2004, 04-15 Boundary Review Board File 579-04: proposed annexation r Washington State
BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD
For Spokane County RECEIVED
1026 W. Broadway Avenue
Spokane,WA 99260-0040 APR 1"6 2004
(509) 477-4237 FAX (509) 477-3631
http://www spokanecounty.org/boundary
City of Spokane Valley
April 15, 2004
MEMO TO: Affected Government Agencies and Interested Parties
FROM: Susan M. Winchell, AICP, Boundary Review Board Director
RE: BRB 579-04: Proposed Annexation of the City of Spokane Valley
to Fire District 8 (Valley View Hills, Ponderosa, and Morningside)
Please find enclosed the Notice of Intention submitted by the City of Spokane
Valley and Fire District 8, proponents for the action. it was accepted for filing on
April 14, 2004.
On that same date, the Board's jurisdiction was invoked as requested by the City
of Spokane Valley pursuant to RCW 36.93.100 (1). A public hearing was set by
the Boundary Review Board for Monday, May 17, 2004 at 3:00 pm in the City of
Spokane Valley Council Chambers, 11707 East Sprague, Spokane Valley.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me at 477-4237.
BOARD MEMBERS: Douglas Beu John B. Hagney Robert E. Nebergall Lawrence B. Stone Daniel E. Turbeville,III
' sc .' +.-4- - *44. " . MC. -
...a408t `.. • _ ate' „s-"'tli '«.' ; .'•
• »" ..,. '^4tt if N a. ant A�• +
' 'dh Jt. `k v t,. }i.'bF a- ►-
• mac- p - •:.41i .►.. • ,w
•
44:1:41. ti-1-. trili,'. !;,-". .):—.K.sr;*." - . ...,, .-,,,. '..r 'i . . i 144Sr .4,1.„''.:"'
p�.er.�, s t Y' •- ..'! •.�
4.
- .. _ .Y :b �7}It ' W77$i� -
[.c .. ,t gqyyyyyy�� t"�r, .4,...''.
te a... +.,. �r 1r+ •_ - air s r
.• •
. > H.m.'
•f,....y .,gF
•
•
4-1.....4,.441.:." *,: -1 :.
♦' w+At Itl a
1.. y:i. • 4 .4 w.7•a,
.. '.w-'•. t .. .4,K Jr•. oc r•" ra•
.,
4 w4,Fp+Kn ff yq
411..416. 4 .1` y«• t
.+^.v•fir . ...Mti .ti .c1 a.P. `. '�' ,y �r•.:�
w.• ,*M+ .IM lb 4r ' i. ;+F' `„sue .
sr r 'sS'- 'Rt xi 'miry ..
.y,. Flo , v *r 11�F q 3
yew.♦ + M Y'ly^ ,u.jE*'F _ -4.q' r. `.•qIT _
rYs3'`•1[yy~ y� pR'" 1"'},"..•> ""P 2 r. dCiA T a'ar `
r ar. •- • '•., } , i.4."''t
•
- - ,t a., ..
•
L
• rl nr-R• r s `� ,+x '*'' IR,'Ftf•F _-`..
..• ue.. ♦ .e c ':�.r« :y > _.*. ..t-.x,
i y f
t •OIV ' • 3- a,I *lor y.�s�,
p , «
•en •.w..-•a -i, . `.,-/.�.#t., '
AT t•. tw.tyl, •'.re
,
WASHINGTON STATE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD
FOR SPOKANE COUNTY
NOTICE OF INTENTION
BRB 579-04
Proposed Annexation of City of Spokane Valley to Fire District 8
(Valley View Hills, Morningside, and Ponderosa)
Proponent: City of Spokane Valley
Date of Filing: April 14, 2004
Date of Public Hearing: May 17, 2004
Z t
Y
WASHINGTON STATE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD FOR SPOKANE COUNTY
NOTICE OF INTENTION
1. Name of City, Town, or Special Purpose District: City of Spokane Valley and Spokane Fire
Protection District No. 8
2. Action Sought: Annex property located within the City of Spokane Valley into Fire District No. 8.
(If water or sewer extension outside corporate limits, state the size of water line n/a size of sewer lines 1
3. Reason for seeking action: The City of Spokane Valley incorporated on March 31, 2003. State
legislation allows fire protection districts to continue providing service through the remainder of
the incorporation year. The Council may extend the fire district service for one additional year to
allow the City time to consider options for long term fire protection service. By the end of the
extended year, the City must decide to either create its own fire department, contract for fire
services, or annex to existing fire protection districts. State law allows new cities to annex into
more than one fire district. The City of Spokane Valley adopted Resolution No. 03-0049 to continue
fire services within Fire District No. 1 and 8 through the end of 2004.
Spokane Valley City Council adopted Ordinance No. 04-003, stating the intent to annex to Fire
Protection District No.'s 1 and 8 (see attached maps) and to put the annexations to a public vote.
The annexation into Fire District 8 requires approval of City of Spokane Valley registered voters
living within that District, as well as the registered voters within the fire district living outside
Spokane Valley
4. Briefly describe proposal: Fire District No. 8 currently provides fire protection to three small
areas within the City of Spokane Valley (see attached map). Fire District 8 proposes to annex the
Valley View Hills, Ponderosa, and Morningside areas of the City of Spokane Valley with no change
to current fire district boundaries.
5. Method used to initiate the proposed action: Spokane Valley City Council adopted Ordinance No.
04-003, stating the intent to annex the City into Fire District No.'s 1 and 8.
6. State statute under which action is sought: RCW 52.04
FACTORS THE BOARD MUST CONSIDER
Please respond to the factors the Board must consider as outlined in RCW 36.93.170.
POPULATION AND LAND USE
1. Please provide the following information:
Proposed Area Existing Entity
Existing 20-year Projection Existing 20-year Projection
1.807 People 2,168 People 20,000 People 22,000 People
723 Residences 867 Residences 8,000 Residences 8,800 Residences
0 Businesses 0 Businesses
06/2002 1
2. What source is the basis for these projections? Spokane County and City of Spokane Valley Interim
Comprehensive Plan
3. Acres of the proposed area 651 Acres of the existing entity:
4. Assessed valuation of proposed area: $ 122.7 million of existing entity: $ $1.25 Billion
5. Existing land use of the proposed area: Suburban residential development and vacant land.
6. Existing land use of the area surrounding the proposal: Suburban and rural residential development.
7. Is there residential, commercial, or industrial development that will be associated with this proposal?
No. If yes, describe any projects being considered or proposed.
8. If the proposal is approved, will any changes in either the land use, zoning or the Comprehensive Plan
designations within the next 18 months be required? No.
9. Has the proposed area been the subject of a land use action by Spokane County? N/A
If so, please list the file number(s) and explain.
10a. Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan designation for the proposed area: Low Density Residential
b. For surrounding areas: Low Density Residential, Urban Reserve, Rural Conservation
11. Does your jurisdiction have an adopted comprehensive plan? Yes (interim) Date adopted? March 31,
2003.
12. Describe this proposal's significance to the adopted comprehensive plan: The annexation will allow
fire protection levels of service to be maintained consistent with the policies of the Comprehensive
Plan.
13a. Spokane Valley zoning for the proposed area: UR-3.5, UR-7
b. For surrounding areas: UR-3.5, UR-7
14.Has any portion of this area been previously reviewed by the Boundary Review Board? Yes
List BRB File Nos. BRB-555-01 (City of Spokane Valley Incorporation)
15. Describe the topography, drainage basins and natural boundaries which are included in the area of the
proposal and how each affects land use, accessibility and potential development. N/A
16. Is the proposed area within the Spokane County Urban Growth Area? Yes
MUNICIPAL SERVICES
1. Name the existing service purveyors in the proposed area.
Water N/A Police N/A
Wastewater Treatment N/A School N/A
Fire Fire District No. 8 Library N/A
Water Service
2. Is the proposed area within the future water service area of your jurisdiction according to the Spokane
County Coordinated Water System Plan? N/A If not, please explain.
06/2002 2
T �
3. Is the area included in your adopted Water System Plan? N/A If not, please explain.
4. Water treatment plant or well that will serve this area: N/A
5. Current capacity and percentage used of this facility: N/A
6. Projected water treatment plant or well capacity required by proposal: N/A
7. Describe the seasonal variations in water supply and/or pressure within your jurisdiction. N/A
8a. Will increased capacity or other improvements become necessary if proposal is approved? N/A
b. Describe these improvements and how they will be financed. N/A
9. Does your jurisdiction have an updated State Board of Health-approved Water System Plan? N/A
Wastewater Management
10. According to the Spokane County Wastewater Management Plan, which future service area includes
the proposal? N/A If not in your jurisdiction, please explain.
11. Does your jurisdiction have a current DOE wastewater discharge permit? N/A
12a. Does your jurisdiction have a current NPDES permit? N/A
b. Please explain any violations of the current NPDES permit in the past 18 months. N/A _
13. Wastewater treatment plant serving this area N/A
14. Current capacity and percentage used of this facility N/A
15. Projected wastewater treatment plant capacity required by proposal
16a. Will increased capacity or other improvements become necessary if proposal is approved? N/A
b. Describe these improvements and how they will be financed. N/A
Other Municipal Services
17. Describe the service changes that will occur if the proposal is approved? The proposal will have no
effect on fire protection services to this area. Rather the proposal will preserve current fire
protection services.
18. Does your jurisdiction have a current capital improvement/development plan? Spokane Valley
adopted the County's Comprehensive Plan and Capital Facilities Plan as Interim plans. Spokane
Valley will adopt its own Capital Facilities Plan as a part of its Comprehensive Plan.
Is this proposal included in this plan? N/A
19. Describe the effect your jurisdiction's ordinances, governmental codes, regulations and resolutions will
have on existing uses in the proposed area? Spokane Valley's regulations guide growth and
development within the proposed area.
20. Are annexation covenants being required for this proposal? N/A
21. Describe the prospects of governmental services from other sources? Spokane Valley determined
that annexing to existing fire protection districts would provide the best service to Spokane Valley
citizens. Other options considered by Spokane Valley included forming a City Fire Department,
contracting for fire protection services and annexing to a single Fire District.
