doing something at prevailing wages which means something a pnvatefdeveloper can do at half the cost they are paying double the cost up front. So I kinda agree teat.It's hard ono say you`'are denying a family sewer hookups is,I mean,I'm sorry that's not something an average famil could say,ye we have$6,000.I don't even know a bank could say,then can we take the extra against our home?I wouldprobably agree with that I think in this case the sewer hookups far outweigh the * A 700 sidewalks • Shirley Maike,City of Medical La�e .A�nd I would agree with that.Traditionally this group has not funded sidewalks but it's the City of Spokane valley and they have a set-aside.The chances of the BOCC giving them$0 is slim to none I feel. Ralph Williams,City of Liberty Lake: I would agree with that. Tom Hormel,City of Spokane Valley:I would also say that I agree with the sewer being important but are the sewers in that area failing at a great rate? They still have septic systems in those homes so I mean is there an argument both ways, public safety and once we add the sewer we are adding extra expense to those households that they didn't have.Now all of a sudden they have a sewer bill even though some of these areas are very low income we are adding sewer. Pat Stretch,CSHCD Staff:They currently have a bill.They have to hookup 312 WEST 8Th AVENUE • 4TH FLOOR • SPOKANE, WA 99204 PHONE:(509)477-5722 • FAX:(509)477-6827 • RELAY SERVICE OF WA:1-800-833-6384 WWW.SPOKANECOUNTY. Arne Woodard,City ofSpOkane Valley:I would also make one other note that,I know we have a county representative here.Is that,they have been very good at working with people and to get people hooked up,so has other programs but having the patience and helping defer a year or two for funds to become available and what was personally a benefit for my four-plex. After going through a second round of funding cuts leaving still a balance of$167,283 over. Tom Hormel,City of Spokane Valley:Jim,do you want to revisit#6 Spokane Valley? Jim Carob°,Member at Large:The sidewalk?That is the most arbitrary one we've got. Arne Woodard,City of Spokane Valley:I think I know the answer because I think I have asked before but for the new members, if a CDBG grant was granted this year partial,by this time next year comes around it stretches the time out to far and you can't have two CDBG grants on the same project at the same time can you? • Jim Carollo,Member at Large:Half the sidewalk as opposed to thenrext:half would not be the same project. -014 Arne Woodard,City of Spokane Valley:Just talking in genera: , ve, Shirley Maike,City of Medical Lake-Can we talk about the set-aside and get your expert opinion on will the BOCC, if we take it off the table because it is sidewalk improvements ow will they react to that? ,yam "w `�fsll. F7�G Christine Barada,Director CSHCD:Well I think they expect theI`seett-aside%to occur and if a 4tycouncil member is recommending some changein that.I think they ave appreciated it mt_e-past but if it wasn't funded at all I'm not sure if even Arne you might need council approval to make such.a-recommendation or not. --iA lil y% Arne Woodard,City of Spokane Valley:To make�$0›,probal ly et me ask agquestion.I'm not sure anybody can answer this but on the Spokane Conservation District f ,sewer hookups;what is the%of or how many are thought to be in the Valley �y' ' =� ';`- ';: 17 Pat Stretch,CSHCD Staff:Alli ¢the Valley itially they were going to be in the low-mod tracks of the Valley but these now are all Valley.eg; '`• Arne Woodard, ->f Spokane•;Valley-:`.I at Vo out ocity..hm s? /fi Pat Stretch,CSHCD Staff:All in citIimits Arne Woodard,City of Sokane Valley. .ust as a discussion point then,thank you Jim.I tend to look at the cumulative benefit to the Valley as opposed to we have:project,Carnhope has a project-they are all separate but they all Valley. They may not be my projed%ut.they all.ben fit the Valley.In light of that,make your motion and I'll take the heat. Shane Comer,CitySpokane ' , of Vaile. $®o'we have any more discussion? Jim Carollo,Member at Large: Yes.Question,correct me if I am wrong,the set-aside is$271,000 and the Valley sewer we gave$200,000,so we have the remaining$71,000 to give? Shane Comer,City of Spokane Valley:The distinction of what Arne was just discussing is that this is the City of Spokane Valley's direct application specifically,not with the special districts in the Valley. Arne Woodard,City of Spokane Valley:However I am a little more generous Jim in thinking that what benefits Carnhope does indeed benefit me and Spokane Valley.The sewer hookups over our primary source aquifer every one of those benefits me and citizens of Spokane Valley. So I,when there are difficult decisions like this,I tend to look at if you can't get water,if you can't get sewer taken care of you are going to contaminate someone else's drinking water.We really need to look at those and I apologize.I am sorry that you have to walk in the street in Spokane Valley but you don't 312 WEST 8TH AVENUE • 4TH FLOOR • SPOKANE, WA 99204 PHONE:(509)477-5722 • FAX:(509)477-6827 • RELAY SERVICE OF WA:1-800-833-6384 www.sPOKANEcOUNTY. have to walk