2009, 03-03 Study Session MinutesMarch 3, 2009
Attendance:
Councilmembers
Rich Munson, Mayor
Dick Denenny, Deputy Mayor
Rose Dempsey, Councilmember
Bill Gothmann, Councilmember
Gary Schimmels, Councilmember
Steve Taylor, Councilmember
Diana Wilhite, Councilmember
Mayor Munson opened the meeting at 6:00 p.m.
MINUTES
STUDY SESSION MEETING
SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL
Spokane Valley City Hall
Spokane Valley, Washington
Staff
6:00 p.m.
Dave Mercier, City Manager
Mike Jackson, Deputy City Manager
Mike Connelly, City Attorney
Scott Kuhta, Senior Planner
Rick VanLeuven, Police Chief
Mike Stone, Parks & Recreation Director
Neil Kersten, Public Works Director
Greg McCormick, Planning Manager
Karen Kendall, Associate Planner
Greg Bingaman, IT Specialist
Chris Bainbridge City Clerk
At the request of several citizens, Mayor Munson moved the Airport Overlay agenda item to #1, to be
followed by Discussion /Deliberation on the SARP, with the remaining agenda items taken in the order as
shown on the amended agenda.
2. Airport Overlay — Karen Kendall
Assistant Planner Kendall gave an overview of the history of the proposed amendment for the airport
overlay hazard as per her PowerPoint presentation; explaining that this would be an amendment to
Section 19 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code, and said that most of the area in question is Zone 6.
Ms. Kendall explained the options formulated by staff as alternatives to change density limitation of one
dwelling unit per two and one -half acres within Zone 6 of the Airport Hazard Overlay:
Option #1: No change to current density limitation in table 19- 110 -01
Option #2: Allow density of current zoning within Zone 6 of the Airport Hazard Overlay
Option #3: Allow density to be limited to the R -2 zoning regulations within Zone 6
Option #4: Ms. Kendall said that this option is staff's recommendation. To allow density of the
underlying zone within Zone 6, however, development must comply with a minimum of one of the
following exceptions (a) the site had water and sewer stubs installed for future development prior to the
adoption of the City's initial airport hazard overlay regulations on 2 -28 -06 by Ordinance 06 -002; or (b)
consistent with adjacent (not across public rights -of -way) property sizes for proposed development; and
(c) more than one residence is located on a property, excluding any residence used at one time for a
dependent relative, may develop property consistent with underlying zone to make conforming.
Option #5: Divide Zone 6 into north and south with Trent Avenue (SR -290) as a divider. Ms.
Kendall explained that the Planning Commission proposed this option at their October 9, 2008 study
session, and said if council were to consider this, it would need further refinement to determine which
amount of density to allow in each north and south section; adding that this option has not been explored
further.
Council and staff discussed the various options, including the criteria under those various options.
Councilmember Dempsey again voiced her concern with the statement in the December 10, 2008 letter
Council Meeting Minutes: 03 -03 -09 Page 1 of 8
Approved by Council: 03 -24 -09
from the Washington State Department of Transportation Aviation Division, that options two through five
are in direct contradiction with the requirements of GMA and she asked what will be accomplished by
allowing denser housing. Attorney Connelly mentioned that one of the rationales we were examining was
adjacent jurisdictions and what they are doing, and he said that neither Millwood, City of Spokane or
Spokane County have restrictions close to the amended restrictions here and this is still more restrictive
then those of any adjacent jurisdictions.
Councilmember Taylor said that he would be agreeable with option #4, which assures notification
involved in the transfer of properties so people would know they would be in proximity for noise from a
nearby airport. Mayor Munson stated his preference for option #2. Councilmember Gothmann indicated
his preference for option #1 and mentioned the importance of preserving infrastructure.
