Loading...
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