maybe.There is distinct difference to me between public safety which is the sidewalk but it really the health issues to even have a public safety issues()to a little broad thinking. Shirley Maike,City of Medical-When'the County does the set-aside they only consider the City of Spokane Valley projects.Correct. Jim Carollo,Member at Large: So we can reduce the sidewalks to$50,000? Shane Comer,City of Spokane Valley: Correct. Larry LaBolle,Town of Latah: I would like to know if that is enough for a viable project to start. Arne Woodard,City of Spokane Valley:That doesn't even start... Jim Carollo,Member at Large:Or eliminate it all together. Tim Crowley,CSHCD Staff:I would suggest to Arne and the mem o er of the.committee that the City withdraw their application for funding.I think that is clear and clean break an ,provides the revenue that you are looking at redirecting to a suitable Valley project. ` Arne Woodard,City of Spokane Valley:The problem is Tihi,I'm not sure I have authority. Tim Crowley,CSHCD Staff:That's correct. q>;2"" Arne Woodard,City of Spokane Valley:It wo d ke>the vote of the council and the very least the finance committee �> at the very,very least.I'm just simply stating that'sshow l see things and I certainly go back and argue for the small towns and small-purpose districts and what not.To get it tag eight,is truly smatter of withdrawal then anything else. Ralph Williams,City of Libe " : ke:cim-would youlike tormotibn a::$0ithan and we will obviously have some *v± fel surplus,does that surplus then goi to one of the project that;we lowered and:bring back up. Motion made to fund at$0 ,••- %F Motion:Jim Carollo %' i Secon S eyMaikev '¢moi, �' �,� lhixl�`- Vis, y Shirley Maike-s of Medical�L e:Just--to eiterate that several Valley projects,even though they are not government sponsored by the�-Ctity got funding and fully funded benefiting all the city residents so it's valid.I had always hoped that the BOCC would consider all Valley projects as patftf.the set-aside but that hasn't happened. Arne Woodard,City of S okane Valley:`7'm not making that motion Shane Comer,City of SpokaneVaalley:,Aste chair I am responsible in saying that the Spokane Valley directly have a 20%set-aside once again,and it isthe'terlocal agreement. Tim Crowley,CSHCD Staff:It is spelled out in our interlocal agreement through resolution. Larry LaBolle,Town of Latah:I don't know how we record this but there has to be a condition,proviso,whatever it might be that,they could come back next time and say they cannot withdraw. Shirley Maike,City of Medical Lake:That's why we are funding it at$0 but he may come back and say the council did not agree and they want their set-aside of$271,000. Larry LaBolle,Town of Latah: Or whatever that might be,ya. Shirley Maike,City of Medical Lake:They could but I would hope the BOCC would listen to the discussion and to the why. 312 WEST 8TH AVENUE • 4TH FLOOR • SPOKANE, WA 99204 PHONE:(509)477-5722 • FAH:(509)477-6827 •RELAY SERVICE OF WA:1-800-833-6384 W W W.SPOKANECOUNTY. 9 Arne Woodard,City of Spokane Valley:And I will vote against it to be on record but that is how I see it with what I discussed and have no problem being the council liaison to this committee and the,why and what happened.More than likely I will be overruled.But whether or not it comes back to$271, 000,what happens then Tim and Christine, and others?If that was to happen at the public hearing,whatever,whatever,then do we reconvene and start over with some of the projects?What do we do? Kathy Downs,CSHCD Staff:You have your final funding meeting. Tim Crowley.CSHCD Staff:We would reconvene and then at that time reconsider projects and funding.We will have the Public Hearing on March 3rd and final finding decision for your recommendations to the BOCC is March 14. Arne Woodard,City of Spokane Valley:As most of you are aware,this is my last meeting.I'm not trying to take the easy way out.Chuck Hafner will be replacing me.I was hoping to remain butithat won't be.I will still fight the battle from this meeting for sure and again I am going to base it on what the BOC, wash,that full funding of critical projects be fully done as opposed to partial and can't complete the project.The criticalffp`jects on this list doesn't do us any good to cut them down 30-40%.They can't do the project. So where does that=ut w at I would call non critical,important,but Yy �e=.. "h r: noncritical project?That's the way I'm again argue and battle withtlie,council. .don't know what is the process of them finding out?Am I the one who tells them what has happened or do you send out some funding letter. /ill Tami Landsiedel,CSHCD Staff: We send a letter at the;end.