Loading...
2016, 10-25 Regular Formal MINUTES City of Spokane Valley City Council Regular Meeting Formal Meeting Format Tuesday, October 25, 2016 Mayor Higgins called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Attendance: Staff Rod Higgins,Mayor Mark Calhoun, Acting City Manager Arne Woodard,Deputy Mayor Cary Driskell, City Attorney Caleb Collier, Councilmember Mike Stone, Parks &Rec Director Pam Haley,Councilmember [arrived 6:51 p.m.] Erik Lamb,Deputy City Attorney Mike Munch,Councilmember Chelsie Taylor,Finance Director Ed Pace, Councilmember Eric Guth,Public Works Director Sam Wood, Councilmember John Hohman, Comm &Eco. Dev. Director John Whitehead, Human Resources Manager Mark Werner, Police Chief Mike Basinger, Economic Develop. Coordinator Chaz Bates, Economic Development Specialist Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk INVOCATION: Standing in for Pastor Hebden, Pastor Bryce Brewer from Refuge Church gave the invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Council, staff and the audience stood for the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll; all Councilmembers were present except Councilmember Haley. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to excuse Councilmember Haley for about the next one and one-half hours. APPROVAL OF AGENDA It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the agenda. INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS COMMITTEE,BOARD,LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS Councilmember Munch: said he met with Visit Spokane today and looks forward to working together. Councilmember Pace: said he attended an STA (Spokane Transit Authority) Board meeting and they are starting the process of negotiating a new contract with their CEO, said Commissioner O'Quinn wanted an evaluation process done by a paid consultant before that happened, but it ended up they will schedule that for after that happens. Councilmember Wood: said he chaired the Tourism Board meeting, it was a vigorous discussion, and a recommendation will be coming to Council in the near future. Councilmember Collier: said he met with the Arts Council to get a better understanding of their vision for Spokane Valley. Deputy Mayor Woodard: said lie attended various Chamber of Commerce meetings on topics that could impact us, such as the recent Supreme Court decision concerning Whatcom County's water issue. MAYOR'S REPORT Mayor Higgins reported that he attended the DAR (Daughters of the American Revolution) 20t'' Anniversary; met with GSI (Greater Spokane, Inc.); attended the SCOPE Law Enforcement Awards Banquet; and also met with Visit Spokane. Minutes Regular Council Meeting: I0-25-2016 Page 1 of 7 Approved by Council: 11-08-2016 PROCLAMATION n/a PUBLIC COMMENTS: After Mayor Higgins went over ground rules for public comments, he invited general public comments. Mr. Phillip Tyler, President Spokane NAACP: said lie is Spokane's NAACP new President and he wanted to extend a hand in solidarity to build on shared values;he extended verbal support for the Sheriff and our new Police Chief, and said he hopes to discover ways to assist marginalized communities and communities of color; said he has reached out to the individual Councilmembers, and while he hasn't heard from everyone, will leave his business cards with the City Clerk. Ms. Laura Renz, Spokane County: spoke again concerning getting some awareness for service dogs in this city; said she and her service animal are attacked every time they go out in the community as many businesses allow dogs in public buildings; said the businesses are afraid to ask the dog owner that second question; said there is a need to be protected and not rushed by dogs jumping out of strollers and that it distracts the service animal; said she doesn't know how to start doing this, and maybe the best way is to train the businesses that it is okay to ask the questions of dog owners; and said she hopes to get some awareness through the business community. Mr. Robert Sampson, Checker Cab in Spokane Valley: said lie has done a lot of good work to help with Coats for Kids in Spokane Valley, Spokane and Idaho; said he conducted an experiment with Uber and Lift; he took a car that was out of service and damaged and a driver who was a felon, and ran him through the process and he was approved as was the car, in about a minute; said the car's tires were bald; he asked that these companies be regulated the same way as in Pullman as it would help in the safety for all citizens; said his drivers are fingerprinted and get a background cheek;he suggested we have a$25 or$50 fee which would give us extra revenue. 1.PUBLIC HEARING: 2016 Budget Amendment—Chelsie Taylor Mayor Higgins opened the public hearing at 6:16 p.m. Finance Director Taylor went over the proposed amendments to the 2016 budget as outlined in her October 25,2016 Request for Council Action,said since her last presentation to Council on October 4, 2016, there have been no changes. Mayor Higgins invited public comment. No comments were offered and Mayor Higgins closed the public hearing at 6:27 p.m. 2.PUBLIC HEARING: Community Development Block Grant Projects for 2017—Chaz Bates Mayor Higgins opened the public hearing at 6:28 p.m. Economic Development Specialist Bates went over the information contained in his PowerPoint presentation,which he said is very similar to last week's report, but that some issues have been identified concerning the Indiana Avenue project with the former railroad