Loading...
2009, 06-16 Study Session MinutesAttendance: Councilmembers Rich Munson, Mayor Dick Denenny, Deputy Mayor Rose Dempsey, Councilmember Bill Gothmann, Councilmember Gary Schimmels, Councilmember Steve Taylor, Councilmember Diana Wilhite, Councilmember MINUTES STUDY SESSION MEETING SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL Spokane Valley City Hall Spokane Valley, Washington June 16, 2009 Staff 6:00 p.m. Dave Mercier, City Manager Mike Jackson, Deputy City Manager Mike Connelly, City Attorney Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney Mike Stone, Parks & Recreation Director Scott Kuhta, Senior Planner Kathy McClung, Community Development Dir. Ken Thompson, Finance Director Greg McCormick, Planning Manager Steve Worley, Senior Engineer Lori Barlow, Associate Planner Inga Note, Traffic Engineer Morgan Koudelka, Sr. Administrative Analyst Mary May, Engineering Technician Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer Bill Miller, IT Specialist Chris Bainbridge City Clerk Mayor Munson opened the meeting at 6:00 p.m. and welcomed everyone to the study session. Introduction of New Employees: Community Development Director McClung introduced Mary Swank, new Office Assistant who previously worked as one of our scanner operators and who replaces Patti Romero. Council greeted and welcomed Mary. Mayor Munson said since this is a study session with action items, he invited general public comment; no comments were offered. ACTION ITEMS: 1. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 09 -012 Adopting Subarea Plan — Mike Connelly It was moved by Councilmember Taylor and seconded to approve Ordinance 09 -012 which adopts the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan. City Attorney Connelly explained that this ordinance adopts the Plan and changes the zoning for those districts within the Plan. He explained the two technical changes to the Plan and to the ordinance, one amendment each as shown on his updated handout on page 14 of 15 of the ordinance, and page 1 of 3 of the Plan. Mr. Connelly explained that the new section 2 officially amends the "official zoning map" and the second is to clean up the language concerning nonconformity as it was Council's intent to have the rules of nonconformity imposed throughout the entire city; and he mentioned the omission of the line in #6 was overlooked. With regard to the new section 2 of the ordinance, it was also mentioned that directly prior to that, the #10 should be #11. Mr. Connelly also explained that the word in #7 of the Plan, "governed" is more precise then the previous word "regulated." Mr. Connelly also mentioned that two substantive issues for council consideration include the request from a property owner on the east side to have their property excluded, and the other issue is the timing of the effectiveness of the ordinance. Council Meeting Minutes: 6 -16 -09 Page 1 of 10 Approved by Council: 06 -30 -09 First Amendment to the Motion It was moved by Councilmember Wilhite and seconded to make the technical changes as outlined by Mr. Connelly on the sheet received Mayor Munson invited public comment; no comments were offered. Council voted unanimously by acclamation to amend as noted. Second Amendment to the Motion It was moved by Councilmember Wilhite and seconded to exclude from the subarea plan, the property owned by Mr. Grafos, also the property next to Mr. Grafos, the music school. There was brief discussion on the issue of what would or would not be nonconforming, with mention from Mr. Kuhta that if kept under the Plan, the Grafos property would not be permitted so it would be a legal nonconforming use, and the music school would be a conforming use; and if excluded from the Plan the Grafos property would be a conforming use. Mayor Munson invited public comment no comments were offered. Councilmember Taylor said he feels they should be kept in the Plan as it sets a bad precedence to take particular properties out of the Plan, thereby making it appear if someone doesn't like a particular use, even though they would be nonconforming and grandfathered in, they could be removed from the Plan because they asked. Other councilmembers stated they felt it would not impact the overall plan to have the properties removed, with Mayor Munson adding that there is no access from the Fred Meyer property onto these two properties which makes future development difficult. Vote by Acclamation: In favor: Mayor Munson, Deputy Mayor Denenny, and Councilmembers Schimmels, Gothmann, Dempsey, and Wilhite. Opposed: Councilmember Taylor. Abstentions: None. Motion to amend passed. Third Amendment to the Motion It was moved by Deputy Mayor Denenny and seconded to implement the Plan October 1, 2009, which Deputy Mayor Denenny stated, would allow staff time to begin the implementation process properly. Mayor Munson invited public comment. Dr. Phillip Rudy, 5647 N Fruithill: said he feels the sooner the better, and compared waiting here to a lag time involved when the County was addressing billboards, which lag time seemed to allow a proliferation of billboards in the interim. After brief council discussion on the motion, and attention to a specific date rather than sixty or ninety days, Council voted unanimously by acclamation to amend as noted. Editorial Changes Noted: Councilmember Gothmann said he was surprised to see that Book III was included, and Mr. Connelly said it contained some development regulations and part of Book III was referenced in Book II, and said it made sense to adopt as a cohesive unit. Councilmember Gothmann mentioned that Appendix A to Book III, "Starting Point" page 1 of 5, and other areas where the text references "figures" that the figures and /or diagrams are missing. Mr. Kuhta said the figures, graphs and diagrams were in the original draft which was created with a program we don't have, and staff had to take the text out, convert it to Word, and then will use the figures in the original, so they will all be re- inserted. Councilmember Gothmann mentioned that the last sentence on page 2 of 5 appears that something got dropped, and there are a few missing words in paragraph seven of the last page. Mr. Kuhta said he will do some cutting and pasting to make sure the original text is represented as Council intends. Mr. Kuhta also summarized what is included in Book III, such as the intended city actions and what the city intends to do to help implement this Plan as funding becomes available; mention of future street networks, and one or two -way issues, future street cross - sections, how they look and function; and said that these can change as conditions change and we will get a better idea when we start to improve the streets; adding that the only segment Council included in the future to change to a two -say system is between Dishman Mica and University Road; and just to change the direction of travel, which includes signalization and stripping, is approximately $1.2 million; and said the full street with new sidewalks increases to a total of about $5.3 million, and a lot of that is around the City center, but we will consider the cost when we get there. Council Meeting Minutes: 6 -16 -09 Page 2 of 10 Approved by Council: 06 -30 -09 Fourth Amendment to the Motion: Appendix B Councilmember Taylor mentioned Appendix B and said while the sustainability indicators are okay, he has problems with the narrative before it; and said he is uncertain if this particular language is something to adopt now; that it appears to contain some ideology in the narrative and he suggested omitting or reducing the narrative. Mr. Kuhta said that this Plan moves the City toward a more sustainable future; and these were presented in the Plan to measure if we are moving as intended; that it has always been a part of the plan, that we could make it two sentences at the top, or remove the Appendix and add a sustainability chapter in the comp plan if that is Council's desire, that it doesn't hurt to