//of the month,before it goes in the paper. Arne Woodard,City of Spokane Valley:-I think Jim's motonavalid motion.I think thiss. ne has to be seriously taken because of the primary concerns of the BOCC that partial fundin of critical 4nfrastructure doesn't work. So,I'm not gonna abstain but I will vote against it to be oncord;of being agauist]ie%total elimination but I'm still gonna go and argue what had to happen if that makes sense to an body �... Motion passes to fund Spokane Valley at$0 % ��f h4.G ��r ��•EY/Gf�ffT. Shirley Maike,City of Medical rake:Atnea another argument forFyour ce uncii is also to stress that maybe next years come back with a project similar to what all towns;aregoing through-like water mains or sewer. Arne Woodard,City of SpokaneValley:We,!don;t have water districts.We don't own any water or have any of that �f�r ril-f� �` i•. F�.Ch type of infrastructure.RW'e=liave a need f t'DA ual ed ram sand so on.Time is one of the reasons why we went for ,.:-�;�. ����E�.. 'ref-r q ����� . p ' �y,�b change to sidewalk rojects because it's`hardfor us to comeyup with a project generally speaking to get anywhere close to the set-aside nd et we are 93,0000in pope ation and Y4 t the County population that gets this grant.Valid point and I understand what ,ou>are saying but we don't of n water districts. Shirley Maike,City of Medical Lake:That's anothepoint to the BOCC that instead of just doing the city's projects do all the Valley as the set-aside), Arne Woodard,City of Spokaane Valley Drat least a portion. v$A Shirley Maike,City of Medical Lake:Yeah. Shane Comer,City of Spokane Valley:That would be a discussion between the BOCC and the Spokane Valley City Council when it comes time to look at the interlocal agreement. Shirley Maike,City of Medical Lake:But also to County staff to put that plug in too.The city is fmding projects but they nowhere near as critical as small cities and you come back and say you want$271,000,chances are Rockford is not gonna get funded. Arne Woodard,City of Spokane Valley:I understand that and I have voted for Rockford five years on the committee and all the other small towns and you are absolutely right.I mean I'm glad I'm not you Gary.I'll tell ya,I'm glad I'm not you because that's gotta be tough. 312 WEST 8TH AVENUE • 4TH FLOOR • SPOKANE, WA 99204 PHONE:(509)477-5722 • FAX:(509)477-6827 •RELAY SERVICE OF WA:1-800-833-6384 www.SPOKANEcoUNTY. Gary Wagner,Town of Rockford:It's a tough situation.Another downside,and yeah there is one more option for Rockford and that's a loan.And that loan adds another$20 to the$40 that got added not too long ago and there are a lot of people who unfortunately can't pay that.I sit here and watch and listen to the graciousness of you folks and it's appreciated a lot.It's very humbling.It's a nice place to be tonight.For me. Arne Woodard,City of Spokane Valley:Do we need to go through one more time?Not for each of them but... Shane Comer,City of Spokane Valley:Yeah I was going to do that here.I just wanted to give the reminder that due to the interlocal agreement and the City of Spokane Valley that they got set up,I believe it was in 2003 around that area... Tim Crowley,CSHCD Staff: Shortly after incorporation Shane Comer,City of Spokane Valley:Yeah it was after we incorporated that the set-aside was put into place because the City of Spokane Valley could be its own entitlement district. ` Arne Woodard,City of Spokane Valley:We can.By the way it hasbeeen discussed. �1��'•.' Yom. Shane Corner,City of Spokane Valley:And so,without that benefit of the Cityfof Spokane Valley being part of this !f,?fi.1r+Y committee as a whole,then it would open up and disbanded this-committee and tilt being the,having the CDBG committee and being able to be a county-wide benefit.It would open up,it would force3the small cities and towns and unincorporated area to have to apply to,directly to the state`forCDBG funding.If I'm correct. ''� Tim Crowley,CSHCD Staff:No you are not.Let me stop you right ,eree would remain'a community development block entitlement.A consortium entitlement withouttthe City of Spokane Valley.The entitlement would be adjusted to accommodate whatever the formula is determinedEozbec or-the City of`Spokane Valley.We still have a significant Vii- 'fr?2-� rr� population in the cities and towns and unincorporatt,,,areV:7#AyRuld simply mplify would we do but not how we do it. At least at this point.That is the challenge and that is'"he reason the set-aside and at the time and currently it seemed like a very reasonable approach t9,04;16'� g this issue rhe interlocalagreementsbinding for three years.The City can opt out at any time but it will not ectthe.County s entitlementduring�tliatperiod.And I think this is an opportune time to talk about why sidewalks ariRnott a high priority in the 0000:When went back several years I think our first f.f• Consolidated plan,they were.Our `eeccond addition,we really scrutinized needs,citizen input and we weighed sidewalks against sewers and water wells,affordable housing;and part ofythat test was looking at the array of funding available for sidewalks,streets and roads":So we concludedan Tastinour a consolidated plan that sidewalks I think were a medium priority ani ey a to�eluninate m um pridiiesdurin`ibis consolidated planning process so it's a low priority.The City amended,throughrequest and sufficient documentation demonstrating that it is in fact a high priority for the City of Spode Valley.It went-through cr�en participation and now the City of Spokane Valley is the only jurisdiction where sidewalks are a highriority. So;tliat s the history and not everything can be a high priority