right-of-way, so the recommendation is not to apply for that project this year. Mr. Bates also noted that a motion on this topic will be considered later this evening, Mayor Higgins invited public comment; no comments were offered and Mayor Higgins closed the public hearing at 6:33 p.m. 3. CONSENT AGENDA: Consists of items considered routine which are approved as a group. Any member of Council may ask that an item be removed from the Consent Agenda to be considered separately. Proposed Motion:I move to approve the Consent Agenda. a. Approval of claim vouchers on Oct. 25,2016 Request for Council Action Form Totaling: $4,152,004.99 b. Approval of Payroll for Pay Period Ending October 15, 2016: $367,731.74 c.Approval of October 4, 2016 Council Meeting, Study Session Format d. Approval of October 11, 2016 Council Meeting, Formal Meeting Format It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the Consent Agenda. Minutes Regular Council Meeting: 10-25-2016 Page 2 of 7 Approved by Council: 11-08-2016 NEW BUSINESS: 4. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 16-014 Aggressive Solicitation—Erik Lamb, Kristopher Morton After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title,it was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and seconded to approve Ordinance 16-014 updating the City's prohibition on aggressive solicitation. Deputy City Attorney Lamb explained that in response to a U.S. Supreme Court Case as well as a Washington State Supreme Court case dealing with panhandling in the City of Lakewood,in which case the court struck down a "begging" ordinance as an unconstitutional restriction on First Amendment protected speech; and explained that as currently written,our Code may not be enforceable because it does not regulate aggressive solicitation generally, but rather regulates aggressive begging for a particular purpose, i.e. begging for money or goods as charity, Mr. Lamb noted that another section in our code prohibits solicitation from vehicle occupants, and because that is already generally applicable rather than content based, staff is not proposing any changes.Mr.Lamb stressed that this new amendment only regulates those issues where there is some kind of behavior issue, like an attempt or intent to intimidate people to comply, and that it would not affect people gathering signatures on a petition, provided there is no threat or intimidation, which he said would also protect those who lawfully gather signatures. Councilmember Collier asked about the idea of amending the motion to include a copy of the First Amendment in this ordinance so that this change does not infringe upon that right. Deputy City Attorney Lanib noted that the purpose of this ordinance is to regulate conduct and there is no intent to impinge on anyone's constitutional amendments. City Attorney Driskell also mentioned that the next-to-last Whereas clause states that the City seeks to balance its compelling government interest with protecting the rights of individuals to exercise their First Amendment rights safely, and that we want to maintain consistency with the other section of the Code; that we have a clear legislative record and we want to keep it as clean as possible, and therefore he recommends keeping the verbiage as is. Deputy Mayor Woodard agreed that this is being done to protect citizens from aggressive solicitation. Mayor Higgins invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed:None. Motion carried 5. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 16-015 Property Tax Chelsie Taylor After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title,it was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and seconded to approve Ordinance #16-015 levying regular property faxes for 2017.After Ms.Taylor explained that as • in the past, this ordinance does not include an increase in the property tax levy rate, and went over the information contained in her October 25, 2016 Request for Council Action, Mayor Higgins invited public comment. No comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: Notre. Motion carried. 6. First Reading Proposed Ordinance 16-016, Amending 2016 Budget—Chelsie Taylor After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and seconded to advance Ordinance #16-016 amending the 2016 Budget, to a second reading. Finance Director Taylor briefly went over the changes as proposed to the 2016 budget, after which Mayor Higgins invited public comment. No comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion carried 7. First Reacting Proposed Ordinance 16-017 Adopting 2017 Budget-Chelsie Taylor After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title,it was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and seconded to advance Ordinance #16-017 adopting the 2017 Budget to a second reading. Finance Director Taylor went over the background of the materials contained in her October 25, 2016 Request for Action. Mayor Higgins invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation:In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed:None. Motion carried. 