06/2002 3
i t
22. Describe the probable future needs for services and additional regulatory controls in the area?
Spokane Valley's Comprehensive Plan process will examine future needs.
23. Describe the probable effect of the proposal on the cost, adequacy of services and controls
a. In the proposed area? The proposal will have no effect on cost or adequacy of service for the
proposed annexation area.
b. In the adjacent area? The proposal will have no effect on cost or adequacy of service for the
adjacent areas.
24. Describe the effect of the proposal on the finances, debt structure, contractual obligations and rights of
all affected governmental units? All finances, tax levies, contractual obligations and debt structure
will remain unchanged.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
1. Describe the effect of the proposal on adjacent areas? If the annexations are not approved, the
adjacent areas will be adversely affected. The areas proposed for annexation contain urban and
suburban developments that generate significant funding for the rest of the District.
2. Describe the effect of the proposal on mutual economic and social interests? The mutual economic
and social interests will remain the same if the annexations are approved.
3. Describe the effect of the proposal on the local governmental structure of the county. The annexations
will have no effect on local governmental structure of the County.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Describe the environmental review process completed for the proposed action. Spokane Valley
completed an Environmental Checklist and issued a Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) on
March 23, 2004. The appeal period ended on April 12, 2004.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT
Describe how the proposal is consistent with the Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A). The
annexations will allow for continued fire protection at an urban level of service as required by the
Growth Management Act.
OBJECTIVES OF THE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD
Describe fully which objectives of RCW 36.93.1$0 this proposal meets and which objectives this proposal
does not meet. Give your reasons for each of the objectives chosen.
1. Preservation of natural neighborhoods and communities. The annexations will preserve existing fire
district boundaries.
2. Use of physical boundaries, including but not limited to bodies of water, highways and land contours.
The fire district boundary follows physical and political boundaries.
06/2002 4
3. Creation and preservation of logical service areas. The annexations will preserve existing fire
district boundaries.
4. Prevention of abnormally irregular boundaries. The annexations will preserve existing fire district
boundaries.
5. Discouragement of multiple incorporations of small cities and encouragement of incorporation of cities in
excess of ten thousand population in heavily populated urban areas. N/A
6. Dissolution of inactive special purpose districts. N/A
7. Adjustment of impractical boundaries. N/A
8. Incorporation as cities or towns or annexation to cities and towns of unincorporated areas which are
urban in character. N/A
9. Protection of agricultural and rural lands which are designated for long-term productive agricultural and
resource use by a comprehensive plan adopted by the county legislative authority. N/A
I certify that the above is true and accurate and that I am an official or employee of the
governmental jurisdiction seeking boundary change action or the proponent for the incorporation
or formation.
- 11113/6`t''
Signature of completing this form Date
Printed Name of Person Completing this Notice 'J , . Zel(A(Title bot�l, (mac, k A.xj e.✓ Telephone �JGa-4/ '3
Mailing Address ( f 707 E. /-v--e-- #/o to,
06/2002 5
i t
l T
EXHIBIT A
Legal Description -Fire District No. 8 Annexation
Valley View Hills Area:
That portion of Fire District#8 within Sections 25 and 26, Township 25 North, Range 43
East, W.M., within the Spokane Valley City limits, except that portion within Fire
District#1 as depicted on the following maps:
1. Spokane County/City Fire Districts, Dated April 8, 2004, Washington State
Boundary Review Board for Spokane County, Sections 25 and 26, T25N, R43E,
W.M.
2. Spokane County Assessors GIS Map,NE Quarter, Sec. 26, T25N, R43E, W.M.,
dated March 8, 2004.
3. Spokane County Assessors GIS Map,NW Quarter, Sec. 25, T25N,R43E, W.M.,
dated March 9, 2004.
And
Ponderosa Area:
That portion of Fire District#8 within Sections 4 and 5, Township 24 North, Range 44
East, W.M., within the Spokane Valley City limits as depicted on the following maps:
1. Spokane County/City Fire Districts, Dated April 8, 2004, Washington State
Boundary Review Board for Spokane County, Sections 4 and 5, T24N, R44E,
W.M.
2. Spokane County Assessors GIS Map, Sec. 5, T24N, R44E, W.M., dated
December 17, 2003.
3. Spokane County Assessors GIS Map, Sec. 4, T24N, R44E, W.M., dated
September 19, 2003
And
Morningside Area:
That portion of Fire District #8 within Section 30, Township 25 North, Range 45 East,
W.M.,within the Spokane Valley City limits as depicted on the following maps:
1. Spokane County/City Fire Districts,Dated April 8, 2004, Washington State
Boundary Review Board for Spokane County, Section 25, T25N, R44E, and
Section 30, T25N, R45E, W.M.
2. Spokane County Assessors GIS Map, Sec. 30, T25N, R45E, W.M., dated April
21, 2003.
M.wAs yl,� . I/
�j .:
F14"l
EXPIRES: 3/13/062
•
. • . . •
. . • .
. .
. • • .
• - -• - .
.: • EXHIBIT B
. . . . .
. .
. .
.
.
.
Valley View Hills
. . .
. . , .
. . •
.. .
• " •
. k
• , o 9 . . • . ..
— , ", • 1 ,
wog-.9,-191'PN . ...0%,-P1'or k Cl'ke0.4j k.rierld •
. ,
. , S
Pi •A•:,. „.7..,..,.. 1.4 ..1.
.5;11:0417:‘07, . • ' 7
/
//
3/
. .k .$ .
. I . I' '., lie'.N 4'0'rti•...,,e t is/
• - •
r't^1,,v "Ya°N C I; t I/
lir--
.
iiii .
4'.
-C I i
te
1 1 I
. •
• 1 -0.
'
. i •
I . • i % -.0..0.
0
__
."2 •
Av vv.,a lo..7 -. •
. .
_ . r
•
.. .
____
s• • 6 •
.e—
I-- -
LL.1
r0 _
• N
cl" A./..tc.r7,7a . e • S
‘•\
C1- .'- -8
• tt• . . I
. . • . . . . . porce...qo . . .. - •
. - v •
IF 11 11,4
• • 'Z 7 NVW .t. N• 4 .. '''*‘451. .. •..;. .
. . •
,,,tr: Ik; - - Om-, •
. • o
• in 7,1 —I 1. a • %,lirm. . ii ' P 'e. -
. C\j in) :I •r:S - 00 CM
....., . •
tii gri , .:J •
6' ,,mg mai
:.
c\I .-,. .s.,„. .•.. N'k it* gi 1 : /- -r---- , • \ \ ,
, .,' )- r) m '..2 • ' : • t ......,
iWrcEFiSI L p.
, i• ,,,4, ...•
. ....--,-
d , .
•.;‘,
\.,•:,
u) i . ; u . ,
C.
aDc? . \ . .
. \.....,...,
go
\
NS3 1 5 V 3 5:11311 ,.....__ _ \\
• (.4, - -ivi (44/A4'.'il— -ssss. t-t->-• , ,
. 1
". • '''''' 4-„Ry 5.,„w„.,,,.....44* s• s.
„ • ,
. ± -,,..,- _.v *,•4 • _....\ .,.. ...:........ ? , .•
. .•
='- ' -.eatrAtti, 146111d.,$ -; . -,:"Nt..
... ,. ._•:..... EFAR-vallir
0- -___--
, N b• ,°.tt- 41 Min
. •
• Jit5''''''S.; Pgrig§E i''.) UP .. 'gl '
. •....,.. 4, ,
i ____
, ,,, 44 .2.3 5e .0•.
kg,y.w y ydcn 1/49 A,.01'0 .I9. c • t.
N N P'''''',': ...‘:.b.71-...'!,...„..../ . 1-..
. . •
. . t .
.. . ' .
I. . ..
.. -• .
. •
! . . • .
•
•
=--__. : • EXHIBIT B .
•
• �,
Valley View Hills
� h �..
f
• • I F f` �Mam. ^+vbrm. G ,, i• LA ; .
�-.• 1 N - •
hOr �
rI - g naoWa �sy' .
• H3H0Nvd �''11 ..-
— _
. I E li el . N Niiiillti G i
• -as—,mraa vM ®�• ur •
' m 1ff, W
• �"r— J.a-Mi-Nan•. c `r - ..
• W
ram• " r h
Q a A.a''.x •'/' e a - - re •
Y
z �� _ Q sJ \• .. •i4�aII .
C1= x I
�� it - FP ' ,•- I I H&fir
N e..s_ • o o= a GC
I �j K
O hQ d•m�1m b Q .IL `, '.S INN''-"N .
ypFplm 9 YIb� A� .i • „Co •r I..'401--113O'a6lv,Ba[K= O'99'<11head.
•
n/. btk ¢ao11_ V°O , .�g F I.I "k'.' 4 • _4- r°ti�5 6� I„> 6umz-da +oovso..ival
•
•
z - A • • Z?$p:;__. ii., )1 , ; , \.Q ��tiF-• Fc,. o�'f�`r,2n !.2 • C
•
nv/\j ,..,.vao • e , ;,�� rt. Gzzcry
o4# e. c• Can` .j:- • ,, . 6'.�;•; j,,a �' h
-g�® /'%?r •/' '6a'0 ..gym .. �/ •N y • C
•
0 ' is lir.. 414 ..,..7....,1, 7• ...•,V.,,, , d ,. .
• 0' `I GO • 0.--1.1Z . `-e. c ,oE- SIZI 'a
U • ,.• .
_� Off.• , ui
We••-r.a riim" gQ PIV W cy 1' d G Q "
• ?elstrO •.h .O�bl_a$. Q4:4 t.'1'ae f - - q n !•a N°�' r • �-' •
' oj^CA on" I J / 7 'R., 'sbry`14
0
`
•
i:.:
. • • • .•
. . ,
•,,, . 0 0 ___ :-,:7„. ,..h,,„„..,,,,.
•
_.........,_...r,..,
so, .... . ...,
H v m t a... p Nloe ':/. .L tiiW. p0 c.
—th
- --w-4 $ y a., r � �� �, "boon. cn
TIHu J rN', : y •�/. /M `r -Pc) tG:
•
IRV • • h.
