2009, 06-02 Study Session MinutesAttendance:
Councilmembers
Rich Munson, Mayor
Dick Denenny, Deputy Mayor
Bill Gothmann, Councilmember
Gary Schimmels, Councilmember
Steve Taylor, Councilmember
Diana Wilhite, Councilmember
Absent:
Rose Dempsey, Councilmember
Mayor Munson opened the meeting at 6:00 p.m. and welcomed everyone to the study session.
Introduction of New Employees: Deputy City Attorney Driskell introduced two new legal interns: Jeana
Poloni, third year Gonzaga Law School student; and Jandon Mitchell, second year Gonzaga Law School
student. Council welcomed and greeted the new interns.
ACTION ITEMS:
MINUTES
STUDY SESSION MEETING
SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL
Spokane Valley City Hall
Spokane Valley, Washington
June 2, 2009
Staff
6:00 p.m.
Dave Mercier, City Manager
Mike Jackson, Deputy City Manager
Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney
Mike Stone, Parks & Recreation Director
Neil Kersten, Public Works Director
Kathy McClung, Community Development Dir.
Ken Thompson, Finance Director
Greg McCormick, Planning Manager
Steve Worley, Senior Engineer
Morgan Koudelka, Sr. Administrative Analyst
Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer
Bill Miller, IT Specialist
Chris Bainbridge City Clerk
It was moved by Councilmember Taylor and seconded to adopt resolution 09 -007 restricting access to
that portion of the Spokane River from the city's eastern boundary to Barker Bridge. Deputy City
Attorney Driskell explained about the recent rescue efforts with the woman trapped at the bridge; said the
river debris poses a hazard, and the Sheriff's Office and Fire Chief requested Spokane County and our
City to adopt a resolution temporarily restricting access to the River; and he mentioned that Spokane
County adopted a similar resolution today which covers up to the Harvard Street Bridge. Mr. Driskell
added that this resolution would authorize the Sheriff's Office to enforce the provisions of this restriction;
and he said this is similar to what council adopted last year on a different portion of the River related to
the snapping of a safety line near the dam, and that this resolution will likewise remain effective until the
Sheriffs Office advises that the conditions giving rise to this restriction has passed. Senior Engineer
Worley stated that signs are posted at the state line and Harvard Road indicating construction over the
River at Barker Road; and Officer Shane said the Sheriff's Office will handle the placing of the signs
closing the River. Mayor Munson invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by
Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried.
1. Pines/Mansfield Change Order — Steve Worley
It was moved by Councilmember Taylor and seconded to authorize the City Manager an additional
$150, 000 in change order authority for the completion of the Pines /Mansfield Project. Mr. Worley
explained that as we have done on another large project, staff is here tonight to request additional change
authority for the City Manager; that the Code allows up to $200,000 or 15% of a contract whichever is
Council Meeting Minutes: 6 -02 -09 Page I of 6
Approved by Council: 06 -09 -09
less; and this is the limit in this case. Mr. Worley added that we are approaching the end of this project
and hopes to see its completion within the next three weeks; that some issues have come up during
construction which caused an increase in the original contract amount; and said they have several
anticipated change orders that may be necessary, but will exceed the remaining authority provided to the
City Manager; and in an effort to complete the project, it is requested that the City Manager be granted an
additional $150,000 in change order authority for work necessary to complete this project; he said that the
project budget exceeds the contingency funds within the project, but there are sufficient contingency
funds in the 2009 Street Capital Grants fund budget to cover these expenses. Mayor Munson invited
public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed:
None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried.
As a point of privilege Mayor Munson mentioned an article he had distributed to Councilmembers and
which is on the dais, which will be sent to the Valley News Herald and Spokesman Review; but said he
wanted to make sure Council is aware of this in keeping with the "no surprises" policy. Mayor Munson
then read his written article for the record:
"Billing Disagreement between the City of Spokane Valley and Spokane County
Many of you have heard a lot of rhetoric in the past several days concerning the claim by the City
of Spokane Valley that Spokane County has over billed the city for Law Enforcement Services. The City
has chosen not to engage in rhetoric. We will provide you with what we believe are the pertinent facts of
the situation and let you decide if we have chosen the best path.