8. Motion Consideration: Fund Allocations to Social Service and Economic Development Agencies-- Chelsie Taylor It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and seconded to award 2017 Outside Agency funding as follows: Greater Spokane Valley Chamber of Commerce $17,143; Spokane Valley Arts Council$48,601; Spokane Minutes Regular Council Meeting: 10-25-2016 Page 3 of 7 Approved by Council: 11-08-2016 Valley Heritage Museum 83,495; Valle}fest$22,685;Arts Academy of Spokane$2,500;Basket for Babies $784; Greater Spokane County Meals on Wheels 821,821; Greater Spokane Substance Abuse Council $4,132;Spokane Valley Partners'513,429; and Widows Might$15,399, Finance Director Taylor explained the process for allocating the funds, as well as a new rule #7 that in no event will any agency receive an allocation greater than their initial request,and she explained that without that rule,based on recommended funds to each agency and the awarding process,that the Museum would have actually received more money than requested. Mr. Calhoun added that we contract for services and therefore can give no more than requested or it would be a gifting of public funds. Mayor Higgins invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation:In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed:None. Motion carried. 9.Motion Consideration: 2017 Community Development Block Grant Projects—Chaz Bates It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and seconded to authorize staff to prepare CDBG applications for the proposed sidewalk project 8h Avenue from Dickey to Thierman (north side), and Mission Avenue from Bates to Union(north side). Mayor Higgins invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation:In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed:None. Motion carried. 10. Motion Consideration: Browns Park Lease Caty Driskell As he had done in past conversations on this topic, Councilmember Wood excused himself from this topic and left the Council Chambers at 7:06 p.m. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and seconded to authorize Acting City Manager Mark Calhoun to finalize and execute the draft lease agreement and forward it to Water District 3 for their potential approval and execution. City Attorney Driskell went over the background of this issue as stated in the October 25,2016 Request for Council Action (RCA); said that the Water District had expressed concern that the City did not get back to them in response to their request for an easement instead of the lease the City offered;and as shown in the RCA,there has been communication. Mayor Higgins invited public comment;no comments were offered. Mr.Driskell also mentioned the option of either a 35 or 50-year lease,and after brief Council discussion, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and seconded, to amend the motion to include that the lease would be extended to water District#3 with a 50-year term. Mayor Higgins invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote to amend the motion: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed.' None. Motion carried. Vote on the fully amended motion.' In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Motion carried. Councilmember Wood returned to the dais at 7:14 p.m. 11. Motion Consideration: Selection of City Manager—John Whitehead Human Resources Manager Whitehead gave a brief explanation of the process leading to tonight's Council selection of a city manager;said the Consultant did a good job and initially forty-two people applied,leading to interviews last Friday by Council,the community group, and senior staff. It was then moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard and seconded, to authorize Mayor Higgins to offer the position of City Manager to Mark Calhoun and to begin negotiations of the Employment Agreement subject to approval of the Employment Agreement by a majority of Councilmembers at a subsequent meeting. Mayor Higgins invited public comment. Tony Lazanis said that Mark Calhoun is the best man for the job; and you can't find any better person than he is. There were no further public comments. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed' None. Motion carried' Congratulations were extended to Mr. Calhoun. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Higgins invited public continents. Dennis Crapo extended his congratulations to Mr. Calhoun, and his appreciation to Council for the process. There were no further comments. Mayor Higgins called for a recess at 7:20 p.m.; he reconvened the meeting at 7:31 p.m. Minutes Regular Council Meeting: I0-25-2016 Page 4 of 7 Approved by Council: 11-08-2016 ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS: 12. Periodic Review,Draft Comprehensive Plan,Planning Commission Findings—Mike Basinger Community and Economic Development Director Hohman noted that with him are Economic Development Coordinator Basinger, and Deputy City Attorney Lamb. Mr. Hohman said staff will be as brief as possible in tonight's overview of the process;that they will go into some details in the different sections,then go to each of the Planning Commission Recommendations for Council input; he noted the minutes from the Planning Commission are included in tonight's packet, and he thanked the Commission for all their work. Mr. Basinger said that the Planning Commission had productive and thoughtful deliberations; and lie then went through his PowerPoint presentation; he said there were some dissenting votes and some discussion about transition requirements on zone-by-zone or use-by-use. Below is the summary of the proposed changes: 1.Add apolicy in Parks and Opeii Space Goals and Policies for the Comprehensive Plan Update to support xeriscaping, water conservation,and sustainable park management methods. In response to staff's question on whether to include this,Councilmember Munch said he favors including this provided this isn't a"must" as he doesn't want to force having a park. Mr. Basinger said he didn't think the Commission's intent was that it be mandatory, but if there is an opportunity, it makes sense to show how things could be done differently. Council nodded in agreement. 