•^'v • vlvvnv _
N z VNVAV1-1 SA1^/r V SM N- 0 �Q S1/ 15
Y • Y 1 • C d'3 N 2 19
Q
•t ` 1- L1 1 N Z N N �N N
: EXHIBIT B •
I,{)( Ponderosa °• �;: _ •;r.�F.
11`•• • .f ~ •�-.r-[: .. • •/1.r.•.',
•,..„..,..!. .... tis .✓�•�i-7 ..... ism •a' ▪ r '�s. 4. r
. `,J i, 4 r � ,-, 1. .tom rf i.- 1,-,r ,- 1>r ..C• • - t51€l��•�r • ,. `•.•.
IJ ' i4 .5..` 1. 1".� I ice.. S 4 tr F.�*' t6.
.j I • •I.: .:.. •1.� ••lid :�' "1S a3lUVW•`ribn ii" _ ,. .,,� .
4'� a N - �,':.�'t .. t ut '.. ;M
11.1
. i .
1 :c !. "� 6M 1 e� .-3- . 4 c\1 •
fJ z 'ter _ z [ '
s.i
•
Chi Tn o ..f. 4 CO° I"2�• I _..-�' Mo -
�, G Pa puou t o „..a w� [Mar .>r
'CJ^ t ' K 'Cy M so Is o e� 'a14'.: .° - 1.--.� 1 ett 1
-. rr ,,t1 -
v l
S I • end . :.l «. 04
;I I h N • .."
I 1 0 ',r{`...t�/i . •\_.t,l h1^ •A = t." , `P `k'': i:._
.teaN• I 4.1, t j i3.. 'it ate S@ ti_,,' .4 .
\y.\S�a r. 1 . o.w. *I4 : ?... 3
b,oz/ ,or/.iar AV ..zr ` 1 t- •r • I
%. ;'1: .1 h '_C• (C1 I 1 I,- •-_ . .fit
•
'�,Ir.- ^�7}-----Ts.0.0V •I..oz/__ .M .ucf• •' . _ •o•9'rr, c. -- — --'-- - _-•-
•rib)oN06C& / •.. .��.,. � .� i J. i ...„•___
.
f ddnbcroo td 0 t:• r,.
•r :�1 .r,4.• . " : til iv?; j t/9 • o ♦/Z `'1 k1`1•
. • ``S t t a•iT„� v A• y.Y = t • = L.... f I• l� 1 .. \
e»w.`1?�:a'ic><y • h 1pp6f•WV 2/A/6! .. •. :.a. - • 1
r� ( z •
m Clip
0 CI +_ U's ' fig,A t.; _ -
r a1d 4- b : 3'o' I .-
S, zt a t. V1 ` 1 o 's CSC ^i co 1 :I i--
01 •
Q I U �•... /
•
•
f va � I \- \
•`• N Qp• ..�1 .......
•
.11 ' •„'�\ II' .1� I' i.� ..•: .v v ,•.1,t�tl Y':.'4: \O.� ,
I -+ ' -1 _s_.�. J,y • ! .T •Q` 4N• - :,
S 1 • c+f;jTt J. .,: t".y`-N T.Z. , r1?.'.'iY... : tji �>`'.pyZ, Q ti l 0.::1''s
•V f^•yn• y 4 .• ••�� r i .ztill I.^`r{,y 5 • t __.r
s ,
EXHIBIT B
Ponderosa
, . . •. • . .
_ ..... • - - ..
, •,.• ... • ..,,, -" - /.... -,, .,•._..‘ ., ti... . ,,-,-L. -• , •
• .. .;. .•,,. ' • •, , '•••• •••;.t. ..;.------•!•,-,,_„.-si... •ir..._....„.. . .„4.41,-.,LA , . : •
• 1 - • ."„,i4,-.4.11 ..4.• ,. ,•••••r7;;.x...,,,,,.....:....-.‘.4-3411:, ., - , ,
• • .t. . -c-;•,- . - - ..! •.. -:.....-4-,,,i-tx:7.4:65-Tr.1----- - i '• -' '• • •
i,,.i.-,.........,•,; , .:• • • .
• •. .. I
• • .,-- I , • ..; • -•'1 '"• - - C)PFI OIAL'PLAT
.__I 1 - . ..1. ; .'. . • ''. •
i ' •: • /...... •""'''. L.....-.:..•*i.-r.• . • •.' r r •.• A..1?.5 COTT.,ENS&'OZER-.e?..KArig.C,,OUNTI",• • .
.. •. •• _, ' .. . ,......:', 21•_...-,.•4!,-. ,.,_ .• ;.• a.p-a..1:a...•1•1::,.;.-,,:t';-•.:.-,...••.-.=.5...,-.'...,'';..'...,.1..,.,.,-• -. • ,
_• _.q• •.• •i E-i.r,,..2..•1....•...:II1-.s6p.-Y--..-.,S. .••• ,,°.-..-.,._-_..;---a•s,.
,.,i_• ,,,,-..,.4.- .i, j. ),,.;,.,..,_,._._.
.,,.....
-,.-....-
..
•
.33 4--
..
•'*1
.•33> i - 44TH N- 64 - :
- r-1> .--..-'•a-
• . .....,..4 •,..ea..I 0 v -J\: .' ts. .,
'l . ' .• . • ' , .:1 .1e).se,. .. .-.11.1,.• Im..4`"".... 1114 Aim 4. A .0 1
' • t ...,,t,i f :1111111.4-1 z.- a Ertrall I midi I. ,- ,
e2 '
.warignursio.IP,411n„ . • ,
• . .,..._ ,
1 mg
, . .r .• ft .• . • •I V.• te -
'41'. • ' I
ie.' .: .l.. gi • . k ._givilitrittliwwn ,,,,3„
. ,.. i
illinaltlig ...' /; °T 6. --; _(.4.,_ a.• • •
?• ‘ '• ---•••" '' 110 11 (/ .' 10-
1 • ' YaR.C) 1 ,. . 1
7'i •f •
-...••••,.; ,..Er•,7 ri-/--..,••••er11:11 vr..1.5tHr-)>7Noi.- 1, .1 l' r:::'• '
,
- ---, '- .'. 0 '' ii. r /4e
.4114 EV slil I/
4. •Ot ... El '. , 7. s,:sf
N.. •' /042
/C,j 0 1
Eir 44,. .1 `.1 sta. ..,'• , ..1
454 .. „.. . ...t. 100 mu ..,,..4kt, .1 ...f1-...___j_ ____ _ .-., .
4.
1. .,,-...--- 1 .' . ._ • S , , ,,'',, 1, Ilr. V., It64-4.;;A:.-7...-... /
i •,j, AwAr•C 0. ,,,..,..1••."O. 4r;p ,4,•
OV 0i, ..'1' t .
0.1.-0,-.Poo 1 I• 1...,„ ,..• .lir 1 V4.1, - 4 r_ripeNa.,
..• .*VrIIP •1 Cl•:,:•:.'1,..ries , ,, . . ,,. i il! vfla..? ',...;
•Cv,. 2i e
(.pi• --C.. i
°?•cyfr?/,. LOST 7,
-%,,..‘-',•l.
..!10;1,........:L.."...7.:
"''' • IF . 7.....
,... rt• i
:. •,, .i'MliAmmi cp,_,-... ,...,,, , a ,,-
c' I
. • u i-i c, ••
. . . . ,
•, . •. .. -:.PJ• 8.,m 441111111P/ •,...,.,,C.O.t A. i p-,,, K:gbr,. .- "-
• 1 • , __.._-flit 1.1.rt.,. .1.,142'1.5,Y,il. ...........
U ..1.. 7 iia..swir5r. /01.1.0( ....•.a• ... •....,' ....' ,-.6-. 3Th.t,;• . .
1 .. •
/ ,...,0 R00/15 ci ,1-ot,V4 .b. a
. /..//.;i ' •r-
i a / ,,7t,3•0 sum- 't rosy .,?",zo i... 04,;",
• CI / '... ' ,_,•••1 er f " Ap , • .....\--
-•". . 0,2 . . • .., '•
ft i i _j 1, I...1. Iii, „ 2 ,,4. .4./. , r•1.,j
I s- • •• - / '-, V•..t. . ,'--, . r,e;,:ai . .0. • .. I.
• - (7.7 5: , I \ - •. `... • .:0- ..-
cr
c S AV, ,t • I/ i • II" 4.'... . ",e 4.1-- AglW\I T'''''i..... •OT :t4. u 5 's -0.'4 c.•-i'Ai- • 1 - 14.11 fcri:
: - . - Is •,..',45,.....F's,**1.:. ••' .'V. ;SAIL +frc
. "%memo. • c.:711r 9. -It I*,.°-‘ ',6: '6` •- ...;;141111I :--,
I • '325.80AP/ LO. ‘.. II.,. .0 6Y-1•:,, •'1,,, .•t,'.1 .; •,e..... .„/
.:. , .1••';'il_L/ )"VV:11' ' I i I
• 1 'k /I'A'' •-•:tic. ' • 1 ia- .
A 2 1 IN. CO 5-I•(4-I, . ''',..•2":-....11M
• ' k ll li '' H• S g
„ S!.'?t. 4 t I tl. ip-T IA":'1.7 5.01..;....:i i•FY''. ,:-.1.'
!..,,...v.• . •-• mralve I k ••'''' •;`:' • ) II 1• 4 l'iri,xe ti '4 „P.,.. - 5...' . 3 .2 1-‘.'. •
nfr..,. ' *.i.. • 4 •
0--: -..' ---. •
-- ...i 18 t.,:,.:•: .,r• r .• r....,•I 1e4' VP-% , , ' ..IL?
..??,!!.. ..........e.......j'' .,,M17.74
. • _. ,•
I ...-- -{--,-,;19.
104 -1..tb-4-,-k- 2:44. ' t; '2' ./ •-...• et':,1:::1 1% i e,":i•-r 1."? .'-
7 A lt• '-- ; - itiq / /1 • 1, li- ,f.-,L., .7,, -..„ •, .,gi' .,t);.:1k. k51...I.r.: .h
V* 4. • rir •tt:1'474.• •*I a.:."ea f..... 4,1,1f, i
....-... . I)fii-J e / 1 i; c. . ••44.,-;•., - .At. • • v.