We believe that Commissioner Mielke is frustrated by a process that has taken too long to resolve
our differences. We share his frustration. However we also firmly believe that a protocol adopted by both
parties to resolve differences like these must be allowed to run its course. The process requires
deliberative fact finding that will insure all parties are heard and an outcome is reached that is fair and
equitable. It is important to note that in our form of Council/Manager government the City Council has
authorized the City Staff to negotiate contracts and contract disputes and reserves to Council the
discretion to approve or deny negotiation outcomes.
In early 2007, during the normal settle and adjust period for the 2006 contract period, our staff
notified the County that we believed the County had overcharged the City of Spokane Valley for law
enforcement services. The County disagreed. Please note that I stated the County, not the Sherriff
disagreed. Invoices for these services were prepared following billing procedures set up by the County.
After more than a year of analysis by both sides, it became apparent neither side would be convinced of
the others' position. Our City Manager then formally asked for the dispute to go to mediation as the
contract provides. He further stated that we would maintain payment at 2007 rates for these services until
resolution was attained. The City has placed the disputed amount in our general fund so in case the
mediation outcome finds we are wrong and the Council agrees, we could pay the owed amount promptly.
The mediation process requires both parties put together a case of facts. The City hired a firm of forensic
accountants to make sure we had analyzed the facts correctly. We gave the County the analytical report
on December 2, 2008. That report stated that the County had over charged the City $609,000 for the year
2006. The County then asked the Washington State Auditor's Office for a review of their billing
procedures. It has been six months since they have asked for this review. As of June 2, 2009, the State
Auditor's Office had not released their findings.
With this in mind, Commissioner Mielke has insisted the City Council of Spokane Valley enter
into negotiations to resolve this situation. The City Council will honor the separation of responsibilities
assigned to staff and await their analysis and findings. Why would we begin to talk about a resolution
without this critical analysis of the State Auditor's Office review of the County's billing practices? We
are willing to wait for the State Auditor's Office to release their report. We are willing to have our staff
discuss the two reports and let them recommend a solution that both Boards can agree or not agree with.
We are willing to enter into mediation if we cannot resolve our differences. All we ask is the County be
equally willing to allow a process that we have both agreed on to run its course so we can resolve this
situation. Richard M. Munson, Mayor, Spokane Valley"
Council Meeting Minutes: 6 -02 -09 Page 2 of 6
Approved by Council: 06 -09 -09
REGULAR STUDY SESSION ITEMS;
2. Wastewater Construction of Service Rate Study Update — Bruce Rawls, Spokane County/ Sean
Senescall, FCS Group
Mr. Rawls explained that they are here tonight in follow -up to the May 5 discussion; and he introduced
Sean Senescall, Senior Analyst who did the majority of the analysis on the rate study; mentioned that
Kevin Cooke is here to answer questions as well as Dave Stark who is with the County Auditor's office
and who works on sewer funds to make sure they stay in compliance with all the audit requirements.
Prior to going through the PowerPoint, Mr. Rawls explained the information in the accompanying "white
paper" which addresses the nine questions from the May 5 meetings, and added that the rates mentioned
in that document are from about three weeks ago but interest rates have since risen substantially. Mr.
Rawls explained the options which include (a) discharge to the River; (b) the aquifer re- charges about two
to three million gallons a day, and on the treatment plant site this would be a pilot project as it cannot get
bigger without acquiring more land, and he said they are pursuing that and anticipate submitting a draft
report to the Department of Ecology toward the end of this month, adding that plan "b" would give us
about five years, (c) industrial re -use: he said they are writing a feasibility report which should be ready
about the end of June to go to Inland Empire for review; that this is a three to four million gallons a day
solution, it could be constructed within the $12 million allowance, and might get us out about one year;
(d) is the Saltese Project, which is an additional $30 million over the base alternatives; he said the
consultant is still working on the feasibility study and he hopes to have a draft report about August; that
this would be for eight million gallons a day, possibly twelve, and said this is with the 20 -30 year range.