2. Designate parcels 55173.1018, 55173.1019, 55173.1020, and 55173.1005 as Single Family Residential (SFR)and zone the same parcels as Single Family Residential Urban(R-3). After brief discussion,Council agreed with the Commission's findings. 3. Designate the parcels located in the area south of Bow Avenue, west of Barker Road, north of Sprague Avenue, and east of Greenacres Road as Single Family Residential (SFR) and zone the same parcels as Single Family Residential Urban (R-3). Council agreed with the Commission's findings. Slide 41: "Use the annual amendment process—proposal to change parcel 45091.9100 as Mixed Use(MU) and zone the same parcel as Mixed Use(MU)." Mr. Basinger said the parcel is a church, and they want to do storage or something similar on the remainder of the church property. Mr. Hohman explained that this is one of the incidents where the property owner came in to ask for these changes;he suggested the need to speak to the Attorney more to see how this fits into the process; and then can report back on the $m''. Mr. Basinger stated that the Commission was about the use of the CAR(citizen action request)process to allow people to come forward and recommend changes; but he explained that these came in after the fact; said the Commission feels the request should go through the annual process. Mr. Lamb further explained that the concern is we went through an extensive process over a year ago, that there was another opportunity to get comments; but there were some questions about fairness to simply allow that in. Councilmember Pace asked if we can legally make the change and Mr. Lamb said yes, but making that opens the door for more questions in the event we are challenged down the road. Councilmember Pace said lie thinks we should make the change. Deputy Mayor Woodard said he thinks the change makes sense on this use;that whatever they'd do for storage, they will be limited on how close they can get to those residences; said he doesn't see that as a problem, and if there are no legal problems, would like to see the change. Councilmember Haley said she is against the change from a fairness standpoint, that it could open a "can of worms" for others to come in; and said she supports the Commission recommendation. Mayor Higgins said they have until November I to put in a request, but Mr. Hohman said we did not open the process this year since we are in the middle of this review;said they could apply for it but it would be for 2018.Councilmember Wood said since they were denied the right to do this,lie agrees we should make that change now.Councilmember Munch also agreed since there is no process in place,it's not very fair for those who need to make a change. City Attorney Driskell said we need to have a cutoff date or we will have more of these. Mr. Hohman said it could be argued that the cut off was at the end of those public hearings,and Council nodded in agreement. Mr. Driskell also agreed. Councilmember Haley said she still disagrees. Mr. Basinger reminded Council Minutes Regular Council Meeting: 10-25-2016 Page 5 of 7 Approved by Council: 11-08-2016 that we are looking at a zone change, that the individual wanted to do storage, so anything that is allowed in mixed use would be allowed. Slide 43: "Use the annual amendment process—proposal to allow greenhouse/uursey, commercial on the identified parcel." Mr. Holunan said staff would like to request more time to research this further;that we might be able to look at some amendments to the permitted use matrix to allow that specific use. Deputy Mayor Woodard said he would also like more information; and suggested maybe change the use matrix so it would not impede into the normal R2 zone. Mr.Hohman explained that there is a significant floodplain on this property so there aren't many ways this property could be developed unless there is an extensive floodplain modification processes. Councilmember Munch asked about the possibility of a conditional use permit and Mr. Hohman said he would like to examine that as well, but it would require amending the use matrix. Mr. Lamb said there are two ways to handle this: use Mr. Hohman's method, which can be done any time during the year provided the comp plan goals and policies support that; or through a change of the zoning designation, which would allow any of the uses allowed, and that staff could work on that immediately following adoption of the comp plan. Councilmember Collier said for a five-acre lot on a floodplain, allowing a nursery changes the feel of the Ponderosa and said although it would be against the residences' backyards,he is not sure lie is comfortable with it. Councilmember Pace noted a floodplain will have limited use; that if someone has a use that's a good argument for change. Councilmember Wood said he would recommend further study and to deal with this next year. Mr. Hohman said staff could start right away and get this before the Commission in November or December; the change would be a code text amendment change not a zone change; so he would leave it in the current zone and we'd look for a way to provide a specific use; and putting this in the code text amendment process will allow the Commission to look at this further. Council agreed to hold off on this proposal. 