-,,- , u \ . , . , •-.c. 2 'or, . •
• .. ,it`,0,42.,7% .•,...
•
12 a„.-9 7 ,* ).. . .;<./.. IP ..°° "'":^ 2!.,1•• •;•"„ 0:04' 2' {.
. .. ,4.0.1.
q •-•r . 0-iv, • ,,o- ., ...• .,
. ' • I \ • '....1, ',,,x 4 i':/.'23-41.
. ii..1'.?' `...F.,7.7•,:_.-? ,Ij f2 i's%. ; -
. I I ..• Vrrfo, "r*/: :. .... 4 LA •
• • -•
•
- •
'•.r. ..?•1,Ps,-;
. I , ., ,
. ,
/ / ,,, I, h
/ .
EXHIBIT B . D
. ,
. .
Morningside
1 g
_
. -‘
I
,tA -- CA . ‘01 ICO
,:r 3 ,
him
;'', Bill Pr 411111111 llir#
lc\I Ili Fri 1 1°4(SI 1 111\1 i 1,1 I.0 ..1&4
,k Nils
Ch,s,`, 1,3 11 itt•.:Iiiii SIVA irrekli
A .....
1141111trap7ft
.,
I
____ le)
A t: 3: c _ N
I
•311 1,4
0
-f
sr .4ti. ..r.z, ...
. ...
112<I' I No
on
till/0
.....%‘:!:..
0 IIV2:AIM
,i ..: 4L.- ...5 N •-;:-: ..
. .ri,,>•
.5 IIII*
.. 4,4. itimi
.. •. .„4.•..
. ,... .. ----l2)---
•::::.• ".... 4W
•::......
:......,
I— ,0 dr,
II)
•li.
- • .. • . , • . . - — . . . .. , , ,
r Exhibit C
e---) t >_i__.,_____I L t v ' i i i i i i, l 1 1 I i l l l l l l l II- I I I I I I I I I IIHIIJIIIIII4N
/ F Mai ■
9,th yth 1111311111 41
C")
ll Oth c' 10th
- I — 1III11e1
C 11 th 11Wi1U
t 23- 12th I 24
H ) —
�� Fire District_#1/
il 4';thI �` 1.4th �1 14thE
r
I Sth TIRi 1504 FTkj N ,
ii
i
_ �� - \/ �
`� —�0 `n \ .�,,�
MO
f��' iii ii
l8th /
411 <- WM ~ eJ� lkir
4..... ji.C.
-2543 ' •- �l9th G
1 1 kl1I1II :
alir
w
26 Fire District#8
\
21st 4, 21st
a) /
rn
0
c.) Legend
U
ET; Mapt pion
T`R°"`hn Bnmdxicx The Dix net#1
L-I Ssrinn&+�Rl=N r1
25th / MurvMa Brn¢danc " C:1
i J O The Swim,
I fire District tR4
M1
BRB 579-04 and 580-04
Washington State Boundary Review Board Valley View Hills
For Spokane County
r Exhibit C `
i
i
* 4
aS
4 6
A 4..c,c7 1#,
tp,k. 4
a
i
2544 i 30
\Fire'District #1 ! Fire Districts#8
.sNoc, �5 i 2545
11,
��b i
4
i
i
i
41140100.4itiiiiipp ii4111111640406
Alliain:Iyapgsildellan
i
i
It tlf, iiIt SIW
�
I
Steen i iliaAir i
i Legend
utartmrs,n
L �i�m.eoeama.dw Fiic Dintret4fl
i �� Le_I Sctlm Hamdnks Ni �CI
�Gj MmieglHomd�da
al
1 GS Fhe Smtlom i11A
i Frcc DUtfiCt
BRB 579-04 and 580-04
Washington State Boundary Review Board Morningside
For Spokane County
Exhibit C
s, diG 0•0�A( (3-V \U\\JIL,V,,Q,„ im ini 36_____—HIII ii- 0• t,'• , _I -d
■ • ♦ 1�1 0 I �f 1 _ r T I �- 1 �11 �� +� I �
#t ��� ♦ N17,th _ N :01 osi�i 04iaua t s.
I3. d■iia.:.■a.■llaw.. 3,$thb v s 1i1■n■ril.,.o■■■■■
Reib, .1"0� II# . 1."..40th '01,ir t fia■.., %�srnr*4.140th
*II Iv dans ws
•
3i_:: � i� 2544
r■ I 1 33 n -34
�� �►����Fire 1Distr-ict #1 c,_� �_
raw. Gi a . :dhiL .. iI. 1
.dattan ilk% c.,All Pondra am ihpieirair 1 //I1 11101,7 um /aas lanai ■■• ', —1
II 43rd r r L9P11 a' i
1 ` h','
II Ma[--26V _ .11.����!ph Now 43i d 1 11$nug,g-allkog � ----- -T ---44th ■■■■■■=is dm.
__ �ai �` .47: ��� =I�45tti = Thorpe
o �n 46th :: :1
-46th-o _- �\ s�_/... 0 1
a 1 11111*Wil:°11011 I4
11.
- - 48th_ -- III c,1 47t1 1�aa O omp la 2,�� .
- 11,11111111 k . mmw,0.
``•v— ��� iglp.ioiW l i
Holman I > 48rh 009.�11 ■■■■ra/1 ��� Ftii
, L,,,
aII IANld I k
4 1 0A4 MI-i_
�4li - 5,ou .I
ilmi
4allIii:tD
Q �' 1011
` . ■ awl ' wt
' Fire District#8r11; '-, "rLN0
2444 ITIPi
...,,
5� IfiA441
Hallett _ . ,
Legend
w�t.,aci�,
L Tmmsh,UAmd.neaD:CCI
irc Dis r#1
08 09 ®I Mutigc,�.,aa�, N
la
ifiniciryl Bmndaria
O Fee ShGOi6
Firc Distract SIR
1 i
BRB 579-04 and 580-04
Washington State Boundary Review Board Ponderosa
For Spokane County
I
1 , 4 _
I a
v v ; A r , ,,v J _ --- . .5 o .. -_
,A N v v` \\\V v Vy cu
\ b w 1- m w 3
AAA
. v \v'I. �♦vrw \\�� v vv,f..v`\ A�i\\�v �tvg`Vv \\`�v vv.�..`\V\Av\sA�1�A\I A Av v �V �J.vA -."---
:j
.___---
:�, vy , v , \vyVv . : v ,-.a C.)4A, � 1 L vv\4v w , A IA \ N' '' , , ` � V\
vlv - \ � y A ti,, ` \ "v w� , A Avv vv: .t ,ww , v. V . �1 Vr,..,�v , ' \ V , V
vv
Hv v i, , ,,>7vv . 1 i, tAv A\yA � VV v A vv. I� � \ �A \ A ` A ' A Uv y!\ .t\ A \ y\ ' A : \ \EV A� < �� V � "\ \ \\�\ AV A" \.Av .` v` `•:A \ ; v;� 0v\A � \
' - . ,--,'''''N ---'4,'- ,-.0N.,--•\kv,ik.'w",WSN\nTN.:°Vri);Nk;..'N''', \\N',*.... ','''''s.‘$1 .‘'N,`-‘'''3‘\k„,'.'*k,.,.,,-;::,,,-;'Esz,V, , ..,,,f, - :s,,' -74 z__,
I,
,k, „\,,:,..*,,, .,,...<,,,,,,,,„,,v\x,...v .k.‘,... v v.c.,,,,\,.. ,., „, c- ,..,
13,1(ft,k,.\,,..k.z„,„,,,„04:4,,,,„,. „...3„,,„.3\i,s.;1,,,,,,,At,44..ka< s....,,,.... ,..,,,,,,,,k '''7,,k,,,,N4,:t„:,,, " \-5,‘„,,,'ro:'i,',;,7= --. c
.v `ueS�\ v A A vA VAVv -`\I
. i QI \ ;v v A '\\\\ J +-, ' v ‘-‘'N."'",;' ,,,; ,= A i ; v ,y ''O ` A AA' A� \ A Av\A\' ` \� { A V� `". I\ '\ ` ,. Al\\` ;X-7 \\s : .O + �A \V\ A \ \ \,,vkF\V\ ,Av v > \ \\\ � v A�vA \ V v \.V \ \ .\V\.V ' �\\ , .V+,a'., Cia
�VA AA \4 A{\ \rA�v\ � \\�.\ ,\\\ti\ $ \ ti\ I _\ \ \ A
Q-1
C.J - �c41+. "5..*,,4�1 \,.-:'"°A "� a \. s� \V� ,�,5 �-xr p1' ° �,s;( er V\A:A (:):, ini — ' '. ' t'''''''''''' ';'.:'''` '' ' '‘r.1'1' ' ''''''.,\ 40
1 G
n // 1
Egyi.J,!:.*:::-'.',' ' A .1:t . -'1.,,,:,',,,s‘.-;,',-;;.-:. ,.;'A',‘,,.:‘"<;:,_"--,,,;;. .,',.-:::"4" .,,,‘,-,,,,:-;,. ' : ? ! cf-)
,a
\
w^ • y Y 'p
I I # i o
i Eali# ,t `mac...�i i E t�s
i
EXHIBIT D
SPOKANE COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT 1
(Spokane Valley Fire Department)
10319 E. Sprague Avenue
Spokane, WA 99206
Resolution No. 2003-213 ) EXTENDING INTERIM ANNEXATION
RESOLUTION
Background: The City of Spokane Valley, at the time of incorporation was
deemed annexed into Spokane Valley Fire Department under RCW 52.04.161
for the year of 2003, the City's date of incorporation.
Whereas, the statue permits the annexation to be extended for another year
through 2004 by action of the legislative bodies of the City and District.
Whereas, it is necessary for the extension to take place to enable the District to
levy real property taxes in 2003 for collection in 2004 in the City and to permit the
City and District to submit the annexation measure to the voters.