leave the indicators there as it points to a more healthy community. Councilmember Gothmann mentioned that since an appendix is something attached to a main document, it was moved by Councilmember Gothmann and seconded to delete this Appendix B, and renumber the following appendix, with the idea of working on it later. Council discussion was mixed on whether to take it out or leave it in, in whole or in part. Vote by Acclamation to remove Appendix B and re- number the following appendix: In Favor: Councilmembers Gothmann, Schimmels, Wilhite, and Dempsey. Opposed: Mayor Munson, Deputy Mayor Denenny, and Councilmember Taylor. Abstentions: None. Motion to amend passed. Mayor Munson invited public comment: Phillip Rudy, speaking as Board Chair of the Chamber of Commerce: he extended congratulations for the amount of time and diligence exhibited and of Council's acceptance of many public comments; that he realizes this is a living document and a good point of departure. Dr. Rudy then spoke personally, suggested putting an underpass on Sprague in front of the Pring property, mentioned it should have two - way all the way to I -90 for economic reasons, and said predetermined streets should be paid for by the City at the assessed value devoted to the streets and improvement paid by the City; that SARP is a big project, and for the six miles, Council has the ability to direct where that development begins somewhat, and added that development will occur first where it makes economic sense. Sean Lumsden, speaking on behalf of Spokane AutoRow Auto Dealers: said that AutoRow is back on the radio telling everyone of the great opportunities if people come into Spokane Valley to buy a car; that he has a couple requests and mentioned the sign code and said that dealers are under pressure from manufacturers, that they are sent the banners and are charged for them monthly and they are directed to set up the banners or be fined, which puts them in a tight spot; and he suggested offering some language options to make dealers feel comfortable, and he mentioned his letter for distribution tonight and said he would welcome the opportunity to discuss that idea; he said for areas concerning building design that have been made for the dealers in the gateway commercial area, he suggested that be extended to that piece of property while it is in the present situation; he said as dealers look to remodel and revitalization, they are encouraged by the steps Council has taken to enable AutoRow to be a truly unique place; and said that Appleway, Mazda, and Volkswagen are out of the gateway commercial property technically, but they have been a very active member in auto row, and he asked that the Gateway Commercial District not be extended but gerrymandered to reflect the dealerships which have also had a very large part in AutoRow.. Nancy Nishimura E 15103 Valley Way. said she opposes the adoption of the couplet, that we need to remember that the Sprague street is a commercial district; said she has been on the sign committee, she tried to keep up, she has a business; she said the down zoning of the current businesses takes away the value of the property and turns part of it into residential; she said that this plans for something that we don't own, the city of Spokane Valley does not own Appleway yet; and said she objects to changing lives so much for something that is just a "maybe." She said she doesn't feel she is being listened to; said there was just recently something about having a healthy business district, but if the City is cutting off their life blood, re- structuring the property, down zoning it and grandfathering them in but making them nonconforming, that makes her uncomfortable and is not healthy; and makes her feel like she isn't part of this community and makes her question if Council doesn't care if she's part of the community; that Council Meeting Minutes: 6 -16 -09 Page 3 of 10 Approved by Council: 06 -30 -09 restructuring the current businesses up to the sidewalk is impractical; unless the City started with a blank canvas, that is not economically feasible; she asked about snow removal, and said the only area in town that has the buildings up to the street had a terrible time this winter at Pines and Sprague, with snow removal; that businesses that fail would be easy for developers to snatch up, tear down and start over; and she asked if that is really making them feel part of the community when she feels there's vultures waiting in the wings; she mentioned Woodburn, Oregon which has a retail district similar to Sprague; but they have miles of hanging baskets on the streets which unifies the city, and said it would be a easy way to change the look to the city without a huge expenditure; and she said she will try to get pictures and send them to council. She also asked how does Council expect to pay for this plan or be a healthy business climate when most of the businesses would be negatively effected; if the businesses went out of business because they had to make all these arrangements for the streets every 200 feet, most of the homeowners are not here tonight, but they are clueless and don't know what's going on; and she asked if the homeowners are aware they'd be stuck with the bill to pay for this plan if a lot of the businesses fail because of the loss of tax revenues; and again said the sign code is too restrictive; and she asked what about the people who are on the streets north and south, they don't have any way to have signs for their businesses, and that the planning director told her that is an off - premise sign and is not allowed; and she asked what are we going to do about that, but she said that was never addressed, so there are people who are being left out and are trying to pay tax dollars and Council should listen to them; and said she likes to have her portable reader board that Marina Sukup said would be okay as long as it was chained to a stake in the ground; which seemed interesting. Dick Behm, 9405 E Sprague, member of the Spokane Valley Business Association: said they have been involved in battles and planning with Sprague Avenue for sixteen years; that Sprague Avenue went to one -way, property values dropped 30 -40 %; business values dropped 30 %; and the previous speaker spoke of possible damages; and if they only knew what the people west of University went through for the last seven or eight years in lost business and lost values of property; if the City doesn't collect taxes from the business people, they'd have to go to the residential community; however, he said they have been working on this and they support the plan and support returning to two -way; and he said he would expect an immediate increase to 20 -30% for businesses on Sprague that are presently located on the one -way; said that the last thirty years his business has been a non - conforming business and they have been grandfathered in as it was established in 1932; so they have been there for the last 77 years in that location; and with the new plan, the restaurant becomes nonconforming; and being nonconforming for the last thirty years hasn't bothered him at all because they maintain the same business; and now that the restaurant will be nonconforming, he doesn't intend to close it so that doesn't bother him; and he said he feels we will work out these problems as we go along; that people can look to the city and talk to the staff and work those things out; that the Valley Business Association is not happy with the sign code but said he feels they can work through it; and said he believes each member of Council is interested in working with the business community to solve those problems; and he thanked Council. Council discussion and comments included mention by Councilmember Gothmann that the City of Spokane also bans off - premise signs and that we have had outstanding consultation from the business community which includes the Chamber of Commerce, AutoRow, and the Spokane Valley Business