4.Amend proposed SVMC 19.40.050 to require that industrial accessory dwelling units be inhabited by the employer, operator, or employee of the company at which the industrial accessory dii'elling is located. Mr. Basinger explained that the Commission expressed concern that the industrial areas would be put into a position to become multifamily dwelling uses instead of industrial uses but they liked the idea of having the area for employees, owners, etc. to live. Mr. Holtman mentioned that this would be difficult to police and how does one go about obtaining proof of being the employer or employee; said he feels it would leave the door open for complaints; said it would follow the residential accessory dwelling units as either an extension or an apartment type Iike a hotel room, or even a stand-alone unit; and said there is some flexibility. It was noted the maximum number of units is ten and CounciliIlember Pace suggested leaving it alone and not try to police who lives there, Deputy Mayor Woodard agreed and said if someone wants to convert industrial to residential, it is kind of a stupid way to use industrial; he agreed to leave it alone; said we don't have a way to police it and again, if they want to waste their industrial zone for accessory dwelling units,it is an awfully stupid waste. Mayor Higgins suggested we would likely not encounter much of this and we should probably stay out of it. Councilmember Wood asked how many we have now and Mr.Basinger replied none that he is aware of;that he heard of some caretaker units on industrial properties; said it would also have to be stipulated that it needs to be on the upper level and no more than two bedrooms. There was consensus to take this out. 5. Remove ST/MC 19.40.100 small residential dwellings and small residential dwellings — supportive housing—consider through a separate future code text amendment process. Mr. Basinger said as a code text amendment,this process could be done at any time. Mr. Hohman added that the Commission wanted more time to look at this as it can be very controversial depending on the type of dwelling; and again stated that this code text amendment could start in November or December. Mr. Lamb explained that our Code doesn't require any size home except for what the Building Code requires, so it becomes about the supportive housing issue and not the individual small home. Deputy Mayor Woodard said he would like to leave it in partly because of the flexibility. Councilmember Pace agreed and said this is a community and a Council goal,and has been mit there for a long time, and said it would be letting a lot of people down if we removed this. Councilmember Haley said she would be interested in the vetting process;that you can't just Minutes Regular Council Meeting: 10-25-2016 Page 6 of 7 Approved by Council: 11-08-2016 build and have it be trashed,yet you can find exactly that around Spokane Valley where people do not take care of their property;said she also would like to know more about this and tends to agree with the Planning Commission. Couneilmember Wood added that this is not a new subject; that it does create flexibility and sometimes freedom can be ugly; said he is for it. Councilmember Collier said as a newer Councilmember, he would like more discussion on this and tends to agree with staff and the Commission. Councilmember Haley added that this is one of the things members of the public have voiced concern about; said she needs to be assured there will be some requirements, and needs to know more. Mr. I-Iohman said staff can bring back more information and criteria at the November Bch discussion. Council agreed. 6.Amend proposed SVMC 19.70.020 and Table 19.70-1, Residential Standards, to provide for a maximum density of 22 units per acre and a maximum building height of 50 feet in the M ltr family Residential(MFR) zone. Mr. Basinger said he will bring back what the existing code has for multi-family; said because we have multi-family abutting residential, having this density and height is appropriate. Mr. Hohman added that this would make an added buffer for multi-family yet still allow if someone wants a larger structure. Council nodded in agreement. 7.Amend proposed SVMC 22.70.070(D)(1)to provide that fall screening is required when a rnult family or nonresidential project abuts a single family residential zoning district or single family residential use. Deputy Mayor Woodard said he would take out the single family residential use and change that to single family residential zone; said they are trying to encourage re-purposing some of those corridors into something productive; said it's not right to have to have all that screening, Mr. Hohman replied that we could look at eliminating the non-residential and just have it apply to single family zone; said the intent is zone to zone and not use to use; said the issue is the multi-family project and residential use next door; said staff needs to clarify that it is only in the multi-family zone. Mr. Basinger noted that we have not yet received comments from the Department of Commerce, but they have until November 15 to do so. 13. Advance Agenda—Mayor Higgins There were no suggested changes to the Advance Agenda. 1 INFORMATION ONLY (will not be reported or discussed): The (14) Department Reports; (15) SRTMC (Spokane Regional Transportation Management Center) Interlocal Agreement,` and(16)Sullivan Bridge Update were for information only and were not reported or discussed. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS Mr. Calhoun noted that item 1116, Sullivan Bridge, is a nice summary of that project,and that we anticipate the project being finalized early December, barring no weather barriers. Mr. Calhoun also noted that we have several heavy upcoming agendas, and that the November 8 agenda items have been split into two meetings: one beginning at 5 p.m. to cover the regular routine items, and another meeting at 6 p.m. for the two public hearings and accompanying first reading of those ordinances. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Woodard, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 8:41 p.m. / r / 9 ATE L.R. Higgins,Ma or_ -r 1 ki- 8-ti,A;16r....-.-- hristine Bainbridge, City Clerk Minutes Regular Council Meeting: 10-25-2016 Page 7 of 7 Approved by Council: 11-08-2016 GENERAL PU CLIC C OMMEN SIGN-IN SHEET SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL MEETING Tuesday, October 25, 2016 GENERAL CITIZEN COMMENTS YOUR SPEAKING TIME WILL GENERALLY BE LIMITED TO THREE MINUTE Please sign in if you wish to make public comments. NAME TOPIC OF CONCERN YOU YOUR CITY OF RESIDENCE PLEASE PRINT WILL SPEAK ABOUT 14tiliMN k�La N4kCI I CRC ttut SmiaR f ku SQ ' Rfr-1o r--. u10611. L Please mole that once information is entered on this forret, ii becomes a public record subject to public disclosure. What is a service dog? By definition a "service dog" is a type of assistance dog specifically trained to help people who have disabilities,such as visual impairment, hearing impairments, mental illness (such as PTSD),seizure disorder, Mobility impairment, and diabetes. Also by definition with the US Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, under the disability rights section regarding the ADA requirement, as of March 2011 only DOGS are recognized as a service animal under Titles II and Ili of the ADA. A "Service animal" is a dog that is individually trained to do work or perform tasks for a person with a disability. Generally, all entities must permit service animals to accompany people with disabilities in all areas that members of the public are allowed to go. There are dogs trained for the blind to guide them,there are dogs trained to alert and protect a person who is having a seizure, to remind a person with a mental illness to take medications, calming a person with PTSD during an anxiety attack, help with Mobility, or other tasks as deemed necessary by the person's disability. Service animals are working animals, not Pets. The work or task a dog has been trained to provide must be directly related to the person's disability, Dogs whose sole function is to provide Comfort or emotional support do not qualify as service animals under the ADA. Service animals must be harnessed or leashed or tethered unless those devices interfere with the animal's ability to perform his work. In that case the individual must still maintain control of the animal through voice, signal or other effective controls. When it is not obvious what service the animal provides,the only questions a business may ask are: 1... is this dog a service animal required because of a disability? 2....what work or task has the dog been trained to perform? it seems most businesses have no problem with the first question but they are all afraid to ask the second. That second question is imperative to weed out the Imposter or fake service animals in our community. A person can be asked to remove his dog from the premises if they become out of control and the Handler does not take action to control it or if the dog is not housebroken. If that is the case the person still must be allowed to do business without the animals presence once the animal has been removed. A service dog is a highly trained animal that provides a real and valuable service for its handler. Due to all of the imposters in the community many trained dogs are being rushed,attacked, growled at, and otherwise hindered from their duties clue to bad behavior from the impostor animals and Businesses seem to be afraid to take control of this situation so I am asking for help from you, the city council,to help get some ordinances in place. l am confident that you as a Council can help our community with this problem.You were able to change the name of a national holiday so I am certain you are able to put some ordinances in place to keep our service dogs and people safe. My dog Lobo is highly trained and performs a very valuable function during my daily routine.The animal I trained to replace him had to be pulled from his duties after a full year of service due to badly behaved fake service animals rushing him in public. After three incidences in one week he shut down and became reactive. Thousands of dollars of training and thousands of hours of time and he is no longer of service because of this. I am now training a Labrador to replace Lobo,and she has had many instances as well where she has been rushed at or attacked or threatened. I would like to not have to pull another dog and I would like for the rest of the community that uses service dogs to have the same consideration. In each case I have gone to the store manager where my dog had trouble and each time I was told the same thing... We can't ask them what the dogs are for. There is a big lack of communication and awareness in our community. Aside from the fact that these fake dog handlers are aggressive and rude when asked to control their animals. We are going to need to come together as a community to tackle this problem