Loading...
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?