Association; and most of the businesses are saying to get it done. Councilmember Dempsey said she hasn't liked the plan from the beginning, primarily because she knew of two of the places that the consultant talked about when he gave examples of his work, that he was a mesmerizing speaker, but she knew the two cities he mentioned and she didn't like them at all; she said Council has worked hard to try to make the rough spots in the plan more palatable to those who objected, that there have been many changes, and she is pleased the changes were made as she feels it will be of benefit to the city, that she is almost to the point where she could vote for it, but not quite, and she appreciates the work done by staff, with kudos to Scott Kuhta. Councilmember Taylor said he is excited to see this come to a close and sees all this as a focal point for this community, that heart and identity have been lacking from the beginning. Council Meeting Minutes: 6 -16 -09 Page 4 of 10 Approved by Council: 06 -30 -09 Councilmember Schimmels said he believes the plan has some good merit, but still feels it is very presumptuous of us to move east of University as we don't the property as far as Appleway is concerned, and he would prefer to do this incrementally, and said he doesn't intend to derail the plan, but will not support it. Mayor Munson said we can't live in the past or we end up re- living the past, and looking at what has occurred to Sprague for the past eight years or longer, that is not a past he wants to see in the future; he doesn't want to see property values go down and doesn't want to see Sprague deteriorate as that is not his vision for the future of this City; and he said he feels the citizens expect Council to be bold and provide for a future we can all be proud of that the financing of this plan will take place over many years, and implementing this and paying for this will be difficult, and things will change and that is what this is all about; and can we manage the change so we can have some hope that the City of Spokane Valley will be a better place to live tomorrow then it is today; and on into the future with each year getting better; said he realizes the plan will change, and added that if Appleway is not resolved by the first of December, he said he will personally make a motion to revisit the plan and consider removing it and all the accompanying zoning from the Plan, and to investigate alternatives to Appleway Boulevard. Vote by Acclamation on the final amended motion to approve ordinance 09 -012 which adopts the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan, to make the technical changes as outlined by Mr. Connelly on the sheet received, to exclude from the subarea plan the property owned by Mr. Grafos also the property next to Mr. Grafos, the music school; to implement the plan October 1, 2009, and to delete appendix B and renumber the following appendix: In Favor: Mayor Munson, Deputy Mayor Denenny, and Councilmembers Taylor, Gothmann and Wilhite. Opposed: Councilmembers Dempsey and Schimmels. Abstentions: None. Motion passed. 2. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 09 -013 Amending Comp Plan Map — Mike Connelly It was moved by Councilmember Wilhite and seconded to approve Ordinance 09 -013 amending the Comprehensive Plan Map. City Attorney Connelly explained that this is the companion ordinance to the subarea plan just voted on, and amends the map to be in conformance and consistent with the plan, and said there have been no technical amendments. Mayor Munson invited public comment. Philip Rudy, 5647 Fruithill, said if the Sprague underpass occurred, it could tie together the University City area with the twelve acres north of it which are bounded by Herald, Main, Belfour and Sprague; and by doing that you would have twelve acres that could have a very good ambiance where you could put the City Hall, perhaps the library, keep the open space or use the twelve acres for a park, and it would allow for a 1250 foot length of road running from Main to Appleway, which is a north/south direction; and said if he recalls, the Consultant said a 1200 foot street is an ideal street for a city center. Mayor Munson said Council will consider these ideas. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor Mayor Munson, Deputy Mayor Denenny, and Councilmembers Taylor, Gothmann, Wilhite and Schimmels. Opposed: Councilmember Dempsey. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 3. Proposed Resolution 09 -008 Appleway Boulevard — Mike Connelly It was moved by Councilmember Taylor and seconded to adopt Resolution 09 -008. City Attorney Connelly said that this topic has been under discussion for several years; the extension has been an integral part of planning and future corridor expansion; that issues like traffic impact, concurrency, and rapid transit; that we have been unsuccessful in negotiations with Spokane County and seem to get circular in proposals; the intent is to stop the circular negotiations and sit down and try to resolve what all parties feel are goals of City, the County, and STA (Spokane Transit Authority); and said this proposed formal procedure would require all parties to discuss common objectives and come to resolution; adding it would also require the identification of specific staff members to the negotiation party. Mayor Munson asked if there are any pre- conditions, and Mr. Connelly confirmed there are none and said the mediation is not binding; and in response to Councilmember Dempsey's question is STA obligated to respond positively, Mr. Connelly added that this is an action by this Council and requests the County and STA to address the same issue, but their actions are up to them. Mayor Munson said three weeks ago he gave the Council Meeting Minutes: 6 -16 -09 " Page 5 of 10 Approved by Council: 06 -30 -09 Board of County Commissioners and the STA Board a copy of the draft resolution, explaining it would be up for Council's consideration within the next few weeks; and he also e- mailed the draft to them last week explaining Council would be discussing it, and would welcome their comments. Mayor Munson then invited public comment; no comments were offered. Deputy Mayor Denenny stated that this is the formalization of a process to get the movement going and get staff involved, and he hopes to begin finally moving beyond self - absorbency for all parties concerned, and discuss the need of the community. Vote by Acclamation: In favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 3a — added item: Mayor Munson said we have a special announcement, and he recognized Councilmember Taylor. Councilmember Taylor read the following letter: "Dear Mayor and City Council: It is with both sadness and enthusiasm that I inform you of my pending departure from the City Council due to my appointment to the position of City administrator for the City of Connell, Washington. The past six and a half years have been among life's most memorable, and my work with the great City of Spokane Valley has truly been the highlight of my professional career. I would like to thank the citizens for entrusting me with this honor and responsibility, and I wish the Council, city staff, and the entire community the best in the years to come. My resignation from the Spokane Valley City Council will take effect at 11:59 p.m. on June 30, 2009. God bless you all and keep moving our city forward. Sincerely, Stephen A. Taylor, Councilmember, Position 2." Councilmember Taylor mentioned he would have some final closing comments at the June 30 meeting. Each councilmember commented on the upcoming change, extended their congratulations, stated that Councilmember Taylor would be missed, that they enjoyed working with him, including his good- natured disagreement at times; and said they recognize this is a positive professional progression for him. Mayor Munson said information will be supplied to Councilmembers soon explaining the law and a recommended path. Mayor