Councilmember Taylor added that he notices "stock comments" from state agencies regarding this type of
issue as entities treat Felts Field with the same importance as Spokane International Airport, which
doesn't fit the needs and history of our community; and said the WSDOT letter seems to be more
discussion regarding general planning policies criticisms; but he said we have to come up with
compromises to meet as much intent of the goals as we possibly can; that we can't treat one goal as
mutually exclusive from all else; that when Council heard from neighborhoods, they heard they don't
want increasing development, but in this case, they want to divide, and for those reasons Councilmember
Taylor reiterated his feeling that option #4 provides the proper balance. Deputy Mayor Denenny said if
the question is about encroachment and higher densities, option #5 might do that, but he said he does not
feel there is a real safety factor; but the biggest concern is encroachment on noise and pressure on future
councils as higher development occurs. Councilmember Schimmels voiced his support for option #4
provided the population of the planes at the airport isn't increased. Councilmember Wilhite brought up
the expense that many have incurred in putting in water and /or sewer lines, and said option #4 gives
people the ability to develop the property if they want, and she feels it is a good compromise.
Councilmember Dempsey countered that since the Washington Pilot Association letter is concerned that
by making changes it would increase the risk of future noise and liability issues, that she prefers option
#1. Councilmember Gothmann said the Aviation Division document concerning airport land
compatibility analysis was previously presented to the Planning Commission, but the document is missing
from tonight's council packet. Attorney Connelly said that document should therefore be part of the
record and should be considered before a change is finalized. Final discussions ended with Mayor
Munson, Deputy Mayor Denenny and Councilmembers Wilhite, Taylor and Schimmels in favor of option
#4, and Councilmembers Gothmann and Dempsey favoring option #1. City Manager Mercier said that
staff will get that report in Council's mailboxes this week, and Council concurred to move forward for a
first reading with option #4.
Mayor Munson called for a recess at 7:34 p.m., and he reconvened the meeting at 7:44 p.m.
1. Sprague - Appleway Revitalization Plan — Scott Kuhta
Senior Planner Kuhta explained that the hope is to finish tonight and then prepare for the April final
public hearing. Mayor Munson added that there will be an opportunity after these discussions for staff to
compile the findings with changes to the original draft; then publish that to give citizens the opportunity
to review the plan and comment at the April public hearing. Mr. Kuhta mentioned that he has more
information on the street network system, and said he would like to get council's ideas on the public
hearing format; and said that the decision was made to put a place holder on any proposed changes to the
street network and the streetscape until some time after the Plan is completed, and said staff can work
with the business and property owners in that area.
Mr. Kuhta explained that there are three proposed changes to the street network that will be part of the
public hearing draft: Stage #1 stays the same: to convert Sprague and Appleway from Argonne /Mullan
Council Meeting Minutes: 03 -03 -09 Page 2 of 8
Approved by Council: 03 -24 -09
and University to two -way; and said he was reminded by Mr. Worley of the transportation analysis done
last year to accommodate traffic over the next twenty years; that the Consultants came up with some
conceptual intersection designs, and Mr. Kuhta showed the conceptual designs depicting the
Dishman/Mica and Appleway showing how Appleway would intersect with Dishman/Mica and Mullan
Roads, and said there is room in the cross - section within the right -of -way to keep two lanes going east-
bound on Appleway; so even though there is sufficient capacity to do a three -lane section, we could do a
four -lane section: two lanes eastbound, one west -bound with a center turn lane; and he said this would
include the bike lanes; that we don't know exactly how much right -of -way will be needed and won't
know that until we have the specific design.