Mr. Rawls said of the alternatives other than the River, that the Saltese is the plan most likely to get a
permit, and is probably the safest as a fallback, but is the most expensive.
Mr. Senescall explained the information in the PowerPoint; that additional scenarios were created for
consideration, three without Saltese Flats and two with; he discussed the key changes in evaluating the
difference in a twenty year versus a twenty -five year debt; and he explained that the debt service would
likely start in 2010 and not 2009 which will aid in the cash flow; and he explained each scenario in a little
more detail, as shown on the slides, including what each scenario would do to the current rates. Mayor
Munson asked if we would be ready to go to the Saltese alternative and build in time to avoid a building
moratorium. Mr. Rawls explained that the goal is always to try to protect the environment yet keep the
rate as low as possible; and they won't know the TMDL (total maximum daily load) until October of this
year; and he explained that it will likely be dramatically different from what we have seen in the past; that
the whole concept for how this is developing will be better then the last version, but we won't know about
Saltese until October; and said if we don't need it, it wouldn't be implemented right away; he mentioned
they are still interested in getting land and right -of -way; and under the next scenario, the EPA
(Environmental Protection Agency) will likely approve the TMDL next March, and then we would wait
to see if it gets litigated or appealed; then a decision would be made on a need for the Saltese, and if that
occurs, Mr. Rawls said he won't be sure if it will get done in time. Mr. Rawls added that we likely could
have the plant operational by the end of the summer of 2012 if there are no SEPA or other problems; but
said he is not confident we'd be ready the day the treatment plant was done. Mr. Rawls stated that
concerning the Inland Paper option, a feasibility study is being written that will go to the Department of
Health and to the DOE for approval; and if we get it to them in July; it would take substantially less time
to permit and build as that doesn't have some of same issues as wetlands; adding that the Inland Empire
Paper company would fall within scenarios 1, 3, and 7.
Councilmember Wilhite said that using the Saltese means we will have a GMA impact, and therefore,
some consideration will have to be made for land negotiations. Mr. Rawls responded that the indications
he gets from the County Building and Planning Department, is that the County would be hard pressed to
justify any land into the UGA boundary, so that likely isn't feasible or attainable. Mr. Rawls explained
that ramping in the GFC (general facility charge) is for new development only; that they have already
locked in everyone in the STEP (septic tank elimination program) program; and they have financial
Council Meeting Minutes: 6 -02 -09 Page 3 of 6
Approved by Council: 06 -09 -09
assistance for low income for varying levels of assistance depending on income; and he said that low
income senior citizens monthly charge is generally 20% less.
Discussion turned to determining the most cost effective method: considering the entire indebtedness or
the cost to finance over time; and Mr. Rawls said the most cost effective method is the twenty years
straight -line payments without deferred principal; as noted on the white paper under #8. Mr. Rawls said
the twenty -year debt with interest only the first five years, for a bond issued in 2009 of $126,761,116, the
total debt service would be $216,113,610; which is the least amount of the four options listed under that
item #8; and he said the bond issue does not cover Saltese. Mr. Rawls mentioned that the Board seemed
to like the interest only option; but there was no Board consensus as one County Commissioner liked the
20 -year; and another liked the 25 -year option. Mr. Rawls said they will schedule a public hearing; and
will draft a resolution to try to determine how to present this at a hearing as there are a number of
variables; adding that he would prefer to have one hearing without having to come up with new criteria,
and said he hopes to have a resolution next Tuesday so the Board can set a hearing for June 23, which
could be deferred to mid -July if needed. Mr. Rawls also mentioned and invited everyone to the
groundbreaking for 12:30 Thursday at the stockyards.