Munson called for a recess at 7:35 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 7:46 p.m. 4. Proposed Resolution 09 -009 Adopting 2010 — 2015 Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) — Steve Worley It was moved by Councilmember Wilhite and seconded to approve Resolution 09 -009 adopting the 2010 — 2015 Six Year TIP as presented. Engineer Worley explained that as we do annually, this is a look at the projects for the next six years; and said there were no changes as a result of the public hearing. Mayor Munson asked about item six, the "Broadway Avenue Safety Project, Pines (SR -27) to Park" and asked what the cost would be if only the ADA improvements were done, and whether we would still be able to receive some of the federal grant money. Mr. Worley said most likely not; that TIP is state - funded rather than federally funded; and the main part of the project is the safety improvement of re stripping; that the ADA and sidewalk are typically required for any project TIB does, the re- striping is the main part. Mayor Munson invited public comment; no comments were offered. Mayor Munson said he is not convinced we will achieve what we want by changing the stripping, and therefore moved, seconded by Councilmember Dempsey, to amend the motion to strike #6 from the TIP. Councilmember Gothmann voiced his objection and said he feels such a motion is premature when we haven't heard the data yet, and suggested council have that discussion now. As a result, Mayor Munson and the seconder withdrew their motion; and Councilmember Wilhite and the seconder withdrew their motion; and Council proceeded to discuss agenda item #10, the "Broadway Avenue Safety Project." 10. Broadway Avenue Safety Project — Inga Note /Steve Worley Mr. Worley explained what the project entails, followed by Ms. Note's explanation of the analysis of the changes. Mr. Worley said that this project is to create a safer Broadway from Park to Pines; he said this is not a grind and overlay; and he showed some of the areas lacking the ADA improvements. Ms. Note shared some of the results of the previous projects, including slides showing the safety benefits of three Council Meeting Minutes: 6 -16 -09 Page 6 of 10 Approved by Council: 06 -30 -09 lanes, and updated charts of traffic volumes and accident statistics before and after the three -lane conversion. Mayor Munson said if the re- stripping won't achieve what we want it to, then it is not causing a big difference and why spend the money; adding that he hasn't seen any evidence that the $187,000 is well spent; but feels the ADA improvements are necessary and would like to find some way to do that. Deputy Mayor Denenny mentioned that previously people had commented changing to three lanes would make it more difficult moving in and out of driveways, but the data shows just the opposite. Mr. Worley mentioned that since we received information on this grant, there isn't time to evaluate that area further and we have to decide whether or not to move forward; that some of the statistics may have been affected by the last two very harsh winters, and the I -90 construction may have increased the collision rates. Council /staff discussion continued with mention by Mayor Munson that he feels there is an intersection problem on Broadway rather than a lane problem; and Councilmember Schimmels stating that if we condemn a three -lane road we would also have to condemn 32 " 16 Mission and more; that this is a safety issue; and in moving from Park to Pines there are six schools with cross - traffic, that crossing a three lane road is far less dangerous than trying to cross four lanes. Mr. Worley said that staff recommends moving forward with this safety project to try to reduce some of the collisions. Attorney Connelly added that when making a decision about traffic safety, Council needs to give a substantial degree to the experts as to what is safe and what isn't because if he needs to defend the City against an action if someone gets hurt, it is best if that action was done relying on those qualified to make the decision deemed to be most safe. Councilmember Dempsey mentioned that four lanes is a safety issue and she avoids Broadway east of Pines as it is not an easy road to travel; that bike lanes don't make it easier to travel and since she's been living on Sergeant Road, it appears the bikes lanes are not used very much and feels we could get better safety results from intersections by having left -turns instead of through the re- stripping and taking away a lane in each direction; and she mentioned there is no access for the handicapped. Ms. Note said an option on the intersections is they could separate the directions of travel fairly easily and it would operate like Broadway and Evergreen before being converted to the three lanes, and would be the least expensive; or could widen the area at the intersection and make it five lanes and put in a turn. Deputy Mayor Denenny mentioned how much he and his wife feel the bike lanes are wonderful, and even aid with the children walking to school as sometimes they would walk in the curb, and having a bike lane would prevent them from walking right next to traffic. Mayor Munson said he sees no evidence of improvement, that there is not enough data, and we are running low on REET funds (real estate excise tax); that there are other places to spend the money; and regarding school safety, he feels what we are doing currently is working as there have been no accidents with kids being hit; and in looking closer at the effective use of funding, said the only benefit he can see is that from the ADA improvements. Council then moved back to agenda item #4. Back to Item #4: Proposed Resolution 09 -009 adopting the 2010 -2015 six -year TIP It was moved by Councilmember Wilhite and seconded to approve Resolution 09 -009 adopting the 2010- 2015 six year TIP as presented. It was then moved by Mayor Munson and seconded, to remove item #6 from the TIP. Councilmembers discussed the issue including a mention from Councilmember Gothmann that the data shows accident reductions and since ADA is required; he prefers to keep it; Councilmember Dempsey said she feels we could find someplace to put that funding besides re- stripping; Councilmember Schimmels said it is a positive project; and we get our money's worth, and it makes for calmer driving; Councilmember Taylor mentioned that he drives that section often, voted against it originally but believes the change is positive and safer for pedestrians and kids. Vote by Acclamation on the amended motion to remove #6: In Favor: Mayor Munson and Councilmember Dempsey; Opposed: Deputy Mayor Denenny and Councilmembers Schimmels, Gothmann, Taylor and Wilhite. Abstentions. None. Motion to amend failed. Mayor Munson invited public comment on the original motion to approve Resolution 09 -009 adopting the 2010 -2015 TIP as presented. Mary Lloyd, 11216 E 13 said she had a couple issues with ADA; she likes ADA improvements; likes the idea of dropping the speed limit; and questioned if widening the easement and widening the sidewalk would mean having to buy right -of -way; she said that Council Meeting Minutes: 6 -16 -09 Page 7 of 10 Approved by Council: 06 -30 -09 Broadway scares her because of the curb type two inlets due to stormwater and suggested that needs to be improved; and she questioned what this would do to the level of service; she said she understands traffic well and feels the schools do a wonderful job of slowing down traffic in those areas; and asked Council to think about how changes change traffic, as it generally makes more people impatient. Vote by Acclamation on the motion to approve Resolution 09 -009 adopting the 2010-2015 TIP as presented: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 5. Park Road Reconstruction #2, Broadway to Indiana Design Phase — Steve Worley It was moved by Councilmember Taylor and seconded to authorize the City Manager or designee to execute the consultant agreement with CH2M Hill in the amount of $318,443.44 for the Park Road Reconstruction #2 Project — Broadway to Indiana. Engineer Worley explained the design phase of the project as per his June 16, 2009 Request for Council Action Form, that we received a federal grant covering 86.5% of the cost for the design improvements, up to $304,500; and that CH2M Hill was chosen through an RFQ (request for qualifications) process last February. Mayor Munson invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: none. Motion carried. 