Now Therefore, Be it Resolved, that the Board of Commissioners of Spokane
Valley Fire Department hereby approves the extension of the statutory
annexation of the City of Spokane Valley into the District through 2004.
Adopted at a regular meeting of the Board of Commissioners of Spokane Valley
Fire Department on November 5, 2003, the following Commissioners being
present and voting:
jej.
Bill Anderson, ommissioner J awson, Commissioner
_ I
TlG ; Co "ficanr olby ns Commissioner
Ron ". hmidt, Commissioner
Q:\Dept Data Unshared\Administration\Resolutions\2003\03-213.doc
Resolution 2003-213
Page 2
I, Mark Grover, the duly appointed Fire Chief, and the qualified acting Secretary
for the Board of Fire Commissioners of Spokane County Fire District 1, do
hereby certify that the above and foregoing resolution is a true copy of the
resolution that was adopted by the Board of Commissioners on, November 5,
2003.
" 2/1'4"r/L-
Mark Grover (Attest)
MG/md
Q:\Dept Data UnsharecMdministration\Resolutions\2003\03-213.doc
i
EXHIBIT D
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON
RESOLUTION NO. 03-049
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,SPOKANE COUNTY,
WASHINGTON, STATING THE INTENT OF THE CITY TO CONTINUE TO RECEIVE FIRE
PROTECTION SERVICES FROM SPOKANE COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT NOS. 1,8,AND 9.
WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 52.04.161, the City has received fire services in its first year of
incorporation from the existing fire districts within the City's corporate limits;
WHEREAS, RCW 52.04.161 further provides that a newly incorporated city may annex to the existing
fire districts within the City's corporate limits for the year following incorporation;
WHEREAS, Resolution 03-016, adopted by the City Council February 11, 2003, directed the City
Manager to contact Spokane County Fire Districts 1, 8, and 9 to investigate and report on future fire
protection services, including annexation for an additional year;
WHEREAS, the City Manager has conducted said investigation, and recommends annexing to Spokane
County Fire Districts 1, 8, and 9 for 2004; and
WHEREAS, the City Council is desirous of being annexed by Spokane County Fire Districts 1, 8, and 9
for 2004.
NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane
County,Washington, as follows:
Section 1. Intent to Annex. In order to continue to receive fire protection, fire prevention, fire
suppression, emergency medical, and hazardous material incident response, it is hereby declared that the
City of Spokane Valley shall be deemed annexed to Spokane County Fire Districts 1, 8, and 9 for 2004.
Section 2. Notification to Boards of Commissioners. The City Clerk shall send a copy of this
Resolution to the Boards of Commissioners for Spokane County Fire Districts 1, 8, and 9.
Section 3. Effective Date. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect upon adoption of a
resolution by each participating Fire District, but no later than December 31,2003.
Adopted this 14th day of October, 2003.
City of Spokane Valley
..eiI =
Mayor Michael DeVlemiy
`. ei
C_ ' 'r- 74-1"-A- /7 — /
City Clerk, Christine Bainbridge
Approved as to Fcorm:
(7a/vv, h. )
Deputy C(ty Attorney, ary P. Driskell
\\CV.FcI\I Icrrc\rhainhridar\rhainhridge\Resolutions\resolution 03-049 extending fire for 2004 for 10-14-03.DOC
EXHIBIT D
FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT NO. 8
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
RESOLUTION NO. 03-02
A RESOLUTION of the Board of Fire Commissioners of Fire Protection District No. 8, Spokane
County,Washington,providing for fire protection services to the City of the Spokane Valley.
WHEREAS, in the judgment of the Board of Fire Commissioners (the "Board") of Fire
Protection District No. 8, Spokane County, Washington (the "District"), it is essential and
necessary for the protection of public health, life and property that the District provide the
highest level of fire protection and emergency medical services that can be funded through the
District's available tax resources;NOW, THEREFORE, .
BE IT RESOLVED,by the Board of the District that RESOLUTION 03-049 of the City of Spokane
Valley, in Spokane County, Washington be adopted for the purposes of providing fire protection
services as identified in the City of Spokane Valley RESOLUTION 03-049 (Attachment]).
THIS RESOLUTION ADOPTED at the regular meeting of the Board of Fire Commissioners of
Spokane County Fire District 8,the 14th day of November 2003,by a majority of the members.
FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT NO. 8
SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON
X/. /1"e (
By Grego esse, Chair,
Fire District 8 Commissioner
%---7
B Kenneth M. K ssle ,
Fire Commissioner
y Ralph E. Schaefer,
Fire Commissioner
ATTES • •
By Susan M. Cronk,
District Secretary
EXHIBIT D
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
SPOKANE COUNTY WASHINGTON '
ORDINANCE NO.04-003
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,WASHINGTON,PROVIDING FOR
1'H!,SUBMISSION OF A PROPOSITION TO THE QUALIFIED VOTERS OF THE:CITY OF
SPOKANE VALLEY FOR APPROVAL OR REJECTION OF ANNEXATION TO SPOKANE
COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT 1 AND SPOKANE COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT 8
WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 52.04.161, the City of Spokane Valley has received fire services
in its first two years of incorporation from the existing fire districts within the City's corporate limits;
WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 52.04.161, the City of Spokane Valley shall be withdrawn from
the existing fire districts unless a ballot proposition is adopted by the voters of Spokane Valley providing
• annexation into one or more existing fire districts;
WHEREAS, Resolution 03-016, adopted by the City Council February 11, 2003, directed the
City Manager to contact the existing fire districts to investigate and report on future fire protection
services,including long-term annexation to the districts;
WHEREAS, the City Manager has conducted said investigation, and recommends annexing to
Spokane County Fire Districts 1 and 8;
•
WHEREAS,the public interest will be served by annexing to Spokane County'Fire District 1'and
Spokane County Fire District 8;
WHEREAS,the City Council is desirous of being annexed by Spokane County Fire Districts 1 • '
and 8;and
WHEREAS,RCW 52.04.061 states that the legislative authority of a city seeking to annex to one
or more fire districts may initiate said annexation by adoption of an ordinance stating the city's intent.
NOW THEREFORE,the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley,Washington,ordains as follows:
Section 1. Intent. It is the intent of the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley to
submit for ballot'proposition of the qualified electorate of the City of Spokane Valley the'approval or
rejection of the annexation of the City of Spokane Valley to Spokane County Fire District 1 and Spokane
County Fire District 8 as the boundaries of those Districts are configured at the date of the election on this
issue.
Section 2. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence•or clause of this Ordinance is
for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions of
• this Ordinance.
Section 3. Effective date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after
publication of this Ordinance or a summary thereof occurs in the official newspaper of the City as
provided by law. •
•
Ordinance 04-003 Annexation Fire Districts Page 1 of 2
, .
• <. l
.
Passed this 20th day of January,2004.
—4\1/1 -W11. .1
Michael DeVleming,N4ayor
A 1-1`J.ST .
1,--, A-A-- ,;374-'-`41.-- 1 - .
Christine Bainbridge,City Clerk
Approved As To For •
``,ty0M06�BQ7d7/
////(// `%0 SP 0i 4�r"-e
Cary P.Drill,Deputy C Attorney 'cji GS •E r
Date of Publication: /'02 5 d/ _,March U, D • .
Effective Date: /— 3 d -ay/ ,2003
%,1747,,eejeeeeito•
Ordinance 04-003 Annexation Fire Districts Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT D
SPOKANE COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT 1
Spokane Valley Fire Department
10319 E. Sprague Avenue
Spokane, WA 99206
RESOLUTION NO. 2004-220
CONCURRING IN THE ANNEXATION OF A PORTION OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE
VALLEY INTO THE SPOKANE VALLEY FIRE DEPARTMENT AND CALLING FOR AN
ELECTION TO BE HELD ON THE ISSUE OF WHETHER THE PORTION OF THE CITY
OF SPOKANE VALLEY SHOULD BE ANNEXED INTO AND REMAIN IN THE FIRE
PROTECTION DISTRICT.
BACKGROUND: WHEREAS, Spokane Valley Fire Department provides fire protection and
emergency medical services to a portion of the City of Spokane Valley which, since its
incorporation, has been deemed annexed into the District; and
WHEREAS, the City has indicated its interest in annexing the portion currently located in the
Fire District into and remaining a part of the Fire Protection District under the procedures
established in RCW 52.04.061 through 52.04.091; and
WHEREAS, the annexation of the portion of the City of Spokane Valley into the Fire
Protection District would assure that the District will continue to provide fire protection and
emergency medical services to the residents of that portion of the City in the same manner
that it currently provides services to the residents of the District; and
WHEREAS, the annexation of the portion of the City into the District will not affect the level
of service provided to the residents of the District and will not affect the tax levy of the
District.
RESOLUTION: NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners of
Spokane Valley Fire Department that it concurs in and supports the annexation of a portion
of the City of Spokane Valley into the Spokane Valley Fire Department.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners of Spokane Valley
Fire Department that the Board of Commissioners hereby requests the Records and
Elections Division of Spokane County, as ex-officio Supervisor of Elections, to call a special
election on April 27, 2004, in the Fire Protection District to submit to the voters at such
election a ballot proposition in the following form:
"Shall the portion of the City of Spokane Valley currently located in the Fire Protection
District be annexed into and remain a part of Spokane Valley Fire Department
(Spokane County Fire Protection District No. 1)?n
ADOPTION: ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Board of Commissioners of Spokane
Valley Fire Department on Wednesday, January 21, 2004 the following Commissioners
bei pr sent and----voti
4
n Schmidt, Commissioner J e Dawson, Commissioner
/ y✓l //1 .a
-7114", - -4--ii— ---- .
/ kolb j H ar1son, Commissioner Monte Nesbitt, Commissioner
.
' &11 :(,'%,,,,k_____.