unfortunately when we s down and look:atwhat hig`hpriority needs are in an urban county.I think it is much easier to grasp that if you're an urbanity for example v ith neighborhoods. So those are the challenges and it's not perfect but we left open the opportunity to"identify new higl priorities in our consolidating planning and it's on going. So we'll work with what we have to do and keepown going: just really wanted to correct everyone here we are still going to be in business,introspective of the citys:deci`sions Arne Woodard,City of Spokane Valley:When I said too by the way that it has been discussed I have not been one that thought that's one of the things something we should do on our own.I like this process.I think it keeps the City of Spokane Valley and the other cities within the county aware of the dramatic difference in needs between someplace that, has 93,000 people they can tax to get a well,if we needed one or somebody that is 400 and some to get a well done and it's critical to them.Thank you by the way to Spokane County Housing and Development and the CDBG grant. I didn't add it up but you can see in your binder the amount that the city of Spokane Valley has received over the last I don't know how many years you put in there but there's a bunch of it. It's millions of dollars of benefit that has come to the Spokane Valley for some things that have been needed.Thank you for that.I don't want to lose sight of that either and we'll move on and we will all get through this very tight cycle but tight to me is a little bit different then tight to Gary and to Cheney or any of the other small communities. 312 WEST 8TH AVENUE • 4TH FLOOR • SPOKANE, WA 99204 PHONE:(509)477-5722 • FAR:(509)477-6827 •RELAY SERVICE OF WA:1-800-833-6384 W W W.SPOKANECOUNTY. - // Shane Comer,City of Spokane Valley:I would say that everyone sitting at this table county-wide,it's a benefit for not just the small towns and cities but City of Spokane Valley as well to be able to pull together with everyone at this table as well.Tom? Tom Hormel,City of Spokane.Valley: I was just gonna say,this isn't the first time we went under the set-aside either. Two years ago we went under the set-aside so this will be the first time I think we didn't fund anything but going under the set-aside the City didn't throw a tantrum. Arne Woodard,City of Spokane Valley:Well they did,you just didn't hear about it.I granted that because I probably can do that without the vote of the council.But a zero is a different story. Shane Comer,City of Spokane Valley: So I guess one more point for me,I'm sorry Larry.With the funding recommendation we are gonna make here your gonna have to have it in the back of your mind that coming back to the public hearing and then our follow-up meeting after the public hearing for ourffinal recommendation.That we might have to make adjustments for our final funding recommendation so as we are„ through this read,go back through the applications,sharpen those pencils and think of what might be able towor.land not work,Larry? >f�_/fes -<�,�,•z 1C�Y r f Larry LaBolle,Town of Latah:Umm I hate to do this to you<bbuse I knowthatthings seemingly resolved but I am uncomfortable not funding the Valley sidewalk project at all o:a whole host of reason and the discussion been real good so can I make a motion? y� � '- --,*,?.> Irf Shane Comer,City of Spokane Valley:Yeah,we can have a motion. ;a r,, -ce- Larry LaBolle,Town of Latah:For everyone's,consideration to fund e Valley sidewalk project at$100,000 if that's a viable project and if we go back through the list annd-m the difference. S,-� -w �,, 4,;(5.."4,,. Shane Comer,City of Spokane Valley: Okay •- f�;. Larry LaBolle,Town of LataIR art�ofwv AI would like c1,9:,,,,,,:,,,tha,,,7,ould be nicer to have a$100,000 later to divvy back out then to come back or another-meeting and%ha� arve agai but really it's more the issue of the set- ., aside and comingin with a zero amount. So h ,zrr. , rF� . .v......,-. Shane Comer,City of, okane Valley We ave.a otion to'•'fund the City of Spokane Valley at$100,000.Is there a second? r- f .x ',-,-4,...g., x$ Jim Carollo, em i.er at Large: ::0:2'11 secoo it so we can discuss. Shane Comer,City of Spokane Valleykay,we have a second by Jim.Is there any discussion? Jim Carollo,Member at L • e:Where wou-ld you get the$100,000? Larry LaBolle,Town of Latah:`:kno here I would get it but think the group would decide and it would come from something worthy but to me to look ae$271,000 set-aside and to say$0,is kinda in your face and not just procedurally but from the stand point of equity basis that this is all established on and so if feel it would come from something worthy, I know what you're saying but I just feel like it's the wrong decision maybe to be taking in light of the set-aside amount we all understand is the basis for how funds are allocated. Arne Woodard,City of Spokane Valley: In response to Larry;thank you by the way Larry.Umm,wherever we take it from I would ask that we make special note where we took it from so if it was to be put back to,we know where we took it from because I will have a very serious discussion tomorrow with the mayor about this.He's not gonna be my problem. It's really gonna be the City Manager.The City Manager does not set policy the council does.I just don't know if I have their votes. 