6. Energy Grant Submittal — Mary May Mayor Munson thanked Avista representatives for their patience in getting to this agenda item. It was moved by Councilmember Taylor and seconded to concur with the proposed projects to include the EECBG grant application and authorize a letter of assurances as part of the application. Ms. May explained that as presented at the June 2 council meeting, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act appropriates funding for the Department of Energy to issue formula -based grants under the Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant Program, and that we are eligible for a non - competitive grant of $823,400 to spend on energy conservation planning on projects that result in energy savings; and mentioned that the grant application must be submitted by June 25, 2009 and must include documentation identifying an approved entity to file the application and assuring conformance with the Davis -Bacon Act regarding fair wages; and said funding is expected to occur in the fall of 2009; with projects implemented and completed within thirty -six months. Mayor Munson invited public comment. Bruce Folsom, Avista, 1411 East Mission Spokane, said he is the Energy Efficiency Director, and that he and Regional Business Director Nancy Holmes have been examining programs and said they are looking at changes almost weekly when it comes to economic stimulus; that if the City partners with them on home energy audits and corresponding loan funds to get installations done, Avista would match it dollar for dollar; he said that Spokane County took them up on their offer of $120,000 to use as a match; that they have not yet had conversations with Modern and Vera but could if council is interested; said he worked with staff in last few weeks and appreciates the discussions; and much like being the home town utility, they would like to run some in -home energy programs; and said he is optimist in doing a match with the City of Spokane; and would like to work with the City of Spokane Valley as well. Ms. May said that the $823,000 is the city's formula grant; that all the projects defined fit within the parameters, and Avista's program fits; and the idea is we could take a piece of that and put it toward a program that Avista would manage that would allow residential and small business owners to obtain energy audits; help identify where some improvements could happen and perhaps make the improvements. Mr. Mercier asked how much is proposed as part of the partnership from Avista, and Ms. May said at this point, there is nothing identified. Mr. Mercier reminded Council that grant materials must by filed by June 25 and there is no other council meeting between now and then; and should an amount be identified, staff would have to subtract an equal amount from one of the other areas, as shown previously. Mr. Folsom said they are looking at as many programs as possible to out - compete western Washington; that the problem is a lack of time. Council Meeting Minutes: 6 -16 -09 Page 8 of 10 Approved by Council: 06 -30 -09 It was moved by Deputy Mayor Denenny, seconded and unanimously passed to extend the meeting for thirty minutes. Discussion continued regarding Avista's input, and Ms. McClung mentioned she feels the energy chapter for the comp plan is important and lays the foundation for future funding opportunities; and perhaps we could ask Mr. Worley if it is possible for other funding opportunities that could pay for ITS (intelligent transportation system) which is nearly half the allocation. Mr. Worley explained that this was Public Works Director Kersten's higher priority project; but the problem is typically one can't match federal money with federal money, so we would have to find money somewhere place else. Mr. Folsom said at a 10% match with their non - federal money, it would involve about 300 to 400 homes; that they are ready to apply for a grant as well, and regarding the question if what if they don't get the award, Mr. Folsom said he assumes it would revert back to the City, but said he didn't have a specific answer. Other ideas were to split the project into two phases and reduce the amount to ITS by $80,000; that REET funds have dwindled several hundred thousand per month which would be the main source of match in applying for leverage grants; that we will likely have insufficient funding for all TIP programs in 2010; that bike and pedestrian plans or other infrastructure projects would have an immediate impact on traffic congestion relief; and mention that the Avista program will not help all the citizens as much as ITS programs. It was ultimately moved by Councilmember Gothmann and seconded, and unanimously agreed to amend the motion to take money from the energy efficiency chapter in the amount of $88, 000 and put that on the Avista grant. Mayor Munson invited further public comment; and no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation on the final vote to concur with the proposed projects to include the EECBG grant application and authorize a letter of assurances as part of the application and to take money from the energy efficiency chapter in the amount of $88, 000 and put that on the Avista grant: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 7. Justice Assistance Grant 2009 — Morgan Koudelka It was moved by Councilmember Taylor and seconded to authorize the City Manager or designee to sign the Memorandum of Understanding approving the joint application for the 2009 Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant. Senior Administrative Analyst Koudelka explained that Spokane Valley has been allocated $50,367 as part of the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JG) Program; that the funds are designed to support all components of the criminal justice system; and Spokane County has typically used this funding for the Sheriff's Office; and said this is the first year we have had five years of qualified data to allow us an allocation; and that this does not require any matching funds. Mayor Munson invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. Mayor Munson again opened the floor for general public comments; no comments were offered. It was moved by Councilmember Dempsey, seconded and unanimously agreed to extend the meeting another fifteen minutes. REGULAR STUDY SESSION ITEMS; 8. Surplus Items — Ken Thompson Finance Director Thompson explained that surplusing items is a new exercise for us; that some of the items include obsolete equipment and furniture, old computers, monitors, and office partitions, and even a three - legged piano and a city vehicle; and that we need to proceed as per code; which is to first offer the items to other departments. He mentioned that this is just for background information now, and next time he will have a resolution along with a list of the surplus items for approval. 