Mr. Kuhta also showed the conceptual intersection design at Appleway and University; where there
would be two lanes coming in east - bound; there would be a right -hand turn and a left -hand turn onto
University; with one lane going through; and he explained that section would be where Appleway does
not exist today; and said there would be one lane in each direction for the travel lanes, then once you hit
the intersections, the turn lanes would be there; and said this is all part of Stage 2 where we are extending
Appleway from University to Evergreen as a three -lane section; and reduce the lanes on Sprague from
seven to five lanes. Mr. Kuhta mentioned that the reason for the section of three -lanes is to accommodate
the need for extra right of way along Appleway, and that in the next twenty years, the existing system and
number of lanes will have ample capacity to handle the traffic; and said if we receive any federal funding
for the extension of Appleway, staff believes we would need this as part of the plan to get development on
those properties, and to do that, we would need to show reduction on the lanes in Sprague, as we won't
get more funds for increased capacity where there is sufficient capacity. Reducing Sprague from seven to
five lanes, Mr. Kuhta explained, accomplishes the goal of getting the traffic moved sufficiently while
having wider sidewalks giving safer areas and easier pedestrian crossing while still allowing traffic to
flow. Mayor Munson said that Mr. Kuhta mentioned last week, that the concept of transportation in this
Plan is the concept of a place holder, until we know when the development will take place; and said that
these drawings are conceptual ideas of what it could be; and Mr. Kuhta said that these are part of Book 3
City actions and are the actions that we intend to take as resources become available; this is not dependent
upon development, but if we get funds from grants or federal government or other sources, then we will
implement these transportation improvements to help stimulate development and to assist with the
revitalization of the corridor. Mr. Kuhta said that stage 3 extends this network east of Evergreen three
lanes on Appleway and five lanes on Sprague; and that these are the three stages to include in the Plan for
the public hearing; and said he would like to include the intersection drawings in the white notebook,
which represent the hybrid option Council has decided to put in the draft plan. Council concurred.
Mayor Munson asked councilmembers if they have comments on any of the Books.
Councilmember Gothmann said there have been some citizens concerned about the one year dark rule;
that is if a building is dark for one year; and the question arose, what happens if a building had a unique
use; and he asked if that would that seriously disadvantage someone, like warehouses or restaurants. In
speaking previously with the Community Development Director, Councilmember Gothmann said he
received a list of approximately ten former restaurants which have converted to a different use; and he
said there are three possible directions: to do what we have done already; or to recognize these serious
economic times and that it could take longer to lease one of those buildings then it did five or so years
ago; and that perhaps for a period of time, extend that "dark period" for an additional year; or to give the
Community Development Director authority to say, if there is a unique use, she would have the authority
to extend that for one more year; or to just leave it alone. In response to Councilmember Wilhite's
question, Councilmember Gothmann confirmed that he is referring to a building that will be
grandfathered in, where it becomes vacant, to allow it longer than twelve months to keep that status; and
he mentioned that in his conversations with Community Development Director McClung about extending
from one to two years permanently, she told him that most cities use the one year as a standard. Attorney
Connelly added that the nonconforming rules Councilmember Gothmann was referring to, apply to the
Council Meeting Minutes: 03 -03 -09 Page 3 of 8
Approved by Council: 03 -24 -09
entire City. Mr. Mercier mentioned that the matter of nonconforming use is a "dicey" issue; and the
experience of jurisdictions nation -wide have led to the development of the convention of the one -year
period; even when jurisdictions go through economic cycles, this is not an area of local regulations that
has, to his recollection, ever been relaxed; and that the notion of "nonconforming uses" is that they do get
extinguished over time; so he offered caution in changing that beyond the national norm. Mayor Munson
asked about having those individuals who have this concern, explain their position in writing, but Mr.
Mercier voiced his concern that would run afoul of the record; that to date we have not asked for any
other written material to be submitted since the public hearing; but that citizens would have an
opportunity to introduce that at the April public hearing; and since the nonconforming standard applies
throughout the community, it has more over - arching implications then just for this subarea plan, and he
suggested if Council wants to discuss this, that Council consider it as a stand -alone legislative topic
separate from the SARP. Council concurred.