Bill Anderson, Commissioner
I, Mark Grover, the duly appointed Fire Chief and the qualified acting Secretary for the
Board of Fire Commissioners of Spokane County Fire District 1, do hereby certify that the
above and foregoing Resolution is a true copy of the Resolution that was adopted by the
Board of Fire Commissioners on January 21, 2004.
ark Grover (Attest)
EXHIBIT D
Spokane County Fire Protection District.8
12100 E. Palouse Highway
Valleyford, WA 99036
Resolution 04-02
CONCURRING IN THE ANNEXATION OF A PORTION OF THE CITY OF
SPOKANE VALLEY INTO SPOKANE VALLEY FIRE PROTECTION
DISTRICT NO. 8 AND CALLING FOR AN ELECTION TO BE HELD ON THE
ISSUE OF WHETHER THE PORTION OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
SHOULD BE ANNEXED INTO AND REMAIN IN THE FEE PROTECTION
DISTRICT.
BACKGROUND: WHEREAS, Spokane Valley Fire Protection District No. 8 provides
fire protection and emergency medical services to a portion of the City of Spokane Valley
which, since its incorporation,has been deemed annexed into the District; and
WHEREAS, the City has indicated its interest in annexing the portion currently located
in the Fire District into and remaining a part of the Fire Protection District under the
• procedures established in RCW 52.04.061 through 52.04.091; and
WHEREAS, the annexation of the portion of the City of Spokane Valley into the Fire
Protection District would assure that the District will continue to provide fire protection
and emergency medical services to the residents of that portion of the City in the same
manner that it currently provides services to the residents of the District; and
WHEREAS, the annexation of the portion of the City into the District will not affect the
level of service provided to the residents of the District and will not affect the tax levy of
the District.
RESOLUTION: NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of
Commissioners of Spokane Valley Fire Protection District No. 8 that it concurs in and
supports the annexation of a portion of the City of Spokane Valley into the Spokane
Valley Fire Department.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Commissioners of Spokane
Valley Fire Protection District No. 8 that the Board of Commissioners hereby requests
the Records and Elections Division of Spokane County, as ex-officio Supervisor of
Elections, to call a special election on April 27, 2004, in the Fire Protection District to
submit to the voters at such election a ballot proposition in the following form:
"Shall the portion of the City of Spokane Valley currently located in the Fire
Protection District be annexed into and remain a part of Spokane Valley Fire
Protection District No. 8?"
ADOPTION: ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Board of Commissioners of
Spokane Valley Fire Protection District No. 8 on Wednesday, January 21, 2004 the
following Commissioners being present and voting.
p /DP
By Gregory A. lies e, Chair
Fire District 8 Commissioner
_ , fit l_ ��,��'lti/
y 'enneth M. Kessler,
Fire District 8 Commissioner
ae a 60t4UCz
ire District 8 Commissioner
I, Sue M. Cronk, the duly appointed and qualified Secretary for the Board of Fire
Commissioners of Spokane Valley Fire Protection District No. 8, do hereby certify that
the above and foregoing Resolution is a true copy of the Resolution that was adopted by
the Board of Fire Commissioners on January 21, 2004.
Sue M. Cronk,
Fire District 8 Secretary
•J
NO. 4 0264 EXHIBIT D
•
BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON
IN THE MA TIER OF RESCINDING )
SPOKANE COUNTY RESOLUTION NO. )
2004-0173 WHICH CALLED FOR AN )
ET E.CTION WHEREIN THE ELECTORS )
WITHIN THE C.I1 Y OF SPOKANE )
VALLEY AND THE ELECTORS WITHIN )
SPOKANE COUNTY FIRE ) RESOLUTION
PROTECTION DISTRICT 1 AND )
SPOKANE COUNTY FIRE )
PROTECTION DISTRICT NO. 8 WOULD )
VOTE ON WHETHER THE Cri Y OF )
SPOKANE VALLEY SHOULD BE )
• ANNEXED INTO AND REMAIN A PART )
OF SPOKANE COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT )
• 1 AND SPOKANE COUNTY FIRE )
PROTECTION DISTRICT NO. 8 )
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of RCW 36.32.120(6), the Board of County
Commissioners of Spokane County has the care of County property and the management of County
funds and business; and
•
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Ordinance No. 04-003, passed by the City
Council of the City of Spokane Valley on January 20, 2004; Resolution No. 2004-220, passed by
• the Board of Commissioners of Spokane County Fire Protection District 1 Commissioners on
January 21, 2004; and Resolution No. 04-02, passed by the Board of Commissioners of Spokane
County Fire District No. 8. on January 21, 2004, all three public bodies determined to place before
the electors within the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County Fire Protection District 1 and
Spokane County Fire Protection District No. 8 respectively whether or not portions of the City of
Spokane Valley, currently located in respective portions of the Fire Protection Districts, should be
• annexed into and remain a part of the respective Fire Protection Districts; and
•
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of RCW 52.04.071 and provisions of Ordinance
No. 04-003, passed by the City of Spokane Valley on January 20, 2004; and Resolution No. 2004-
220, passed by the Board of.Commissioners of Spokane County Fire Protection District 1 on
January 21, 2004; and Resolution No. 04-02, passed by the Board of Commissioners of Spokane
•
County Fire Protection District No. 8 on January 21, 2004,the Board of County Commissioners of
Spokane County passed Spokane County Resolution No. 2004-0173 wherein the Board called for a
Special Election to be held on Tuesday, April 27, 2004, at which an election would be held on
•
•
Page 1of2
4 0260
whether the City of Spokane Valley should be annexed to and remain a part of Spokane County
Fire Protection District 1 and Spokane County Fire Protection District No. 8; and
•
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, in correspondence attached
hereto and incorporated herein by reference, advised the Board of County Commissioners that they
desired to cancel the special election called by the Board of County Commissioners under Spokane
County Resolution No. 2004-0173; and
WHEREAS, the Spokane County Prosecuting Attorney's Office, statutory legal counsel for
the Board of County Commissioners has advised the Board that it may legally cancel a scheduled
election that it has called at any time before the absentee ballots have been mailed.
•
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Board of County
Commissioners of Spokane County, based upon correspondence received from the City Council of
the City of Spokane Valley, that Spokane County Resolution No. 2004-0173 is hereby rescinded
•
• and the special election scheduled to be held on Tuesday, April 27, 2004, wherein certain ballot
propositions within such resolution were to be submitted to the electors within the City of Spokane
Valley, the electors within Spokane County Fire Protection District 1 and the electors within
Spokane County Fire Protection District No. 8, is hereby cancelled. The Clerk of the Board of
` County Commissioners is hereby directed to immediately transmit a copy of this Resolution to the
Spokane County Auditor.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this-- ' day of 7? c Z !C 2004.
•
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
• co rd",- II OF SPOKANE, COUNTY,WASH NGTON
G 2 1
•
•
•
it, • sEnl-.••• P IP HARRIS, Chair
• A 1T ST: h%'�2�E
• VICKY M. DALTON ��bk, — f
CT.FRK OF THE BOARD
. �. r
M. KATE CCASLIN, Vice-Chair
•
Daniela Erickson, Deputy J ROSKELLEY
•
H:\17aagtnan\Resolutions\Spokane Valley anexation election 022004.do;
Page 2 of 2
4 0260
�crn�+� �e EXHIBIT D
Hit
Valley COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 ♦ Spokane Valley WA 99206
509.688-0053 ♦ Fax: 509.921.1008 ♦ cityhall@spokanevalley.org
March 25,2004
Francine Boxer,Chief Executive Officer
Board of County Commissioners for
Spokane County
• 1116 West Broadway,Room 100
•
Spokane,WA 99260
Re: Removal of fire district annexation from April 27, 2004 election date
Dear Francine:
Please convey the contents of this letter to the Board of County Commissioners as
quickly as possible so that the Board may consider action on our request when they meet
• next Tuesday. As you may know, our staff has been working on resolving some issues
relating to the pending election for annexation of Spokane Valley to Fire Districts 1 and
8. The primary issue was whether this is a matter that is required by law to be submitted
to the Boundary Review Board for review. Specifically, the attorney for the BRB
rendered an opinion that in an election for annexation of a new city to two fire districts,
. . the issue would need to be submitted on a Notice of Intention to the BRB. Our attorney,
and the attorney for the two fire districts, came to the opposite conclusion, that annexing
to the fire districts does not represent a"change of boundaries" as contemplated by RCW
36.93.090(a)(1). The attorney for the BRB asserts that if the election does not pass; the
boundaries would be changed, thus requiring the review. We find no support for that
•
assertion.
However, in resolving that issue in the manner that appears to chart the safest course, and
to provide the highest level of certainty that the results of an election regarding this
matter will remain enforceable, our City Council approved two motions last night The
first motion was for Spokane Valley to request that Spokane County remove this issue
from the April 27, 2004 election ballot. We understand from attorney Jim Emacio and
• : Paul Brandt at the Elections Department that Spokane County has not incurred any
outside costs on this to date. I wanted to make sure, for your benefit and ours, that we
notify you in as timely manner as possible of this request to avoid any such costs.
4 0260 0
Francine Boxer, Chief Executive Officer
March 25, 2004
Page 2
Spokane Valley recognizes that once the Board of County Commissioners takes formal
action on March 30, 2004 to take this matter is off the ballot for April 27, there would be
insvfficient time, as a matter of law, to re-set it for that date. As a result, we would then
have to look at a later election date.
The second motion is more for the Boundary Review Board,but I wanted to let you know
what will occur. The Council moved for Spokane Valley to submit the election
proposition to the BR/3 as soon as all of the requisite paperwork is completed. Our goal,
and that of the two fire districts, is to hold the election on this issue on September 14,
2004.
Let me know if you need any additional information. We appreciate your assistance in
resolving these issues.
Very truly yours,
David Mercier, City Manager
• cc: Spokane Valley City Council
Jim Emacio, Chief Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
• • Paul Brandt,Elections Department
Chief Mark Grover, Fire District 1
Chief Dan Blystone, Fire District 8
Clark Snure, Attorney for Fire Districts 1 and 8
•
EXHIBIT D
MINUTES
City of Spokane Valley
City Council Regular Meeting
Tuesday,December 23,2003
Mayor DeVleming welcomed everyone to the 34th official council meeting, and called the City of
Spokane Valley Regular Meeting to order at 6:10 p.m.