9. Discovery Playground Bid Process — Mike Stone and Worley Parks and Recreation Director Stone said that he and Engineer Worley have been working closely on this project; that bids were opened and all bids received were close to each other, but all were approximately Council Meeting Minutes: 6 -16 -09 Page 9 of 10 Approved by Council: 06 -30 -09 47% higher than the consultant's estimate; and it was determined that the Consultant's construction estimate did not include prevailing wages as the Consultant's home state does not require that; and that difference would have accounted for about $272,000, which is about half the deficit. Mr. Stone said there is not a lot of this type of specialty work done in this local area; none of the contractors who bid attended the pre -bid meeting; and the consultant received no calls from bidders but did from some of the subs. Mr. Stone said to re- design the project would defeat the purpose of the project; and he asked for consensus that staff go back and research some additional available funding options, and bring back the proposal at the June 30 meeting; with the intent of not discarding the bids; but examining ways to secure the additional funding to award the bid. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Denenny, seconded and unanimously passed to extend the meeting for an additional ten minutes. Mr. Stone said that the apparent low bidder is very excited about this project and is geared up and feels they can complete the project in about three months, which is about half the anticipated time. Mr. Worley said this would be a lump sum bid, that change orders are negotiated; that once the bid is awarded, staff could work with the contractor to see about the possibility of reducing some of the elements. Mr. Mercier said that staff will come back to council June 30 and make the proposal for council's consideration; another option is that we have set aside $400,000 in the original construction fund for CenterPlace, which was set aside for major repairs; that we have subsequently adopted a finance policy and we are funding the depreciation of our buildings as well, so that would be another consideration. There was council consensus to bring this back to the June 30 meeting for motion consideration. 10. Broadway Avenue Safety Project — Inga Note /Steve Worley No further action needed; see item #4 above. 11. Advance Agenda — Mayor Munson: mentioned the opening of the three swimming pools, and reminded everyone about this Saturday's retreat. 12. Council External Committee Reports — Councilmembers n/a 13. Council Check -in — Mayor Munson: n/a 14. City Manager Comments — Dave Mercier: n/a 15. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Land Acquisition, Pending Litigation It was moved by Deputy Mayor Denenny and seconded to adjourn into executive session for approximately 45 minutes to discuss pending litigation, land acquisition, and the performance review of a public employee; and that no action is anticipated thereafter. Council adjourned into executive session at 9:42 p.m. At approximately 10:42 p.m. Mayor Munson declared Council out of executive session. It was then moved by Councilmember Taylor, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 10:43 p.m. Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Council Meeting Minutes: 6 -16 -09 Approved by Council: 06 -30 -09 Page 10 of 10 Bruce Folsom Director, Energy Efficiency Telephone 509.495.8706 Cellular 509.990.8428 Facsimile 509.777.5296 bruce.folsom@avistacorp.com /11111,__ IS 1411 East Mission Ave PO Box 3727 MSC - 15 Spokane WA 99220 -3727 www.avistautilities.com June 16, 2009 Mayor Richard M. Munson City of Spokane Valley 11707 E. Sprague Ave., Ste. 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Dear Mayor and City Council: It is with both sadness and enthusiasm that I inform you of my pending departure from the City Council due to my appointment to the position of City Administrator for the City of Connell, Washington. The past six and a half years have been among life's most memorable, and my work with the great City of Spokane Valley has truly been the highlight of my professional career. I would like to thank the citizens for entrusting me with this honor and responsibility, and I wish the Council, city staff, and the entire community the best in the years to come. My resignation from the Spokane Valley City Council will take effect at 11:59pm on June 30, 2009. God bless you all and keep moving our city forward. Sinc ely, Step en A. Taylor, Councilmember, Posit on 2 SD Councilmember Stephen A. Taylor City of Spokane Valley 11707 E. Sprague Ave., Ste. 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 autoroiq AUTO DEALER MEMBER June 16, 2009 To: Spokane Valley City Council From: AutoRow Dealers Dear City Council, I am writing this letter on behalf of all the AutoRow dealers: Paul Jaremko Marti Hollenback Denny Waltermire Jaremko Nissan Dishman Dodge Hallmark Hyundai Von Jones Gus Johnson Appleway Group Gus Johnson Ford As we look over this version of the Sprague- Appleway Revitalization Plan we have the following requests: 1. Each dealer is mandated and charged by their franchises to hang occasional signs or banners during national sale events. There must be some provision in the sign code to allow for these times. We would ask language to be modified to read either of the following ways: Banners will be allowed in the Gateway Commercial Avenue district (including Appleway Audi/VW, Subaru Mazda) for two weeks per month with a yearly permit. Or In the Gateway Commercial Avenue district (including Appleway Audi/VW, Subaru Mazda), Special Event signage can include banners for 14 days per month if proof of requirement can be produced from corporate franchisee of local dealership. 2. Gateway Commercial Avenue districts standards need to also include Appleway Audi/VW, Subaru and Mazda property. The Mazda / Subaru building will need to be remodeled soon and should be afforded the same standards as the rest of the Gateway district. Thank you, Gus Johnson President, AutoRow 7P7 f t:r °73r 5':_4.02.7 SS El 6- z3f 17)/hgCGL. DATE MEETING TYPE (i.e. city council, planning commission, etc) LOCATION TOPIC 12/16/2008 City Council Council Chambers Deliberations 12/30/2008 City Council Council Chambers Deliberations 1/6/2009 City Council Council Chambers Deliberations 1/12/2009 City Council Council Chambers Deliberations 1/13/2009 City Council Council Chambers Deliberations 1/26/2009 City Council Council Chambers Deliberations 2/3/2009 City Council Council Chambers Deliberations 2/24/2009 City Council Council Chambers Deliberations 3/3/2009 City Council Council Chambers Deliberations 3/24/2009 City Council Council Chambers Deliberations 4/28/2009 City Council Public Hearing CenterPlace Public Hearing 5/5/2009 City Council Council Chambers SARP Discussion 5/19/2009 City Council Council Chambers Deliberations 5/26/2009 City Council Council Chambers Deliberations DRAFT t 7. The adoption of the Subarea Plan and amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Map have been provided to the Community Trade and Economic Development Department pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106 on January 23, 2008. 8. The amendment to the Uniform Development Code adopting the Subarea Plan is made pursuant to and consistent with the provisions of RCW 36.70A.040 to implement the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. 9. The City of Spokane Valley has complied with the requirements of RCW 43.21C, specifically by using the integrated SEPA process pursuant to SEPA rules, (WAC 197 -11 -210, 220, 228, 230, 232 and 235). The documents and dates of issuance are as follows: a. Adopted existing environmental document (Draft and Final EIS prepared for Spokane Valley Comp Plan), signed January 18, 2008. b. Issued Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact State (DSEIS) on January 18, 2008. c. Issued Addendum to the DSEIS on May 20, 2008, to incorporate updated transportation analysis. d. Issued Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS) on June 19, 2008. 