312 WEST 8TH AVENUE • 4TH FLOOR • SPOKANE, WA 99204 PHONE:(509)477-5722 +FAx:(509)477-6827 •RELAY SERVICE OF WA:1-800-833-6384 W W W.SPOKANECOUNTY.0 /L . Shirley Maike,City of Medical Lake:Can I just ask a procedural question?Because at this point in time,correct me if I'm wrong,you can't go back to your council or manager and say yes we want it all and then we have to decide that. That's up to the BOCC at this point,wouldn't be?We are saying no to the set-aside.This group is saying no.So you guys can supersede this to the BOCC and the.commissioners can superseded it. Arne Woodard,City of Spokane Valley: What I am saying Shirley is if I made a motion and there's reasons,there has been rumor that we have citizen opposition to that project.Let's say the council was so swayed to say that isn't it,it wouldn't matter.So if there's a$100,000 allocated to it and we took it from the top one with sewer hookups for example, and you gave us$100,00,they get whatever it was,after I have the discussion and I have the opportunity to see what the public meeting does next week,the citizens request for another meeting,the neighbors I should say,then it could be appropriate that I made a motion maybe:or brought to the agenda or the city that because of the opposition we withdraw or project completely.There is nothing we can do then and it would automatically would then revert up back too whatever we do.That's all rm saying.NO,I'm not gonna go back and argue the$271,000,I'm gonna argue for the small critical, not the small projects but the critical projects for the other communities.Tk what I'm gonna do. #WOOw Shirley Maike,City of Medical Lake:Thank you for clarifying OW ,,- that sem= fi7! Shane Comer,City of Spokane Valley:Tom? Sf%-,7;,,,,,> es. • Tom Hormel,City of Spokane Valley:I understand whyyyou` ade the motion you made.My only issues is the $100,000 might cover the cost in designing the project.We don't know.I mean sometimes;by telling them,that we are gonna give you$100,000 and they go,yeah we are gonna get 8f1,-et of side alk thanks,not.,:thanks.That might anger than more than saying the needs of the few,the needs-of the many outweigh.ttheneeds of the few.So Lspeak against the motion even though I'm in the Valley just because I don't,thinic that, it doesn't give you any probably much in linear foot of sidewalks you're gonna put in.And now for me as aipublic issue,I almo``s`thave a problem with if you did half of a main road and then you stop,now that person that steppedkoff at stoppage and gets:hit by a car and finds out we didn't fund the whole project,that they have more of a lawsuit against theQitty%of Spokane Valley then the fact that we didn't fund it. Just a question yougottaA� �'`� ' % ask. js Jim Carollo,Member at Large:'. ut the$22=5;000 for theseyvers`is part of the•$271,000,right? Shirley Maike,City of Medical Lake`;No, in;addition tosbecause it's not a project from the City of Spokane Valley. .¢''rte.-��}�� �•. -n,.-44{4"..,-,403,7. .f% li%-'_�•. Y� /1 Bret Lucas,City of Cheney:I was just gonna say,as a small town and the City of Cheney I will be having a discussion with our Public Works director tomorrow just to see what kinda latitude we do have if we had to take 10%off that or something like that.I think all the small towns should have those discussions with their appropriate staff;Just to see if Spokane Valley does have to come back in with some numbers so we know what kinda of latitude we do have if some number should come off the top and how much.Who can?We have an overlay fund that we are using as part this,can we use monies from other areas? Shane Comer,City of Spokane Valley:Any further discussion.Okay we have a motion to fund the City of Spokane Valley at$100,000. Motion fails Project funded at$0 4 y-Glr0y 74 f5/,r r-! :. ,5,—;25:&,..„..vH-- .14,W;c57 vi ?1 :Fir; %0,P tip f„/• A-;'- ef;/,',7 '44,N-,,,, ,. sY -Vh 1 ,,,,s,.., ��,� 2,, - %%- • 1 % --,Si'%.?. c u'' rpt. '-, Y'. . NJF}/�.NAl ' f f fl��f 312 WEST 8TH AVENUE • 4'' FLOOR • SPOKANE, WA 99204 PHONE:(509)477-5722 • FAX:(509)477-6827 •RELAY SERVICE OF WA:1-800-833-6384 WWw.SPOKANECOUNTY. History of CDBG COSV Allocations The table below is based on information from the County's CDBG program and the Office of Financial Management(population numbers from the April 1st estimates). Year COSV Amount Project Type HUD Allocation % Funds to COSV %Population" to County 2007 $77,706 Street Pave Back $1,549,880 5% 35% 2008 $195,410 Street Pave Back $1,498,326 13% 35% 2009 $220,554 Street Pave Back $ 1,545,480 14% 34% 2010 $330,733 Street Pave Back $1,678,692 20% 34% 2011 $281,139 Street Pave Back $1,405,723 20% 34% 2012 $115,410 Curb Cuts $1,294,390 9% 34% 2013 $183,609 Sidewalks $1,334,154 14% 34% 2014 $261,794 Sidewalks $1,294,443 20% 34% 2015 $358,790 sidewalks $ 1,342,593 27% 34% *The"%Population"is adjusted to reflect only the County's entitlement population,it does not include.the City of Spokane's population since they are their own entitlement. The"COSV