Mr. Kuhta said that once all deliberations are completed, staff will take several weeks to prepare the final
draft, that a public hearing notice will be issued letting citizens know the Plan will be available for review
and comment; and that written comment will be accepted to a date set by Council, typically at the hearing
or a week after the hearing; then Council can decide whether to have another session to deliberate further
on the testimony received; or move forward with adopting the Plan. It was Council consensus to allow
testimony on any part of the Plan. Mr. Kuhta said the hearing is currently set for April 14, and that
notices will be sent to property and business owners, thirty days prior to the hearing; and that the final
draft should be ready in a couple more weeks, and will be available on the City's website, and on CDs;
with hard copies in the office and in the area libraries, adding that having the Plan on CDs will be far less
expensive then printing out numerous hard copies. Councilmember Dempsey voiced her preference for
having a hard copy. After discussion of the timeline proposed, it was determined that if staff is not ready
with a revised draft thirty days prior to the April 14 public hearing date, that the public hearing date will
shift to April 28; keeping in mind the public hearing date can be continued if needed. Mr. Kuhta said
staff would recommend that after the hearing, to set a deadline to receive written comment of 5:00 p.m.
the following Friday, then all written comments, along with the oral comments, would be deliberated
upon, with several weeks of time between receiving comments and further discussing the Plan, until
finally considering an ordinance to adopt the plan.
Councilmember Dempsey mentioned that she would like to further discuss Ruby Street Motors; that she
feels she made a mistake; and she would like further discussion on this, as Ruby Street Motors wants to
be part of the Gateway, and four Councilmembers said no to that request as that company is located on
the other side of the railroad bridge; but she said the more she considers this, they are part of the entrance
into the Gateway Area and she would like to put them back in. In discussing whether to further discuss
this issue now or as part of the public input at the hearing, Mr. Mercier said Council can discuss it at
either time; and Attorney Connelly said he recommends any changes Council wants to change, that now
is the time so that the document we publish will be as close to the final document as possible.
Councilmember Taylor said council already spent considerable time discussing that, that Council came to
a consensus, there was disagreement but was still a consensus. Councilmember Dempsey said the vote
was four to three with her voting as part of the four; and Councilmember Taylor said he feels procedurally
Council should wait until council hears all public comments; then make determination for any changes.
To clarify, Mayor Munson said the question before Council is whether to extend the Gateway to the
cross - street to Argonne or use the railroad bridge as the demarcation line; that the previous Council
consensus was four Councilmembers wanting to leave the plan as is with the railroad line as the
demarcation, and three councilmembers voting to extend it to Argonne.
Discussion turned to procedural issues, with Councilmember Taylor asking what the broaching of this
subject is a result of, and asked if this is a result of any ex -parte communication. Councilmember
Dempsey said it is absolutely not, and stated that no one even knew she was going to bring this up
Council Meeting Minutes: 03 -03 -09 Page 4 of 8
Approved by Council: 03 -24 -09
tonight. Mayor Munson asked if there was any citizen resistant for Council to reconsider; and Mr. Kuhta
said he recalled that the property owners carne to the public hearing and asked that it be included. Deputy
Mayor Denenny said that at the time this was discussed, there was no testimony at that time, and now that
this is on the table, he would like to have those public testimonies back as there are several issues which
will have to be debated after public testimony is received; and rather than open this up, the discussion has
already taken place, and if Council wants to change it later, after the public testimony, Council has that
option. Mayor Munson said since only two councilmembers do not want to discuss this now, that the
item will be discussed, and he stated that he has received a number of phone calls and e-mails requesting
an audience with the people at Ruby Motors, and he told them that he could not do that as the public
testimony period was closed. Councilmember Dempsey said she received a phone message to ask her to
call him to arrange a meeting, but she did not do that. Councilmember Dempsey said she has considered
this issue since the decision was made, that at the time the railroad bridge seems a logical entrance; but
there are two businesses there; one on the north and one on the south side of Sprague; which are