head-on. I am more than willing to put in the time in the effort to help raise awareness and to get some ordinances in place. To have an actual test the dog must pass to prove that it has the manners and obedience necessary to be in our community at all times would be a great start. There are already a few tests out there, one of them being the Canine Good Citizen test,that do have some basics.There is also a very good test called "Assistance Dogs International"and they list everything on their test that a dog needs to do to maintain a proper public appearance. Of course the dog must need to perform an actual service and that would be where the person's doctor would come Into play by writing some type of a note or prescription for the dog. Not the"companion animal" prescriptions like they're writing to get people dogs in apartments, I mean an actual prescription from the doctor Stating yes this person needs a service dog and yes this is what their job would be for him or her. Any person that has a disability enough to Warrant a service dog has been seeing a doctor of some type so the handlers would not be put out in any way by doing this. Most businesses already have signs stating service animals only, however most are afraid or unwilling to ask the right questions. The businesses must be forced to comply as this is an ADA issue.. As a service dog handler not only do we have the right to bring our dog with us as needed for assistance but also have the right to be free from harm for ourselves and our animals due to others negligence and unwillingness to follow the rules that are already in place. I ask for your attention and consideration to this matter as it is very important to those of us that rely on our dogs for our safety and well-being, Spokane is a great city and community and we all want to be safe and free from harm. Please let me know the next step to take and I will help as much as I can. Thank you, Laura V. Renz 9828 North Forker Road Spokane Washington 99217 509-892—2128 This is the second part of Barbara Handelman's series on the ethical issues around service dogs, which started in our prinq 2016 edition. A persistent myth exists that service clogs have been granted rights to access places where pets are not allowed. No government agency grants such access rights to dogs; it is the people who have disabling conditions who have the right to be accompanied by appropriately trained dogs.To be considered a service dog,the animal must be specifically trained to mitigate some aspect of the handler's disability. The Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA) does not require certification or specific identifying equipment for service dogs. Opportunistic people pretend to be disabled in order to have their pet dogs accompany them everywhere, and their fraudulent actions make their dogs into imposters, not service dogs. In this article, 1 will consider how education, common sense, and ethical behavior join together to solve the issues in a manner that protects the rights of individuals who have disabilities, and the rights of businesses,transportation agents, restaurants, and other places of public accommodation that serve them. The subject of certification inevitably arises when there is discussion of pet dogs entering places of public accommodation under the guise of being service dogs. Certification is not the remedy. It places the burden of proof on individuals who have disabilities. Service dogs mitigate myriad disabilities by performing an equally broad range of tasks that meet the needs of individual handlers.Service dogs are medically necessary for those with both physical and mental disabilities.They address the need for accommodation in ways similar to inanimate durable medical equipment. Should laws require that a person with a disability be certified to operate a wheelchair, or use a walker, cane,or crutches? Who would perform the certification tests for working dogs?Who would determine qualifications for the certifiers?Who would evaluate the skills of myriad types of service dogs working to mitigate a wide range of disabilities?Who would pay for the tests that could impose an undue logistical and financial burden on a person with disabilities?What if qualifying certification tests were only offered in locations a hundred or more miles from a person with a disability's home?What if the person with a disability cannot physically withstand the rigors of travel or afford transportation to the certification site?Such a burden would be a breach of that handler's civil rights. No able-bodied or unimpaired individual is required to have any type of certification to enter a restaurant or ride public transportation; it is unfair and illegal to require this of individuals with disabilities. Education is a far better response. Shop owners, restaurant staff, bus drivers, hospital personnel,etc. are allowed,according to the ADA regulations,to stop a person accompanied by a dog. They may only ask two questions: 1) "Is that a service animal?" 