Amount" is only the amount received by the City of Spokane Valley and does not include funds that may have been allocated to projects by other agencies funded by CDBG funds that may also benefit the citizens of the City(i.e.SNAP Housing).This is important because the County labels these as "Spokane Valley" projects but they do not count against the established set-aside. NO. 8 0483 BEFORE nib BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON IN THE MA'rrat CONCERNING ESTABLISHING A SET-ASIDE ) OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT(CDBG) ) ENTITLEMENT FUNDS FOR FEDERAL FISCAL YEARS 2009,2010 ) RESOLUTION AND 2011 AS A CONDITION OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY ) PARTICIPATING IN SPOKANE COUNTY'S REQUALIFICATION ) AS AN URBAN COUNTY FOR FEDERAL FISCAL YEARS ) 2009,2010,AND 2011 ) WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County,pursuant to the provisions of RCW 3632.120(6), has the care of County property and the management of County funds and business;and WHEREAS,the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development(HUD)has the authority to make available to counties,funds for community development purposes pursuant to various federal laws including CFR Title,24,Chapter V, Part 570, Community Development Block Grants (CDBG); and HOME affordable Housing Projects under 24 CFR Section 92.150(HOME Investment Partnership);and WHEREAS, Spokane County has been notified by HUD that Urban County requalification is necessary for the award of 2009 through 2011 CDBG and HOME Investment Partnership Act(HOME)funding;and WHEREAS,the amount of CDBG funds to which the County may be entitled is in part dependent upon the population of other CDBG eligible cities and towns which elect to participate in the CDBG and HOME Entitlement Programs with the County;and WHEREAS, pursuant to the level of CDBG funds appropriated to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Spokane County intends to establish a set-aside based upon twenty percent of each annual allocation of CDBG funding for the purpose of eligible and allowable infrastructure improvements within the City of Spokane Valley meeting federal national objectives and consolidated plan priorities;and WHEREAS, Spokane County's Housing and Community Development Advisory Committee has accepted and recommends approval of the City of Spokane Valley's request to establish a CDBG set-aside funding for high priority infrastructure projects. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED,by the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County that the City of Spokane Valley's request to establish a set-aside within the Community Development Block Grant Program is approved and that•the Chair of the Board of County Commissioners or a majority of the Board are the official representatives of Spokane County authorized to approve CDBG Program requests. ADOP1R by the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County,Washington this 00-th day of ,2008. :1'•� �••\ 1-,CCOOM, , o'9 't'�. gyp;onnie Mager,Chair i • ce. AITEST: 'r = °+i?: d i �'►rF 11?r Todd Mielke,001r(Vi ccf /II • • //J 6e4D - Daniela Erickson Mark Richard,Commissioner Clerk of the Board Submit to Clerk of the Board with accompanying paperwork(Resolution,Agreements,etc.) AGENDA SHEET SUBMITTING DEPARTMENT:Juvenile Court Services CONTACT PERSON:Bonnie Bush,Director PHONE NUMBER:477-2406 CHECK TYPE OF MEETING ITEM BELOW: BELOW FOR CLE•R S LY: 2:00 PM CONSENT AGENDA: x Clerk's Resolution No. Q� � BY LEAVE:0 Approved: Majority/Unanimous Denied:Majority/Unanimous 5:00 PM LEGISLATIVE SESSION:0 Renews/Amends No. BY LEAVE:0 Public Works No. Purchasing Dept.No. SPECIAL SESSION:0 AGENDA TITLE: Office-of Juvenile Justice Federal Grant Application for the deinstitutionalization of Status Offenders. BACKGROUND(Attach separatesheet(s) if necessary): This grant will seek to focus on youth who are current Status Offenders in the Juvenile System and find ways to keep them out of secure detention. The time frame is 7/1/08-6/30/09. RECOMMENDATION: Sign the Federal Grant Application. FISCAL IMPACT:To the general fund: $0 SIGNATURES: Department Head/Elected Official or Marshall Farnell Designated Authority(Requesting Agenda Item) Chief Executive Officer DISTRIBUTION AFTER COMMISSIONER ACTION: 0 This item needs to be codified in the County Code Book. /7, af1. .1,7 . -- 1 my � -SPOK CHRISTINE BARADA COMMUNITY SERVICES,HOUSING,AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR July 15,2014 Mr.Mike Jackson City Manager City of Spokane Valley 11707 East Sprague Avenue,Suite 106 Spokane Valley,WA 99206 Dear Mr.Jackson: Enclosed is your copy of the fully executed Urban County Consortium Requalification Cooperation Agreement. Also enclosed is a copy of the Spokane County Board of Commissioners Resolution 2014- 0564, which authorizes Spokane County to enter into an agreement with cities and towns for participation in the Community Development Block Grant and HOME Program Entitlement Consortium for the federal fiscal years 2015,2016,and 2017. If you have any questions about either of these documents please don't hesitate to call. I can be reached at 477-2588. We look forward to our continued partnership in helping provide decent affordable housing, suitable living environments, and expanding economic opportunities for low-income persons and families within Spokane County.Thank you. Sincerely, ' , �1, ,.