obviously part of the auto industry, and they should be included as the railroad bridge shouldn't have
anything to do with it as those businesses are part of the entrance into the gateway area; and only seems
like the right thing to do to let them be part of it. Mayor Munson said that he recalls one of the arguments
for not doing this, was that the property on the north side of Sprague did not have an entrance capability
onto Sprague, but did have one on Argonne; but he felt then as now, that is not a good argument not to
include them in the Gateway. Councilmember Wilhite said neither one has access on Sprague; that she
was on the losing side of that argument as she voted to allow them in; but the argument brought up was
that neither has access onto Sprague, they both access onto Argonne. Councilmember Gothrmann said he
is comfortable leaving the railroad bridge as the area of demarcation; that the Ruby Street Motors is one
of the many businesses that have occupied that section; and the question to keep in mind is, what do we
want the City to look like 20 years from now; and not whether Ruby Motors instead of what was there
previously, an appliance store, or some other business, but what should it look like in the future, and the
obvious demarcation line is the railroad; but on the north side, it seems the railroad becomes an excellent
demarcation line and if we are going to have an auto row; that should have access to Sprague or
Appleway and that business doesn't satisfy that. Councilmember Taylor said that the existing auto uses
there become nonconforming and they would be grandfathered, so Ruby Street Motors would not be told
to move or shut down, and they could continue their use. To clarify, Councilmember Schirnrnels said he
wasn't in attendance the night Council made the initial determination; but tonight would agree with
Councilmember Dempsey to include it. Mr. Kuhta said the use on the north side of Sprague is a use that
is permitted in the mixed -use avenue zone district, so that would not be nonconforming; but auto sales are
not permitted so it would be nonconforming. Deputy Mayor Denenny said there is no access and therefore
he feels it does not fit. It was decided that Councilmembers Schimmels, Wilhite, Dempsey, and Mayor
Munson agreed to make the change of making Argonne Road the demarcation line; and Deputy Mayor
Denenny and Councilmembers Gothmann and Taylor preferring to keep the demarcation line as was
originally decided with the railroad bridge.
3. Valley Mission Park Project — Mike Stone
Parks and Recreation Director Stone explained that during the fall of 2008, Tim Gavin was retained to
develop bid ready construction drawings and specifications for the Valley Mission Park improvements,
including new play equipment, and a new picnic shelter to hold about 200 people at once, additional
security lighting, new walkways and landscaping; that the construction package has been prepared with a
bid opening scheduled for March 13; and it appears the economy is working in our favor as there are
many contractors examining this; he said the budget for construction is approximately $220,000; and the
hope is to begin construction in April so the improvements will be completed by June. Mr. Stone said
they have not taken any reservations at Valley Mission for over a year, but started last January taking
those for events beginning in June. There we council consensus to proceed with the March 24 motion
consideration.
Council Meeting Minutes: 03 -03 -09 Page 5 of 8
Approved by Council: 03 -24 -09
4. Indiana Avenue Extension Project, TIB Grant — Steve Worley
Public Works Director Kersten, speaking for Mr. Worley, said that approval of the latest TIP included the
Indiana Extension Project; that we were successful in receiving a TIB grant for the project; the City
applied for project grant funds last August and we were notified November that funding was approved for
this road extension project; the project would extend Indiana Avenue east to the Mission /Flora
intersection as a three -lane roadway including a center left turn lane, sidewalks, curbs, gutters, bike lanes,
and drainage improvements. Mr. Kersten also said that the TIB funds granted are $1.5 million; that
additional funding on this project would bring our amount to $314,900; with the two developers
contributing about $700,000; and he said he would likely bid for construction in 2010, adding that this
includes a piece of the railroad right -of -way. Attorney Connelly said we are asking the County to dedicate
or donate that portion for roadway purposes. Councilmember Gothmann remarked that the City's
contribution is not 100% as some citizens would allege; and he said we do not anticipate our taxes will
rise as a result of this project as some feel they do every time we do a highway project, as a majority of
the funding comes from the State, Federal and /or developers. There was Council consensus to move this
item forward for a motion consideration at the March 24 council meeting.