Councilmember Taylor said the $2.00 rate difference is nominal, and he would prefer to pay less in
interest and remove the debt earlier, so would lean toward the five years interest only with the twenty -
year period. Council concurred with Mr. Taylor's recommendation, adding that the goal is to have
monthly rates as low as possible. Mr. Rawls also mentioned that they are not currently funding for full
replacement; and at the end of twenty years, there would be no funds to replace the building. Mr. Rawls
said he would welcome any additional thoughts and preferences, and that he will pass on these comments
to the Board of County Commissioners. Regarding the status of the overall commitment for construction
and operation, Mr. Rawls said they signed a contract for the design, construction and operation for twenty
years, that it has termination clauses, but they are fully committed until they decide to terminate; and he
feels this project is a "go" but said he realizes anything could happen. Council thanked Mr. Rawls and
Mr. Senescall for their presentation.
In a point of order, it was moved by Councilmember Taylor, seconded and unanimously agreed to excuse
Councilmember Dempsey from this evening's meeting. Mayor Munson called for a recess at 7:27 p.m.
and reconvened the meeting at 7:40 p.m.
3. Proposed 2010 — 2015 Transportation Improvement Plan — Steve Worley
Senior Engineer Worley explained that as we do annually, this is the first draft of the six -year Draft
Transportation Improvement Program for years 2010 through 2015; and the public hearing is scheduled
for next week; he mentioned the list of projects by year, said that there are not a lot of added projects;
mentioned the two added "pavement management program" projects, one for local access and one for
arterials at two million each, and said these projects are related to the Street Master Plan, and although we
have not yet identified a funding source, he felt it important to add these as a placeholder as staff
continues to seek funding, as that also allows us to anticipate going after some federal grant money for
preservation projects within that program; adding that more projects could be added latter. There was
brief discussion on some of the projects descriptions, with mention by Mayor Munson that project
description #5 had not yet been approved by Council. Public Works Director Kersten said that project
presentation is scheduled for the next study session and that project can always be further discussed to
determine whether to keep it in the TIP. Mr. Worley said the Sullivan Road to Wellesley was a project
carried over when we incorporated, with the idea of moving from five to seven lanes, but staff is re-
evaluating that project to see if seven lanes are really needed. Mr. Worley also stated that we may not
have all the funding currently available for all the projects currently listed in the TIP. Mayor Munson
said he would prefer to see the study on the Broadway stripping before it goes to public hearing; and Mr.
Council Meeting Minutes: 6 -02 -09 Page 4 of 6
Approved by Council: 06 -09 -09
Mercier said that including a particular project in the TIP reserves the opportunity to secure those grants if
Council were to choose to move forward; and that for this particular project, we can set it for a subsequent
separate public hearing when the data is gathered.
4. Mixed Use North of Rutter Avenue Comp Plan Amendment — Greg McCormick
Planning Manager McCormick explained that this comes to council as a result of concerns expressed by a
representative from WSDOT regarding allowing additional residential density in Zone 6; and one of the
alternatives presented by WSDOT was for the City to change the zoning from residential to mixed use in
Zone 6 north of Rutter Avenue. Mr. McCormick displayed a map showing the area in question, which is
bounded on the south by Rutter, on the east by Vista, on the north by the River, and winds down along the
park; he said the area is predominately R3 zoning with a little patch of R4 south of Euclid; that typically
mixed use is in areas such as CenterPlace, Mirabeau Parkway, and in areas with good access by arterials;
he said the comprehensive plan indicates that housing is most typically a part of mixed use and the issue
in that area is one of housing; and he said staff seeks direction on whether to provide additional
information and/or place this on next year's docket for comp plan amendment consideration. After brief
Council discussion it was determined that Council concurred with staffs recommendation to not pursue
this further, as it seems highly unlikely that a mixed use designation that has a high density residential
component would be acceptable in this area.