10. As part of its review and deliberations, adoption of the Subarea Plan and amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Map, the City Council has reviewed the documents filed for record, which are on file with the City Clerk. -1'0. The adoption of this amendment to the Uniform Development Code adopting the Subarea Plan is necessary to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the general public and the environment. Section 2: Amendment to the Uniform Development Code SVMC 19.20.020 Official Zoning Map. The Official Zoning Map within the Subarea Plan is hereby amended as set forth in Section 2.1, Figure 2.1 District Zone Map of the Spokane Valley Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan. Section 23: Amendment to the Uniform Development Code SVMC Chapter 19.110. The Uniform Development Code, specifically SVMC Chapter 19.110 is hereby amended as follows: Ordinance 09 -012 Page 14 of 15 ■ 2.0. ORIENTATION Book II contains the Development Regulations that govern all future private development actions in the Spokane Valley - Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan Area (Plan Area). These standards and guidelines will be used to evaluate private development projects or improvement plans proposed for properties within the Plan Area. The Development Regulations are presented in the following seven sections: > 2.0 Orientation, ➢ 2.1. District Zones Regulations, D 2.2 Site Development Regulations, D 2.3. Street and Open Space Regulations, 2.0.1. Applicability 1) City Center District Zone. These regulations shall apply to: a. New construction. b. Additions greater than 20% of the building floor &ea. c. Exterior Improvements ( "facelifts ") costing+ ore than 20% of the assessed or'appraised value of the building and land. Such exterior regulat�i�ons shall co 1 form to the architectural regulations contained in Section 2.5. r 2) All Other District Zones. These regulations shall apply to: a. New construction. b. Exterior Improvements ( "facelifts) :ti ng more than 20%41.1 t he assessed or appraised value of the building and land. Such extern r imp shall conform to the architectural regulations contained in Section 2.5. 3) New Construction. New construction is de+fd as an entt� ly new structure or the reconstruction, remodel, rehabilitation or expansion of a building costing more +than 50% of the assessed or appraised value of the existing stria and land. N 4) Existing Buil and Completed Applications. Nothing contained in this section shall require any change to an existing buiilding,`or structure for which a building permit has been previously issued or applied for in the Community' nity' Develop_ne t E+ epArtment, and the application is deemed complete prior to of this Subarea Plan. thec -tiwe; Ownership/TenaitChanges. Changes in property ownership or tenants of existing uses shall kewise require no change in any efil building or structure. City Council Draft Sprague /Appleway Revitalization Plan April 28, 2008 with changes from 5 -19 -09 D 2.4 Parking Regulations, > 2.5 Architectural Regulations, and D 2.6 Signage Regulations. 6) Limitations on Required Improvements. Where improvements and additions are made to existing buildings forrenovation or enlargements apply only to net new floor area. additions toexisting buu sings that incrctse non conformities are not permitted. If regulations to be applied to net new floor area are not specified in this Subarea Plan, then the Community Development Director/Designee shall determine which regulations shall apply. 7) Non - conforming uses and structures shall be rcaulated l overned b S • okane Valle Munici • al Code SVMC Title 19.20.060, i II` 'ii' ,i l s 1;: it °'i. i I; l l l?i1 , :y I ., ;a . ili ill. III I I Id l;'`., G; .I ) C)IIJ. 1Ull Ifl I I t I ;L',I, iuI ■ t ;, ■ illy IJI1 ll :a 8) Development regulations established in this Plan are specified as either Standards or Guidelines. Standards address those aspects of development that are essential to achieve the goals of the Subarea Plan. They include specifications for site development and building design, such as permitted land uses, building height and setbacks. Conformance with standards is mandatory. Such provisions are indicated by use of the words "shall ", "must ", or "is /is not permitted." Book II Development Regulations Page 1 of 3 C:\Documents and Settinms \skuhta\Desktop \SARP COUNCIL Draft - 2.0 ORIENTATION 5- 19- 09.docP:\Conmmity 2.0 ORIENTATION 5 19 09.doc '1 w Broadway Avenue Park to Pines & Pines to Sullivan June 16th, 2009 I nga Note Steve Worley TIB Grant Status • TIB supports this safety improvement project. • $746,280 allocated in November 2006 • Due to declining state gas tax revenues, TIB projects not moving forward risk losing grant funds. Project Elements • Restriping from 4 -lanes to 3- lanes. • New bike lanes. • Creates ADA accessible sidewalks and ramps. • Improved safety at school crossings by removing 4 -lane road. • Approx. 30% ($280,000) is sidewalk /ADA work 30000 25000 20000 1— 0 15000 10000 5000 - 01 Capacity of 3-Lanes Successful "Road Diets" in Washington 1 Lake Fourth Plain N. 45th Montana St. 120th Ave. Broadway Washington Blvd. (Seattle) (Bellevue) NE Blvd. (Vancouver) (Bellevue) (Kirkland) 10 Local 3 -Lane Examples 30,000 25,000 20,000 Q 15 , 000 10,000 5,000 0 Local 3 -Lane Examples 1•0 32nd Grand 29th Alberta Country (Valley) (Spokane) (Spokane) (Spokane) Homes (County) Barker Broadway (Valley) Safety Benefits of 3 -Lane • Left Turn collisions - Improves field of vision • Rear -End collisions - Left turns from TWLTL • Driveway collisions - from /into TWLTL - Bike lane improves field of vision • 3 Right -Angle collisions - Fewer lanes to cross • Collision severity - Lower speeds WA Examples Fourth Plain Blvd. - Collisions 52% Seattle (16 corridors) - Collisions 34% 12 14000 12000 10000 F.. 8000 Q 6000 4000 2000 0 Traffic Volumes Broadway Volumes Pines to Sullivan Counts El 7/30/2001 ❑ 7/16/2001 El 7/16/2001 El 4/29/2002 El 7/29/2003 E 7/29/2003 ❑ 8/31/2004 LI 8/31/2004 F17/14/2004 ❑ 4/19/2006 • 10/11/2006 • 11/2/2006 • 4/18/2007 • 5/24/2007 • 3/19/2008 • 3/20/2008 • 3/27/2008 • 3/27/2008 • 5/11/2009 Legend 4 -lane 1 -90 construction 3 -lane Overall Collision Comparison 4 -lane 3 -lane Total Collisions Analyzed 69 35 Time Period Mar 2003 — May 2006 Feb 2007 — October 2008 (excluding 3 weeks in July) Avg Collisions / Month 1.77 1.72 Severity 66% PDO 134% Injury 66% PDO / 34% Injury Snow /Slush /Ice related 2 collisions (3 %) 5 collisions (14 %) Collision Types Fixed Object — 1 (.03) 1% Rear End — 12 (.31) 17% Angle — 16 (.41) 23% Driveway — 13 (.33) 19% Bicycle 1 (.03) 1% Left-turn — 21 (.54) 30% Sideswipe — 3 (.07) 6% Other — 2 (.05) 3% Fixed Object — 4 (.19) 11% Rear End — 13 (.64) 37% Angle — 8 (.39) 22% Driveway — 2 (.10) 6% Bicycle 2 (.10) 6% Left-turn — 3 (.15) 9% Sideswipe — 3 (.15) 9% Other — 0 (.0) 0% Collision anomalies 1 sleeping driver 1 tire blow out 1 heart attack 1 passed out driver 2 bicycles on sidewalk 1 chased after assault 1 hot cigarette ashes from another vehicle Overall Collision Comparison Broadway /Evergreen Before and After Collisions • Increase in rear -end collisions • May partially be due to revised signal coordination • • ,; • • • ` t ` • • • ` • 1 ALEN ` _.�. ......;, • .I ` (2 =1 4 -Lane 3 -Lane Total 4 7 Collisions / Month 0.10 0.34 Broadway /Evergreen Before and After Collisions • Increase in rear -end collisions • May partially be due to revised signal coordination • • ,; • • • ` t ` • • • ` • 1 ALEN ` _.�. ......;, • .I ` (2 =1 Broadway /McDonald Before and After Collisions • Significant reduction in left-turn collisions Total Collisions / Month 4 -Lane 16 0.41 3 -Lane 2 0.10 MIIMMIMEKM ' mmomm. NMILIMMOMM 1111 «!!e � l�1�!!s !!Ruaam ■■ ! ■!!!!!! MEMME!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!E!!!!!!!!■ lRER•YR!! M1�!!E1 . ■ p �.... ■MERM alii ! ■ll �:� ■!M!!!!!!■ NM maaaritImummimmumm • lair liilll ■!!!!!!!!!!■ ■!!!Sl1 a!!!!!!!!!!R• !!■ MU NCAUMEMErOMMMEE ■M■ MUM laMENNIO ■!!! 16 Driveways Before and After Collisions Significant reduction in driveway collisions Total Collisions / Month - Lane 13 0.33 3 -Lane z 0.1 Er i ...rs...■ o uu..... C II1 M M . E... m mums mom mmlommumma OMMCMMESMENMaximmill§ ■•« ■.'UU 1N '#we! na MEIMMTITiliallimilmilalliMM MM E mmen' .