5. Septic Tank Elimination Program (STEP) 2009 Memorandum of Understanding with Spokane County
— Steve Worley
Public Works Director Kersten speaking for Engineer Worley, explained that this is done every year; that
as part of the adopted 2009 budget, funds are included for full -width street paving associated with
Spokane County's 2009 Sewer Construction Program; that the Septic Tank Elimination Program (STEP)
includes the West Ponderosa Sanitary Sewer Project, the Valleyview Sanitary Sewer Project, the
Rotchford Acres Sanitary Sewer Project, and the Clement Sanitary Sewer Project. Mr. Kersten said the
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is the standard form where we end up with improved streets; that
we don't have the County's cost yet and said he would like to confirm their bid numbers to make sure we
get all their costs, and he hopes to have this ready for motion consideration at the March 24 council
meeting; that the 2009 Street Capital Projects Funds includes $1.5 million for the STEP projects, with $1
million from the Street Capital Fund, $200,000 from the Stormwater Fund, and $300,000 in CDBG grant
funds.
6. False Alarm — Rick VanLeuven
Chief VanLeuven mentioned the February 10, 2009 discussion with council concerning false alarms and
the pros and cons of potential solutions to the current system, which he explained, is not cost efficient;
and of the outsourcing company "CryWolf' which would have no direct cost to Spokane Valley; adding
that contracting with such a company would unclog the courts. Chief VanLeuven said that staff explored
the possibility of "piggybacking" on the City of Spokane's contract, but the provisions are not there; so
staff would need to daft a proposal to send out as a Request for Proposals (RFP). Chief VanLeuven
introduced Lt. Glenn Winkey of the Spokane Police Department who shared about the successes he
experienced with this company and of how it benefitted the Spokane Police Department. Lt. Winkey
explained that they had no enforcement initially for false alarms and that the cost recovery through the
courts was inefficient, and at an approximate annual cost of $800,000 for the police to respond. He
explained that they wrote an ordinance and an RFP for a third party to administer the program; that with
this program they began enforcing an annual fee registration fee; and since the inception of their program,
there has been a 70% reduction in false alarms, which is a savings of over $560,000 annually. As shown
on the fact -sheet he distributed, Lt. Winkey explained that having this program in place also allows
officers to go where they are needed, which adds to effectiveness and cost savings; and added that their
ordinance has proven effective and stood the test of time over the last three and one -half years; adding
that this is not a false alarm revenue program, but is a false alarm cost recovery program; and the
registration fee is a way to educate the customer and to update their contact list; and said most citizens see
this as a cost of doing business. Chief VanLeuven mentioned that the annual fee is $25.00 for residents,
and $35 for commercial. City Manager Mercier said that since Spokane has a demonstrated success, we
Council Meeting Minutes: 03 -03 -09 Page 6 of 8
Approved by Council: 03 -24 -09
would look to model our ordinance closely to Spokane's, including the fee structure; and that staff could
bring this back as a proposal; adding that he would also ask for a copy of Spokane's RFP, then go to
market and based upon market, staff would craft a proposed ordinance to bring back to council in two or
three months. Council concurred that staff should proceed.
7. Advance Agenda — Mayor Munson
Regarding the June retreat date, Deputy Mayor Denenny said that he forgot about a previous engagement
and asked if Council would be amenable to hold the retreat June 20 instead of June 27. Council
concurred. Mayor Munson mentioned he has invited representatives from Senator Murray's office,
Senator Cantwell's office, and Congresswoman McMorris- Rodgers office to attend the March 24 meeting
to give a fifteen minute per person update, on what Washington, D.C. is doing for us.
8. INFORMATION ONLY: The Community Development Monthly Report and Traffic Signals were for
information only and were not reported or discussed.