5. Court Services — Morgan Koudelka/ Dave Mercier
Mr. Mercier reported that Council previously voted to give notice of termination to Spokane District
Court, and that such notice was issued to comply with a statutory timetable, but with the understanding it
could be rescinded on or before December 1, 2009 following an alternatives analysis; he mentioned staff
became aware that a variety of similar court services analysis had been conducted in Washington since
the 1990's and that Anne Pflug was the principal author of most of those studies; that staff became aware
that Washington's Department of Community Trade and Economic Development (CTED) has a research
component to which Ms. Pflug is affiliated and available to provide significant expertise to the task at
hand in our city; that staff engaged in the process of developing a scope of services to address the
elements of an alternatives analysis and have worked with Ms. Pflug to identify a "not -to- exceed" cost of
$49,800 for her collaborating. Mr. Mercier also mentioned that the current annual cost of court related
services are $1,534.000; so the not -to- exceed cost of CTED services equates to 3.25% of our current
annual court costs, and .54% of the cost of services over the next six years. After brief council discussion
on other reports of Ms. Pflug, there was no council objection to staff proceeding in an early arrangement
with CTED.
6. Advance Agenda — Mayor Munson
Mr. Mercier mentioned that the snow removal contract has been added as a retreat agenda item; and
Mayor Munson said that the Wastewater Treatment Plant Interlocal was also added, with comment from
Mr. Mercier that staff received an update at the close of business today. Councilmember Gothmann asked
if the public works county contact could be made available to the public, and Mr. Mercier said staff can
upload it to our website, which could include a letter from Mike Jackson as well as Neil Kersten's update
on the activity underway. Deputy Mayor Denenny mentioned the upcoming retreat and since this will be
the last time it will be held at Spirit Lake, he encouraged staff and their families to come up after the
meeting. Councilmember Gothmann mentioned he would like to have an opportunity to have the new
health officer introduced to Council.
Mr. Mercier said work is underway on the panhandling ordinance, and mentioned the presentation given
by Councilmember Gothmann at the noon Chamber meeting; and said staff was alerted that one of the
local justice organizations had intended to challenge Spokane's ordinance constitutionally on a variety of
elements, but has since determined they will not pursue that, but the ACLU is considering the topic.
Mayor Munson said he would like to see this progress soon; and there was brief discussion concerning
Council Meeting Minutes: 6 -02 -09 Page 5 of 6
Approved by Council: 06 -09 -09
collecting evidence that such an ordinance is necessary to address problems such as traffic hazards.
Concerning the educational element of this issue, Mayor Munson said the Panhandling Task Force
suggested this be handled by an outside agency and not run by the City, and that Ian Robertson had asked
to chair such a committee; suggesting that perhaps we could have a resolution which supports the
establishment of an outside agency to educate the citizens on the issues concerning panhandling, and
accept Ian Robertson's offer to chair the regional committee. Councilmember Gothmann mentioned that
Steve Corker has also volunteered his services, and Mr. Mercier said a request for volunteers has also
been made to the Chamber.
Mayor Munson mentioned the upcoming June 15 transportation commission hearing at CenterPlace;
and said prior to that, a meeting will be held in Spokane Valley which some members of Council and staff
will attend, to examine the I -90 to State Route 195; the Trent Road and Bridging the valley projects,
Pines, Barker, Centennial Trail; and drive some of Sprague Avenue through Spokane Valley.
Councilmember Wilhite mentioned the bus tour is the 15 with the meeting set for the 16
7. Information Only:
The Energy Efficiency Conservation Block Grant was for information only and was not reported or
discussed.
8. Council External Committee Reports — Councilmembers
Deputy Mayor Denenny mentioned that the Agora Awards were distributed this morning, and that
although Spokane Transit didn't win, it was one of the three finalists in the non - profit group.
9. Council Check -in — Mayor Munson: none.
10. City Manager Comments — Dave Mercier: none.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:26 p.m.
/
Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk
Richard Munso , ayor
Council Meeting Minutes: 6 -02 -09 Page 6 of 6
Approved by Council: 06 -09 -09
Billing Disagreement between the City of Spokane Valley and
Spokane County
Many of you have heard a lot of rhetoric in the past several days
concerning the claim by the City of Spokane Valley that Spokane County
has over billed the city for Law Enforcement Services. The City has
chosen not to engage in rhetoric. We will provide you with what we
believe are the pertinent facts of the situation and let you decide if we
have chosen the best path.