Attendance:
Councilmembers: Michael DeVleming,Mayor
Diana Wilhite,Deputy Mayor
Dick Denenny,Councilmember
Mike Flanigan, Councilmember
Richard Munson, Councilmember(via telephone speakerphone)
Gary Schimmels,Councilmember
Steve Taylor, Councilmember
Staff Present: Dave Mercier, City Manager
Nina Regor,Deputy City Manager
Stanley Schwartz, City Attorney
Cary Driskell,Deputy City Attorney
Ken Thompson,Finance Director
Marina Sukup, Community Development Director
Neil Kersten, Public Works Director
Morgan Koudelka, Administrative Analyst
Sue Pearson,Deputy City Clerk
Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor DeVleming led the Pledge of Allegiance.
INVOCATION: Pastor Pat Mecham of Opportunity Presbyterian Church gave the invocation.
ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called roll.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: It was moved by Councilmember Taylor and seconded by Councilmember
Denenny to have discussion regarding potential changes that might need to be made to the interlocal
agreement to the tourism promotion area, and to have such discussion toward the end of New Business.
After brief discussion,Mayor DeVleming referred to section 1.9 of the Governance Coordination Manual
and said that items may only be added to the agenda by the presiding officer, three councilmembers, a
majority of the Councilmembers present, or the City Manager. Mayor DeVleming asked if any other
councilmembers wished to support the motion. No other councilmembers voiced their support. It was
moved by Mayor DeVleming and seconded by Councilmember Schimmels to approve the agenda as
presented. Roll Call Vote: In Favor: Mayor DeVleming, Deputy Mayor Wilhite, Councilmembers
Schimmels, Flanigan and Munson. Opposed: Councilmembers Taylor and Denenny. Abstentions: None.
Motion approved.
COMMITTEE,BOARD,LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS:
Councilmember Denenny: reported that he attended the Spokane Transit Authority Board meeting which
involved discussion and ultimate approval of their budget; that the budget reflected substantial reduction
in operations beginning July; and that there will be two major public-input meetings on this issue in
January; and that after the public process, the Board will vote on the proposed changes.
Council Minutes 12-23-03 Page 1 of 5
Date Anoroved by Council:01-13-04
Councilmember Taylor: explained that he attended the Board meeting of the Inland Northwest
Technology Education Center, where the proposal was discussed to move forward with the connect model
based on the University of California San Diego connect economic development model used to promote
the high-tech sectors in that City; and they are attempting to put together a similar model for the Spokane
region.
Councilmember Munson: said that he and Councilmembers Flanigan and Wilhite attended the National
League of Cities Convention in Nashville where they attended many classes designed to help officials in
their roles, such as a course on How to Involve the Public.
Councilmember Taylor asked for a point of order in reference to adding an item to the agenda, and that a
motion and a second were stated and asked if a vote should have been taken. Mayor DeVleming cited the
Governance Manual dealing with the three ways to add items to an agenda. Mayor DeVleming also
mentioned the issue has been scheduled as an agenda item for the January 13 agenda.
MAYOR'S REPORT: Mayor DeVleming reminded everyone that the Christmas tree is scheduled to be
taken down January 2, and asked that any volunteers meet at the U-City parking lot that morning at 9:00
a.m It was moved by Mayor DeVleming and seconded by Rich Munson to confirm the appointment of
Rich Munson to fill the vacancy on the Spokane Transit Authority's Board in place of Deputy Mayor
Wilhite's resignation. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None.
Motion carried.
PUBLIC COMMENT: None was offered.
1. CONSENT AGENDA: After City Clerk Bainbridge read the Consent Agenda, it was moved by
Mayor DeVleming and seconded by Councilmember Flanigan to approve the consent agenda as
presented. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion
carried.
2. Proposed Ordinance 03-098 to Create Fund—Second Reading.
City Manager Mercier explained that state law requires cities to formally create funds which are planned
for use in the budget; that the adopted budget anticipates the use of certain funds to receive revenues and
to make expenditures for various programs; and this Ordinance creates that fund. It was moved by Mayor
DeVleming and seconded by Deputy Mayor Wilhite to approve Ordinance 03-098. Mayor DeVleming
invited public comment; none was offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed:None.
Abstentions:None. Motion carried.
3. Proposed Resolution 03-055 to Amend Six-Year Transportation Improvement Program.
It was moved by Deputy Mayor Wilhite and seconded by Councilmember Flanigan to approve Resolution
03-055. Public Works Director Kersten explained that this is a housekeeping item and simply adds the
sidewalk project as a result of receiving a grant from the Transportation Improvement Board to construct
sidewalks along Bowdish Road and 24th Avenue. Mayor DeVleming invited public comment; none was
offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion
carried.
4. Motion Consideration: Approval of Fleet Management Policy.
It was moved by Mayor DeVleming and seconded by Deputy Mayor Wilhite to approve the Fleet
Management Policy. City Manager Mercier explained that it is appropriate to have an operating policy
and procedures to address the use of the City's vehicles; and that all items raised at the previous study
session have been incorporated into the fmal draft of the policy. Mayor DeVleming invited public
Council Minutes 12-23-03 Page 2 of 5
Date Approved by Council:01-13-04
comment; none was offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions:
None. Motion carried.
5. Motion Consideration: To Amend Hotel/MoteI Contract Concerning Cost Reimbursement.
Finance Director Thompson explained that the agreement states that funds are to be distributed on a
reimbursement basis from the date the agreement is signed to the now modified date of March 31, 2004.
However, because the agreement was signed so late in the year, staff proposes that expenditures should
quality for reimbursement as of the date of Council approval, or September 9, 2003. It was moved by
Mayor Devleming and seconded by Councilmember Flanigan to approve the amendment to the contract
concerning cost reimbursements, to make expenditures from September 9, 2003 to March 31, 2004.
Mayor DeVleming invited public comment; none was offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor:
Unanimous. Opposed:None. Abstentions:None. Motion carried.
6. Motion Consideration: Approval of Probation Services Interlocal Agreement.
It was moved by Mayor DeVleming and seconded by Councilmember Flanigan to approve the interlocal
agreement. Deputy City Attorney Driskell explained that after discussing this issue with several other
local jurisdictions, it appears contracting with Spokane County at this point is the best option, and that
staff will continue to research other options for probation after 2004. Mayor DeVlenung invited public
comment; none was offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions:
None. Motion carried.
7.Motion Consideration: Mayor Appointment to Spokane County Air Pollution Control Authority.
Mayor DeVleming explained that after discussing this issue with council, Councilmember Schimmels has
indicated his willingness to be appointed; and that all small cities will advance a name and then e-mail
vote among the Mayors to determine who to advance to the county for appointment. Deputy Mayor
Wilhite said she would be willing to be an alternate if needed. It was moved by Mayor DeVleming and
seconded by Councilmember Denenny to advance Councilmember Schimmels to the list of candidates for
this appointment.
PUBLIC COMMENT: Mayor DeVleming invited public comment; none was offered.
8. Fire District Annexation Issues.
Deputy City Manager Regor went over her December 23 memo and the accompanying PowerPoint
presentation on the major options for fire services, and added that First District 1 and 8 preferred we
annex into both districts. Ms. Regor also mentioned that the Spokane Fire District 1 Board of
Commissioners of Spokane Valley Fire Department approved the transfer of the four Spokane County
parcels from Fire District #9 to be merged into District 1. Ms. Regor discussed the significant ongoing
and financial service impacts to the options as shown on the accompanying chart,including discussion of
the maximum levy rates which would be set. Ms. Regor finished by discussing election information and
options, and Council concurred that they have no objections to an April 27th election date.
9. Council Retreat Planning.
City Manager Mercier explained that many cities and private corporations rely upon a retreat as a time to
plan for and address coming issues. After brief discussion, it was determined that February 7, 2004
would be the retreat date with possible times of 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Possible topics for retreat
discussion included five-year financial forecast, 2005 goals, review of department workplans, governance
coordination manual process and rules,comprehensive plan, sewers, and review of contracting. It was
mentioned if more complex items are desired, council could always plan for additional retreat days.
Council Minutes I2-23-03 Page 3 of 5
Date Approved by Council:01-13-04
10. Draft MOU re STEP Agreement.
Public Works Director Kersten explained that Council approved $1,010,000 for the STEP program, and
this Memorandum of Understanding outlines the responsibilities and requirements between the City of
Spokane Valley and Spokane County for the 2004 Sewer Construction Program. Councilmember
Munson requested that staff continue the effort not to cut off traffic from major east/west or north/south
corridors for significant lengths of time. The MOU will be placed on the next council agenda for council
consideration.
11. Proposed Street Vacation Ordinance Discussion.
Deputy City Attorney Driskell explained his December 18, 2003 memo addressing the questions of
whether to require payment for the value of the property, and what amount to set for an administrative
fee. Attorney Driskell said Spokane County's vacation fee is $300.00. Attorney Driskell said one of the
previous questions addressed was whether to charge anything for the value of the property; that there is
nothing mandating we charge for the value of the property, but staff suggests if that is an option Council
chooses, we might want to charge a fee which would reflect a reasonable amount of cost recovery.
Councilmember Munson asked in reference to paragraph 2B, if staff is aware and has examined that case
law, and also that the Assessor's Office states that the actual valuation of the land is not relevant, only the
total value of land and improvements are relevant. Discussion continued regarding land value versus
property value; option 1 administrative fee, special exceptions where the right-of-way has been acquired
at public expense, large vacations, and simple vacations. Council agreed to have staff move forward on
establishing an appropriate administrative fee with Council or the planning commission retaining the
option of approval. City Manager Mercier said staff will come back to council with a recommended
administrative fee that staff feels would reflect recovery of costs.
12. Library Report.
Deputy City Manager Regor explained her December 23, 2003 memo and accompanying draft agreement.