2) "What tasks has the dog been trained to do to mitigate the handler's disability?"These provisions were part of the revisions to the ADA published in 2010.They do not require certification;they also do not require that the dog wear identifying equipment. By allowing merchants to ask these questions,the ADA found a way to regulate access without restricting it. Unruly dogs,even those whose handlers have disabilities, should be asked to leave a place of public accommodation.The handler has the right to return without the dog that was being disruptive. ,--' '. P ~31 11110 Debi Davis and service dog Finn. Finn is grabbing a ticket while they wait in line. ©Barbara Handelman In today's litigious era,many operators of places of public accommodation fear being sued if they ask handlers to remove disruptive service dogs.They are doing their best to respect the rights of people with disabilities,sometimes to the detriment of their own right to earn a living. Many believe they must allow access to dogs even when that dog's behavior is inappropriate to the setting. A friend and fellow service dog handler was recently standing at a bus stop with her service dog.The bus stop was outside a bar.The barkeep approached her with a compliment and a question: "I see you have a service dog that is very well behaved. May I ask you, what am I supposed to do or say when a person claiming that her dog is a service dog enters my bar, and the dog begins barking and jumping on other patrons?" My friend asked in response, "What would you do if a human patron was being similarly disruptive?" The barkeep said, "I would ask the person to leave, and if she refused, I would call the police." My friend said, "Of course you would, and you may do the same if a service dog creates a disturbance." The onus is on the service dog community—both service dog handlers and those individuals and agencies that professionally train service dogs for others—to educate the community. We have done well in teaching places of public accommodation that they must provide equal services for people with disabilities and their service dogs. Now we need to help them understand their own rights and protections. It should not be up to proprietors to determine whether or not a dog is a service dog, emotional support dog, or therapy dog whose handler might, or might not, have legitimate access rights. While a person in a wheelchair's disability may be obvious,one cannot see a traumatic brain injury, seizure disorder, mental illness, diabetes, or heart disease. Conversely,a visible disability does not necessarily mean that an accompanying dog is a service dog. The dog's behavior is the single salient criterion. ,� - k.. A,+4 ... e- i '-' - f: 4 Service dogs Luca (left) and Peek (right) napwhile the author and Debi Davis have lunch in a restaurant. � g } ©Barbara Handelman The dog must be quiet, unobtrusive, under the control of his handler, and he must not be threatening to others or disruptive to the flow of business. If other patrons are allergic or fearful, creative accommodations may be required.The person with the service dog may not be asked to leave,or be served in a less preferred location, because of another patron whose discomfort does not rise to the level of disability. Clearly,this is fraught terrain. Because certification is not required and unfair to impose,the rule must be common sense. For example,when service dogs enter hospitals or other medical settings,the safety of the general population must be considered. Dogs can carry zoonotic diseases (diseases that can be transferred from animals to humans). If a person with a disability is a patient or is visiting a patient in a part of the hospital where immunosuppression is an issue,the presence of a service dog is likely inappropriate. Similarly, if a person with a service dog requires a procedure in a sterile environment, the presence of a dog could endanger her life or the lives of others. Most likely the patient's service dog will not be allowed access to operating rooms or other sterile facilities. Hospital security personnel report dealing with protests. Some people with service dogs declare that bringing the dog with them is their right, and therefore they must be allowed. I -.. r . J e ' . 0 _ I: ' ;: Itt- 0 ir lt. _-- Service-dog-in-training Piper hangs out while the author talks with a doctor in his office. ©Barbara Handelman Most service dog handlers prefer that other people not reach out to touch or otherwise engage with or distract their dogs.Such behavior disrupts the dog's focus on the handler's needs. However, some people with emotional support dogs or psychiatric service dogs may have severe social anxiety,or other diagnoses that cause them to feel socially isolated.A trained dog might be a bridge to social interaction, helping the person with a disability make contact with other people in a setting where it might otherwise feel impossible.Again, common sense must prevail. If dog and handler are in a hospital where there are people whose health might be compromised by a dog touching them, in that setting it would be inappropriate to direct the dog to seek out petting in order to ease the handler's social anxiety. Poorly trained pet dogs and dogs with unstable temperaments pose risks to handlers of service dogs. Some might think that the answer to these problems is certification and regulation. In fact, certification and regulation would further impede and impinge upon the rights of people who have disabilities. Instead the solution lies in the kind of common sense and educational practices I have described above. We need to work together, as a community of responsible dog handlers,to make our public spaces safe for people with disabilities and their working dogs. Barbara Handelman, M.Ed, COBC is the author of Canine Behavior:A Photo illustrated Handbook, and creator of the four-DVD series Clicker Train Your Own Assistance Dog. For information about accessing these resources email:BarbaraHandelman@mac.com.