We believe that Commissioner Mielke is frustrated by a process that
has taken too long to resolve our differences. We share his frustration.
However we also firmly believe that a protocol adopted by both parties to
resolve differences like these must be allowed to run its course. The
process requires deliberative fact finding that will insure all parties are
heard and an outcome is reached that is fair and equitable. It is
important to note that in our form of Council/ Manager government the
City Council has authorized the City Staff to negotiate contracts and
contract disputes and reserves to Council the discretion to approve or
deny negotiation outcomes.
In early 2007, during the normal settle and adjust period for the 2006
contract period, our staff notified the County that we believed the County
had overcharged the City of Spokane Valley for law enforcement services.
The County disagreed. Please note that I stated the County, . not the
Sherriff disagreed. Invoices for these services were prepared following
billing procedures set up by the County. After more than a year of
analysis by both sides, it became apparent neither side would be
convinced of the others' position. Our City Manager then formally asked
for the dispute to go to mediation as the contract provides. He further
stated that we would maintain payment at 2007 rates for these services
until resolution was attained. The City has placed the disputed amount
in our general fund so in case the mediation outcome finds we are wrong
and the Council agrees, we could pay the owed amount promptly. The
mediation process requires both parties put together a case of facts. The
City hired a firm of forensic accountants to make sure we had analyzed
the facts correctly. We gave the County the analytical report on
December 2, 2008. That report stated that the County had over charged
the City $609,000 for the year 2006. The County then asked the
Washington State Auditor's Office for a review of their billing procedures.
It has been six months since they have asked for this review. As of June
2, 2009, the State Auditor's Office had not released their findings.
With this in mind, Commissioner Mielke has insisted the City Council
of Spokane Valley enter into negotiations to resolve this situation. The
City Council will honor the separation of responsibilities assigned to staff
and await their analysis and findings. Why would we begin to talk about
a resolution without this critical analysis of the State Auditor's Office
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
RESOLUTION NO. 09-007
A RESOLUTION TEMPORARILY DIRECTING THE PUBLIC NOT TO
INTENTIONALLY ENTER, SWIM, DIVE OR FLOAT, WITH OR
WITHOUT A BOAT, RAFT, CRAFT OR OTHER FLOTATION
DEVICE, IN OR UPON THE WATER OF THE SPOKANE RIVER
FROM THE EASTERN BOUNDARY OF THE CITY TO BARKER
BRIDGE IN THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY AND OTHER
MATTERS RELATED THERETO.
WHEREAS, the City may take appropriate action to protect the public health, safety and
welfare of its citizens pursuant to the Washington State Constitution, Article XI Section 11, and
RCW 35A.11.020; and
WHEREAS, the Spokane River is currently running at high volume; and
WHEREAS, Barker Bridge is currently under construction, resulting in debris from the river
washing into and accumulating in the temporary bridge structure that could pose.a risk of injury for those
in the river; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has received a request from Spokane County Sheriff Ozzie
Knezovich to restrict access to the Spokane River due to danger posed by the combination of the elevated
water levels in the Spokane River and the river debris accumulating around the temporary Barker Bridge.
These conditions pose a danger to any person entering the River, including rescue personnel; and
WHEREAS, on June 2, 2009, Spokane County adopted a Resolution containing substantially
identical restrictions and authorizations as those contained in this Resolution. A copy of Resolution 09-
0510 adopted by Spokane County on June 2, 2009 is attached to this Resolution.
NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley,
Spokane County, Washington, that the following temporary restrictions shall be in full force and
effect:
Section 1. Restrictions on Access to Spokane River.
a. The public shall not intentionally enter, swim, dive or float, with or without a boat,
raft, craft, or other floating device, in or upon the water of the Spokane River from the eastern
boundary of the City to Barker Bridge.
b. The Spokane Valley Police Department is directed to take appropriate action to
enforce this Order for the public health safety and welfare.
1
c. The City of Spokane Valley Police Department will coordinate its actions in enforcing
this Order with the 'Spokane County Sheriff and other law enforcement agencies and jurisdictions
within Spokane County wherein the Spokane River flows.