9. Council External Committee Reports — Councilmembers
Councilmember Gothmann distributed copies of Substitute Senate Bill 5812, originally sponsored by
Senators Marr and Brown. Councilmember Gothmann said the present Health Board consists of nine
elected officials, and three at -large citizens; but the bill's proposal is to have nine total members: three
elected officials, three people from Spokane County Medical Society, and three from those agencies
inspected by the Health Board. Councilmember Gothmann argued that reasons to keep the Board status
quo, is that it runs smoothly, that the Board does not make medical decisions as there is a hired health
officer for that purpose; that the Board handles a budget of $24 million; and he feels it is bad policy to
turn public funds to a nonpublic agency; that doing so would not provide any accountability; and added
that this would only apply to Spokane County and none of the other 38 counties in the State.
Councilmember Gothmann also mentioned that if a board has police authority, that board should report to
elected officials; and said the Health Officer can jail people within their homes, or even shut down a city
if there is an epidemic; and again said a change would be unwise. Councilmember Gothmann said that
both Senators have been invited to the health board meetings and that Senator Marr has never attended.
Councilmember Gothmann mentioned that the Health Board has asked cities to bring this issue to their
councils; and it was then moved by Councilmember Gothmann and seconded, that this City Council goes
on record against Senate Bill 5812. Mayor Munson invited public comment; no comments were offered.
Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried.
Councilmember Wilhite mentioned that Mayor Munson had wanted some information about the stimulus
package and that after hearing Judy Olson's report, she asked if there were any questions; and
Councilmember Wilhite mentioned that they had a discussion about the importance of Bridging the
Valley and to make sure that it is carried forward; and said that letters will be sent back to Senators and
members of Congress for stimulus money if that is available. Mayor Munson said what had bothered him
was seeing a press release on a website saying you have until March 12 to submit requests for water and
weatherization projects.
Councilmember Taylor mentioned that the Regional Conventions Visitor's Bureau will hold their board
retreat next week to discuss formulation and adoption of a five -year strategic plan to promote the Spokane
region. Concerning solid waste, Councilmember Schimmels said that he has a CD with the latest result of
the audit. Mayor Munson said the 911 Board heard a good briefing on the status of the 1/10 of 1% sales
tax and the programs it would be paying for; and said there is a continuing effort to put together a request
for a proposal for the development of the emergency communication system to change the radio systems
to digital; and that he received a report today from our lobbyist who stated that the 911 bill has been
exempted from automatic cut -off, which means it will remain on the docket; and that the Transportation
Committee chair in the House told our lobbyist that the street utility authority will not leave committee
Council Meeting Minutes: 03 -03 -09 Page 7 of 8
Approved by Council: 03 -24 -09
and will be a fight for another legislative session; and that she would put her name on that bill at the next
legislative session.
City Manager Mercier mentioned House Bill 1677 and companion 5540 regarding the establishment of
one or more high capacity transportation corridor areas by transit agencies; it was introduced to deal with
the Puget Sound area principally, but it also provided for other counties to do so; that the taxing authority
provided under this measure would include the potential of an employer tax up to $2.00 per month per
employee; rental car sales tax and use tax not to exceed 2.172% and sales and use tax not to exceed 9/10`
of 1%; that Council has not indicated a position on that yet as we were waiting for word from STA and
the SRTC to take a position; and said he was asked by our lobbying firm today, which position if any
Council wishes to take on this bill. After brief discussion, it was determined that Council will remain
neutral.
10. Council Check -in — Mayor Munson: no comments
11. City Manager Comments — Dave Mercier: no comments
12. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Pending Litigation, Land Acquisition
It was moved by Deputy Mayor Denenny, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn into Executive
Session for approximately 45 minutes to discuss pending litigation and land acquisition, and that no
action is anticipated thereafter. Council adjourned into Executive Session at 8:50 p.m. Mayor Munson
declared Council out of Executive Session at 9:33 p.m. It was moved by Councilmember Wilhite,
seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 9:34 p.m.
ATTEST:
A ir .. ... .L...
ristine Bainbridge, ity Clerk
Council Meeting Minutes: 03 -03 -09 Page 8 of 8
Approved by Council: 03 -24 -09
11111
S- 1743.2
State of Washington
READ FIRST TIME 02/25/09.