�__�s..C. :a.ML1 ■L1I MEMENIMMOMMEMMMIUMMINSUMMMO U fE ■ ■■ ua■ MI i�M. � ■1U .EN.M it iM■ ■ ■ Citizen Comments - "Similar comments to above apply to the bike lanes in the existing Sprague /Appleway couplet, and on Broadway. Existing bike lanes created on these roads are a step forward & 1 thank you for that." - "I live on Broadway near Felts, which seems to be more residential than the area east of Bates. I would think 3 lanes would be safer for small children in the neighborhood, and would really cut down on the hot- rodding." 19 Citizen Comments - "Even though speed limit along Broadway is posted the same in most areas, the added lane of traffic seems to lend itself to speeders, have noticed a dramatic difference in the average speeds vehicles travel when comparing the traffic from Pines to Sullivan Rd as compared to the traffic speeds between Pines and Park Rd." Fire and Police Comments 20 • Fire - Neutral, overall road width is major factor in response time. • Police - Prefer 4 lane. Think volumes are too high west of Pines for conversion. Staff Recommendation • Move forward with Safety Project • Option - Conduct a survey - get comments from residents and regular drivers of Broadway - mail route along Broadway from Pines to Sullivan - Come back to Council post - survey with results and recommendation on pursuing the project. Draft Survey BROADWAY Ave. from PINES Rd. to SULLIVAN Rd. Please share your thoughts about the restriping of Broadway Ave. since the Summer of 2006 (a reminder about this project is on hack). Overall, do you believe the results have been.... 0 Positive 0 Neutral 1 Don't know 0 Negative Do you believe the three-lane striping is safer? 0 Yes 0 Neutral / Don know 0 No Do you live on Broadway Ave. from Pines Rd. to Sullivan Rd.? 0 Yes 0 No Additional comments Thank you for your time. Please detach along the dotted line and drop this pre-addressed. postage paid postcard in the mail by Friday. April 10th. Your response will help us determine if the rest of Broadway Ave_ (Pines Rd. to Park Rd.) should be similarly restriped. 23 • Mail routes would reach 5,440 residents. Survey Mailing Route 1 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: June 16, 2009 City Manager Sign -off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Justice Assistance Grant 2009 GOVERNING LEGISLATION: N/A PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: N/A BACKGROUND: The City of Spokane Valley has been allocated $50,367 as part of the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program for the 2009 annual award. These funds are designed to support all components of the criminal justice system. Spokane County has typically used this funding for the Sheriffs Office and Prosecutor's Office and has agreed to follow that model for the year 2009 but will open up future funding to all areas of the criminal justice system. Spokane Valley staff has followed the County's lead and have relied on recommendations of the Sheriff's Office to identify proposed projects to be funded with the grant. The City of Spokane will submit the joint allocation. The identified expenditures are as follows: $24,300 Twenty (20) Air Cards to allow the transmission of encrypted data to patrol vehicles $10,000 Contribution to Regional Virtualization Server $12,500 Contribution toward Deputy Prosecutor Position for auto theft cases. $ 2,000 Chairs for Officers at SV Precinct Building $ 1,567 Ammunition OPTIONS: Authorize application for the JAG grant. Request amendments to the application. Deny authorization to submit grant. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Authorize the City Manager or designee to sign the Memorandum of Understanding approving the joint application for the 2009 Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant. BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: $50, 367 in grants funds, no match required. STAFF CONTACT: Morgan Koudelka, Senior Administrative Analyst ATTACHMENTS: Memorandum of Understanding (distributed separately) 1 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF SPOKANE, WA, CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WA, AND COUNTY OF SPOKANE, WA 2009 BYRNE JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT (JAG) PROGRAM AWARD THIS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING is between the City of Spokane, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, having offices for the transaction of business at 808 West Spokane Falls Boulevard, Spokane, Washington 99201, the City of Spokane Valley, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, having offices for the transaction of business at 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 106, Spokane Valley, Washington 99206, and Spokane County, a political subdivision of the State of Washington having offices for the transaction of business at 1116 West Broadway Avenue, Spokane, Washington 99260, jointly referred to as the PARTIES. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the PARTIES are making a joint application for an Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program hereinafter referred to as the "GRANT;" and WHEREAS, the PARTIES are required in conjunction with the Grant application process to sign a Memorandum of Understanding indicating who will serve as the applicant / fiscal agent for the Grant as well as to allocate among themselves the GRANT funds; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the requirements of the GRANT, the PARTIES are desirous of reducing to writing their understanding as to who will serve as the applicant / fiscal agent for the GRANT as well as the allocation of the GRANT funds among the PARTIES; -- Now, Therefore, The PARTIES agree as follows: SECTION NO. 1: DESIGNATION OF APPLICANT /FISCAL AGENT The PARTIES hereby agree that the City of Spokane shall be the designated applicant / fiscal agent in conjunction with the GRANT. SECTION NO. 2: ALLOCATION OF GRANT MONEYS The PARTIES' agree that the GRANT amount of Two Hundred Ninety -Seven Thousand Three Hundred and Sixty -Nine Dollars ($297,369.00) shall be split among the PARTIES as follows: City of Spokane City of Spokane Valley Spokane County SECTION NO. 4: LIABILITY FOR CLAIMS $199,876.00 $50,367.00 $47,126.00 SECTION NO. 3: USE OF GRANT FUNDS BY THE PARTIES The City of Spokane agrees to use the $199,876 for Law Enforcement Programs, Prosecution and Court Programs until September 30, 2013. City of Spokane Valley agrees to use the $50,367 for Law Enforcement Programs, Prosecution and Court Programs until September 30, 2013. Spokane County agrees to use the $47,126 for Law Enforcement Programs, Prosecution, and Court Programs until September 30, 2013. Each party to this Memorandum of Understanding will be responsible for its own actions in providing services under this Memorandum and shall not be liable for any civil liability that may arise from the furnishing of the services by the any other party. SECTION NO. 5: THIRD PARTY RIGHTS The PARTIES to this Memorandum of Understanding do not intend for any third party to obtain a right by virtue of this Memorandum. This Memorandum of Understanding shall not create any rights in any party not a signatory hereto. SECTION NO. 6: ENTIRE UNDERSTANDING This Memorandum of Understanding contains the entire understanding of the PARTIES. No representations, promises, or agreements not expressed herein have been made to induce any party to sign this Memorandum. SECTION NO. 7: INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT Upon award of the GRANT, the PARTIES shall enter into an Interlocal Agreement setting forth the final terms and conditions of the GRANT allocation and management. 2 Dated: CITY OF SPOKANE By: Mary Verner, Mayor Attest: Approved as to form: City Clerk Assistant City Attorney Dated: COUNTY OF SPOKANE, WASHINGTON By: By: 3 Marshall Farnell, Chief Executive Officer Approved as to form: Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Dated: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY City Manager Designee Attest: Approved as to form: City Clerk . Deputy City Attorney