Section 2. Duration of Restrictions on Access to Spokane River. This Resolution shall
be effective upon adoption, and shall continue in effect until the Spokane County Sheriff
determines and provides the City with written confirmation that the conditions giving rise this
Resolution have abated. At such time as the Spokane County Sheriff provides that written
confirmation, the authority and restrictions provided in this Resolution shall terminate.
ATTEST:
Adopted this 2 day of June, 2009.
City Clerk, Christine Bainbridge
Approved as to Form:
Office of the City Attorney
2
City of Spo°. V ley
if
Mayor Richard Munso
'1
NO. q--05/0
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
IN THE MATTER OF AN
EMERGENCY ORDER DIRECTING
THE PUBLIC NOT TO
INTENTIONALLY ENTER, SWIM,
DIVE OR FLOAT, WITH OR
WITHOUT A BOAT, RAFT, CRAFT
OR OTHER FLOTATION DEVICE, IN
OR UPON THE WATER OF THE
SPOKANE RIVER WITHIN THE
UNINCORPORATED AREA OF
SPOKANE COUNTY LOCATED
BETWEEN THE BARKER ROAD
BRIDGE AND THE HARVARD ROAD
BRIDGE AND OTHER MATTERS
RELATED THERETO
RESOLUTION
The above entitled matter having come before the Board of County Commissioners of
Spokane County (hereinafter sometimes referred to as the "Board ") for consideration at its
June 2, 2009 2:00 p.rn. Consent Agenda at the request of Spokane County Sheriff Ozzie
Knezovich and the Board of County Commissioners after being briefed on the above matter
by Spokane County Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich approved the following:
1. ORDERS the public not to intentionally enter, swim, dive or float, with or
without a boat, raft, craft, or other floating device, in or upon the water of the
Spokane River as it flows within the unincorporated area of Spokane County
between the Barker Road Bridge and the Harvard Road Bridge.
2. DIRECTS the Spokane County Sheriff to take appropriate action to enforce
this Order for the public health, safety and welfare.
3. REQUESTS the City of Spokane Valley and City of Liberty Lake take
appropriate actions, consistent with this resolution, and enter similar ORDERS
for that portion of the Spokane River as it flows within their corporate
boundaries between the Barker Road Bridge and the Harvard Road Bridge.
This ORDER shall be in effect until further notice by the Board of County Commissioners
based upon a recommendation of the Spokane County Sheriff.
1. The Spokane River between the Harvard Road Bridge and the Barker Road
Bridge is extremely dangerous because of fast - moving water and debris
accumulating at the Barker Road Bridge construction site.
2. On Sunday, May 31, 2009, a woman was rescued by the Spokane Valley Fire
Department firefighters after becoming wedged in the debris at the Barker
Road Bridge construction site on the Spokane River while attempting to float
under the bridge in her raft which necessitated recue efforts by the Spokane
Valley Fire Department.
3. Although there are some signs warning boaters to take out well before the
Barker Road Bridge construction site on the Spokane River, some of the signs
are confusing and it is difficult to leave the river due to fast - moving water at
this time of the year.
4. This Order is being enacted pursuant to RCW 36.32.120(6) and RCW
36.32.120(7) as well as to protect the public health, safety and welfare of the
citizens of Spokane County as well as law enforcement/fire department
officials who may be involved in rescue efforts on the Spokane River between
the Barker Road Bridge and Harvard Road Bridge in the unincorporated area
of Spokane County. This Order shall not be effective on any portion of the
Spokane River between Barker Road Bridge and Harvard Road Bridge located
within the City of Spokane Valley.
5. Both the Spokane County Sheriff and the Spokane Valley Fire Department
recommend the enactment/passage of this resolution.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this lid day of J U r) e , 2009.
ATTEST:
In taking the above action, the Board of County Commissioners enters the following
findings:
Daniela Erickson
Clerk of the Board
Page 2 of 2
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
TOD
, Vice Chair
-vim 104 Z _ _ _ __ _ ,.
ONNIE MAGER, Commissioner