SUBSTITUTE SENATE BILL 5812
61st Legislature 2009 Regular Session
By Senate Government Operations & Elections (originally sponsored by
Senators Marr and Brown)
1 AN ACT Relating to health districts consisting of one county; and
2 amending RCW 70.4 6.031.
3 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:
4 Sec. 1. RCW 70.46.031 and 1995 c 43 s 11 are each amended to read
5 as follows:
6 (1)(a) A health district to consist of one county may be created
7 whenever the county legislative authority of the county shall pass a
8 resolution or ordinance to organize such a health district under
9 chapter 70.05 RCW and this chapter.
10 (b) The resolution or ordinance may specify the membership,
11 representation on the district health board, or other matters relative
12 to the formation or operation of the health district. The county
13 legislative authority may appoint elected officials from cities and
14 towns and persons other than elected officials as members of the health
15 district board so long as persons other than elected officials do not
16 constitute a majority.
17 (c) Any single county health district existing on ((thc cffcctivc
18 datc of thi3 act)) January 1, 1996, shall continue in existence unless
p. 1 SSB 5812
•
1 and until changed by affirmative action of the county legislative
2 authority.
3 (2) Notwithstanding subsection (1) of this section, the agency
4 originally established as the Spokane county health district in January
5 1970, when the city of Spokane and Spokane county merged their health
6 departments into one agency pursuant to this chapter, is comprised of
7 the following membership commencing August 1, 2009:
8 (a) Two members of the Spokane county commissioners;
9 (b) One elected official from the largest city in the district;
10 (c) Two local physicians nominated by the Spokane county medical
11 society;
12 (d) A local health care professional chosen by the Spokane county
13 commissioners;
14 (e) Two local business representatives nominated by the local
15 chamber of commerce, one representing the restaurant industry and one
16 representing the building industry; and
17 (f) One public member chosen by the Spokane county commissioners.
___ ENS
SSB 5812 p. 2
a *
Valley Council - -- 03/03/09
1. Billing from the first alarm = effective false alarm reduction.
a. For 2009, 245 first alarms and only 16 second alarms,
b. For all of 2008:
i. 1527 first alarms
ii. 391 second alarms
iii. 172 third alarms
iv. 79 4 alarms
2. For all of 2008, commercial alarms were 61% of the total and residential alarms
were 36% of the total.
3. Since program's inception, false alarms have been reduced from over 7,100 per
year to 2,200. A nearly 70% reduction.
4. Responding to 7,100 false alarms per year cost the City of Spokane over $800,000
per year in total costs.
a. A 70% reduction in this = a savings of over $560,000 per year.
b. Puts officers where they are needed, which in affect -- adds to your
effectiveness and cost savings.
5. Year to date reductions over 2008:
a. 354 alarms in 2008, 305 so far in 2009, a further reduction of nearly 16 %.
b. The total number of alarm systems continues to increase and will do so
each year.
6. Paying a % of the program to a third party administrator has proven to be an
economical approach for us. Much less expensive to do this when you consider
that they do all invoicing, printing, database, mailing, renting and or supporting
office space, computers, and answering the phones.
7. Show charts of frequent offenders for 2008 and 2007.
a. And keep in mind that this is WITH a false alarm program in place for 3
years.
b. These frequent offender lists would be how long? without a program to
reduce false alarms?
c. Consider that these are deputy /officer responses (usually lights and siren)
to every one of these activations.
8. Our ordinance has proven effective and has stood the test of time over the last 3
and 1 /2 years.
a. Yes, it is long, but the definitions and responsibility sections are critical to
giving your alarm administrator the authority needed.
b. The enforcement sections are well defined.
9. Whomever you decide to (or if you decide to) contract with a TPA to help run
your program, I can attest that AOT /PSC has been excellent to work with.
a. Willing to make adjustments to procedure.
b. Willing to modify language in correspondence.
c. Very few complaints from phone information services they provide.
10. Questions?