%/YV . 1 . 1, _Tauri Landsiedel Secretary 2 tpl Enclosures: 2 312 WEST 8TH AVENUE • 4TH FLOOR • SPOKANE,WA 99204 PHONE:(509)477-5722 •FAX:(509)477-6827 • RELAY SERVICE OF WA:1-800-833-6384 WW W.SPOKANECOUNTY.ORG L'oNN-1l2 ilc- No. 20114-n.JtU"I BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON APPROVE EXECUTION OF COOPERATION ) AGREEMENTS WITH PARTICIPATING UNITS OF ) GOVERNMENTS IN ORDER TO SUBMIT URBAN ) RESOLUTION COUNTY QUALIFICATION DOCUMENTS TO HUD ) • FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT ) (CDBG), HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP ) (HOME) PROGRAM, AND FOR PARTICIPATION IN ) REGIONAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING TRUST FUND ) AND REGIONAL HOMELESS PROGRAMS ) •WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County, pursuant to the provisions of RCW Section 36.32.120(6), has the care of County property and the management of County funds and business;and WHEREAS, the powers and authority of counties to undertake or assist in undertaking essential community development and housing activities is set forth in RCW 35.21.735 and RCW 39.34;and WHEREAS,the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development(HUD)has the authority to make available to counties, funds for community development purposes pursuant to various federal laws including CFR Title 24,Chapter V,Part 570(Community Development Block Grants);and WHEREAS, Spokane County, a political subdivision of the State of Washington, and the cities and towns of the County, which are municipal corporations of the State of Washington,jointly have the authority under RCW 39.34 to enter into interlocal cooperation agreements for the purpose of cooperating in the delivery of essential community development and housing activities and implementation of the federal Community Development Block Grant and HOME Investment Partnership Programs;and WHEREAS, certain incorporated cities and towns of Spokane County are eligible for and desire to participate in the County Consortium for the purpose of applying for Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Home Investment Partnership (HOME)Affordable Housing Program funding from Spokane County;and WHEREAS, in accordance with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) regulations,in order to permit the population of the participating cities and towns to be counted as part of the population of Spokane County for the purpose of determining entitlement eligibility status and funding levels,Spokane County and the cities and towns must enter into cooperation agreements;and WHEREAS, Resolution No. 8-0483, dated May 20, 2008, established a set-aside of Community Development Block Grant Funds as a condition of the City of Spokane Valley participating in Spokane County's requalification as an urban county and that set-aside is still in effect for federal fiscal years 2015,2016,and 2017;and 1 /9 WHEREAS, cooperation agreements also incorporate requirements for proper administration of Regional County Homeless Program(Homeless Housing Assistance Act—2163, 1359, and 2331 funds) and Regional Affordable Housing Trust Fund Program(2060 funds);and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County that the agreements of cooperation with the incorporated cities and towns of Airway Heights,Cheney,Deer Park,Fairfield,Latah,Liberty Lake,Medical Lake,Millwood,Rockford,Spangle, Spokane Valley and Waverly for inclusion in Spokane County's CDBG Entitlement Program, in accordance with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development requirements, as stated in HUD's CPD Notice 14-07, issued on April 25, 2014, and for participation in the Regional County Homeless Program and Regional Affordable Housing Trust Fund Program, are approved and that the Chair of the Board of County Commissioners or a majority of the Board are the official representatives of Spokane County and are authorized to approve the agreements of cooperation. PASSED AND ADOPTED this ØV-1) day of ./ 2014. — `,,, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ',o 0. oo` ,_l'`,� OF SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON I i . • f t •1 AL FRENC _-- A!MST: `�� — — �_ TODD1MIELKE,VICE-CHAIR i-c[_, .../ .41.// ...4. . ,/,-, 4,4 .0,,,a Daniela Erickson :LLY 0'.t ,COMMISSIONER Clerk of the Board r • 2 COOPERATION AGREEMENT FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT AND RELATED FUNDS(HOME,AHTF,HHAA) THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into by and between Spokane Co my (hereinafter called the County)and the City of Spokane Valley(hereinafter called the City)this/, ay ofAze 2014. WITNESSETH WHEREAS, pursuant to Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Fair Housing Act, Section 109 of Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 and other applicable laws, Spokane County is entitled to receive Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds for federal fiscal years 2015, 2016,and 2017;and WHEREAS,the amount of CDBG funds to which the County may be entitled is in part dependent upon the population of other CDBG eligible applicant cities and towns which by this Agreement elect to participate in the CDBG and HOME Entitlement Program with the County;and WHEREAS, the purpose of this Cooperation Agreement, which is entered into pursuant to, and in accordance with the State Interlocal Cooperation Act, RCW 39.34 is to plan for, and administer the CDBG Program and the HOME Investment Partnership Program(HOME). NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises made herein and the mutual benefits . received hereunder,the parties agree as follows: 1. The City may not apply for grants under the Small Cities or State CDBG Programs from appropriations for fiscal years 2015,2016,and 2017,the years during which the City is participating in the Spokane County CDBG and HOME Program. 2. The City may not participate in a HOME consortium except through Spokane County,regardless of whether Spokane County receives a HOME formula allocation. 3. The Spokane County urban county qualification period is federal fiscal years 2015,2016,and 2017. 4. This Agreement remains in effect until the CDBG and HOME funds and income received for federal fiscal years 2015, 2016, and 2017 are expended and the funded activities are completed. The County and the City may not terminate or withdraw from this Agreement while the Agreement remains in effect. 5. The County and the City agree to cooperate to undertake, or assist in undertaking, community renewal and lower-income housing assistance activities. 6. The County and the City will take all actions necessary to assure compliance with the urban county's certification under section 104(b) of Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, regarding Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Fair Housing Act, and affirmatively furthering fair housing. This includes the obligation to comply with section 109 of Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974,which incorporates Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as well as obligation to comply with other applicable laws. / 7. The County will not use CDBG or HOME funding for activities in,or in support of a City that does not affirmatively further fair housing within the City's jurisdiction or that impedes the County's actions to comply with the County's fair housing certification. 8. The City has adopted and is enforcing: a) a policy prohibiting the use of excessive force by law enforcement agencies within its jurisdiction against any individuals engaged in non-violent civil rights demonstrations; and, b) a policy of enforcing applicable State and local laws against physically barring entrance to, or exit from a facility or location which is the subject of such nonviolent civil rights demonstrations within jurisdictions. 9. The County and the City will not obstruct the implementation of the approved Consolidated Housing and Community Development Plan and subsequent Annual Action Plan(s) during the period covered by this Agreement. 10. The County has final responsibility for selecting CDBG and HOME activities and annually filing the Consolidated Housing and Community Development Annual Action Plan and the Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. I1. The County and City are subject to the same requirements applicable to CDBG subrecipients, including the requirement of a written agreement set forth in 24 CFR 570.503. 12. The County and City may not sell, trade, or otherwise transfer all or any portion of such funds to another such metropolitan city, urban county, unit of general local government, or Indian tribe, or insular area that directly or indirectly receives CDBG funds in exchange for any other funds,credits or non-Federal considerations,but must use such funds for activities eligible under title I of the Act. 13. The City agrees to participate in the Regional County Homeless Program and Regional Affordable Housing Trust Fund Program, both which authorize Spokane County's Housing and Community Development Advisory Committee(HCDAC)to serve as the regional body for reviewing proposals, initiatives, and making funding recommendations for Affordable Housing Trust Fund (2060) and Homeless Housing Assistance Act(HHAA-2163, 1359,and 2331)activities. 14. The Spokane County's Housing and Community Development Advisory Committee will review CDBG, HOME, Affordable Housing Trust Fund (2060), and Homeless Housing Assistance Act (HHAA - 2163, 1359, and 2331) program policies, plans, and applicant funding proposals and recommend to the Board of County Commissioners funding of applicant proposals 15. The Spokane County's Housing and Community Development Advisory Committee will include a representative of the City appointed by the Spokane County Board of Commissioners in consultation with the Mayor and/orCouncil of the City. / This Agreement is entered into on this /p day of / 2014 by: City of Spokane Valley Spokane County ‘.41 4110( 1 Mike Jacks 6/ Al French City Manager Chair,Spokane County Board of Commissioners