Ms. Regor said that the Library Board met December 16, 2003, and offered some alternatives to their
original version approved December 3, 2003. Two variations were approved December 16. One option
is based on a taxable valuation formula whereby the property tax valuation would be multiplied by the
library district rate of .500, minus 5% uncollectible amount and that resulting amount would be the
amount the City of Spokane Valley would pay in 2004 for library services. Ms. Regor stated that the
property tax valuation continues to fluctuation, and the 5% uncollectible amount is an estimate and the
actual amount will not be known until the end of the year. Under this option, Capital Facilities Planning
would be included to be paid for by the District. The second option the Board approved was a payment
based upon Valley usage. Costs were allocated to the Valley based upon the Valley use of each library
branch. Councilmember Munson said he would like to see if our share of use is proportional to our share
of the budget. Councilmember Taylor said he would like the contract based on cost and not on amount of
revenue collected. Ms. Regor said she will confirm if the library card can be used district-wide or only in
one district. City Manager Mercier added that staff will be looking at what other professional service
contracts are part of the 2004 budget so that we can balance whether we are paying the full cost of the
professional service contract for capital facilities charge but participating on a percentage basis on all of
the other professional services contracts. It was determined staff will focus on option #2 and no longer
attempt negotiations with option#1.
13. Legislative Issues Discussion.
City Manager Mercier mentioned that he and Jim Justin, Association of Washington Cities lead lobbyist,
discussed the council question regarding community empowerment zones, and Mr. Justin verified that as
a matter of statute, only six zones are currently allowed creation in the State of Washington, and all of
those zones need be established by January 1, 2004; if we want another zone related it would require
legislative activity; that Mr. Justin was not certain of the process required if we were simply looking to
enlarge a zone in our area; that CTED, the governing arm of that particular program, will be discussing
Council Minutes 12-23-03 Page 4 of 5
Date Approved by Council:01-13-04
with Mr. Justin the process to follow for enlargement; and whether it can be an administrative agency
decision or needs legislative attention. Mr. Justin informed Mr.Mercier that there are several exemptions
within the fabric of the statutes that created the zone, which expire June 2004, and therefore in the short
session, the legislature will need to visit this topic area to determine whether or not there will be an
extension of the exemption that would otherwise expire; that would provide a legislative vehicle to
consider enlargement of the zone or the creation of an additional zone, depending upon which avenue is
required under the statute. Mr. Mercier added that legislative issues discussion is scheduled for Council
agenda January 13, and the January 20, 2004 agenda includes a motion consideration to adopt the City
Council Legislative agenda. Councilmember Munson suggested writing a letter to the legislators with a
list and notes and to have this in their possession before they leave for the session. Councilmember
Munson suggested he and Councilmembers Taylor and Wilhite get together to draft the letter.
Regarding tax equalization, City Manager Mercier said that AWC e-mailed the updated figures prepared
by the Department of Revenue, to demonstrate which communities would gain or lose revenue, and there
was no change for Spokane Valley with an estimated $106,000 increase per year under this proposal;
however, estimates and the affects continue to change leaving great uncertainty in the numbers proposed.
Because not all figures are known, Council agreed to oppose this legislation.
Regarding water rights, Councilmember Taylor mentioned he feels this should not be included on the
agenda this year as it is a long term problem. Councilmember Schimmels agreed this is not a problem
this year for our area. Council agreed however, to support the Public Facilities District issue. Regarding
tax increment financing, Deputy Mayor Wilhite said she is gathering data and will have some information
soon to share with Council. Mayor DeVleming said in reference to tort reform, he would like to monitor
the issue until further information becomes available. Deputy Mayor Wilhite said that Senator McCaslin
introduced a bill last session which will be re-introduced and more information will be gathered for the
next council discussion. [Note: Councilmember Denenny momentarily left the room.] It was also
mentioned that in the letter to be drafted by Councilmembers Munson, Taylor and Deputy Mayor Wilhite,
the letter will also address the support for the PFD expansion. [Councilmember Denenny returned.]
Brief discussion ensued regarding holding a council meeting January 6, 2004. Councilmember Flanigan
indicated he would not like to have a meeting as he intends to attend the County's public hearing that date
on tourism promotion area. It was moved by Councilmember Taylor and seconded by Councilmember
Denenny to have a council meeting January 6, 2004. Discussion turned to issues which might be
addressed at a January 6 meeting in addition to the tourism promotion area issue. Vote by Acclamation:
In Favor: Councilmembers Taylor and Denenny; Opposed: Mayor DeVleming, Deputy Mayor Wilhite,
Councilmembers Flanigan, Munson, and Schimmels. Motion defeated.
As there was no further business, it was moved, seconded, and unanimously agreed upon to adjourn. The
meting adjourned at 8:25 p.m.
Michael DeVleming, Mayor
Attest:
Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk
Council Minutes I2-23-03 Page 5 of 5
Date Approved by Council:01-13-04
•
EXHIBIT D
MINUTES
City of Spokane Valley
City Council Regular Meeting
Tuesday,January 13,2004
Mayor DeVleming welcomed everyone and called the City of Spokane Valley Regular Meeting to order
at 6:00 p.m.
Attendance:
Councilmembers: Michael DeVleming,Mayor
Diana Wilhite, Deputy Mayor
Dick Denenny, Councilmember
Mike Flanigan, Councilmember
Richard Munson, Councilmember
Gary Schimmels, Councilmember
Steve Taylor, Councilmember
Staff Present: Dave Mercier,City Manager
Nina Regor,Deputy City Manager
Stanley Schwartz, City Attorney
Cary Driskell,Deputy City Attorney
Ken Thompson,Finance Director
Marina Sukup, Community Development Director
Neil Kersten,Public Works Director
Morgan Koudelka,Administrative Analyst
Tom Scholtens,Building Official
Bing Bingman, IT Specialist
Sue Pearson,Deputy City Clerk
Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor DeVleming led the Pledge of Allegiance.
INVOCATION: Pastor Shelley Bryan-Wee of Zion Lutheran Church gave the invocation.
ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called roll.All councilmembers were present.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: It was moved by Deputy Mayor Wilhite and seconded by Councilmember
Flanigan to approve the agenda as presented. Roll Call Vote: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None.
Abstentions:None. Motion carried.
COMMITTEE,BOARD, LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS:
Deputy Mayor Wilhite: reported that she represented the City at the dedication of the Michael Anderson
Elementary School on Fairchild Air Force Base. She also attended an Eagle Scout presentation and
presented two proclamations honoring the two young men who had attained the rank of Eagle Scout.
Councilmember Taylor: said that he attended the Spokane Public Facilities District Board meeting and
will report more on that meeting later concerning the size of the Board.
Councilmember Denenny: reminded everyone that the public hearings for the Spokane Transit Authority
will be held tomorrow at the Arena from 11:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., and again Thursday at the Convention
Center from 5:30 p.m.to 8:30 p.m.
Council Minutes 01-13-04 Page 1 of 5
Date Approved by Council:01-20-04
MAYOR'S REPORT: Mayor DeVleming said the Christmas tree has now been removed and thanked
all those who helped.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Rick Behm, 9405 East Sprague: expressed extreme gratitude to SCOPE in general and specifically for
their performing a security check at his business at 2:00 a.m.
Matt Jankowski, 9512 E. Sprague: discussed the couplet and the negative impact the one-way has had on
his business at 9512 East Sprague; said prior to the couplet his revenues were $850,000, and this year
revenues were approximately$640,000; that he had to lay off people; feels the Valley Mall had no impact
on the business decline as the Mall opened long before the decline of his business; wants Sprague
returned to two-way and wants that considered at this Thursday's meeting.
Art Britton, E. 18812 Euclid: stated his opposition to spending money to change Sprague back to two-
way; said he realizes $4.2 million is ready to help extend the couplet out to Evergreen; that if it does get
extended traffic congestion should lessen;he also suggested adding cross-streets.
1. CONSENT AGENDA: After City Clerk Bainbridge read the Consent Agenda,i t was moved by
Councilmember Denenny and seconded by Deputy Mayor Wilhite to approve the consent agenda as
presented. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion
carried.
2.First Reading Proposed Towing Ordinance 04-001.
After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance by title, it was.moved by Councilmember Munson and
seconded by Councilmember Denenny to advance this ordinance to a second reading for January 20,
2004. Attorney Driskell gave an overview of the ordinance and his accompanying memo; he suggested
changing Section 6, Al to omit the reference to the commercial driver's license and to state whatever is
required under existing state law.
In response to a call for public comment, Bill Sproutz, 13503 E. 288th stated that he feels [towing]
businesses should be located within the city limits as well as the storage facility. Councilmember
Denenny added that he feels it reasonable to have operators located within the City limits so that citizens
can have reasonable expectations of retrieval within community boundaries.
Vote by Acclamation:In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed:None. Abstentions:None. Motion carried.
3.First Reading Proposed Street Vacation Ordinance 04-002.
After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance by title, it was moved by Mayor DeVleming and seconded
by Deputy Mayor Wilhite to advance Ordinance 04-002 to a second reading. Current Planning Manager
Kevin Snyder explained that the main purposes of this ordinance are to implement policies for the
processing and c orisideration o f street vacation requests; t o a ddress conformity t o applicable statutory
requirements; and to provide a level of certainty to customers, the Council, Planning Commission and
staff on procedures for street vacations. Mr. Snyder went over the highlights of the ordinance, and added
in keeping with the desire to have cost recovery, staff suggests revising the current $300 fee to $1300.
Mr. Snyder explained that this fee is comparable to other public hearing related application fees(such as a
$1500 fee for a rezone request) which involve various departments such as planning and legal. Mayor
DeVleming invited public comment; none was offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous.
Opposed:None. Abstentions:None. Motion carried.
Council Minutes 01-13-04 Page 2 of 5
Date Approved by Council:01-20-04
4.First Reading Proposed Fire District Annexation Ordinance 04-003.
After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance by title, it was moved by Mayor DeVleming and seconded
by Councilmember Munson to advance ordinance 04-003 to a second reading. Deputy City Manager
Regor gave some background leading to this ordinance, and stated that the Fire Districts involved will
also be required to pass similar motions to set this into action. Mayor DeVleming invited public
comment; none was offered. Vote by Acclamation:In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed:None. Abstentions:
None. Motion carried.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: Tony Lazanis said he questioned why council and the city manager won't give
direction regarding the Design Build Operation in that the DBO will cost millions more to the valley
people; that he would like to see other options; and he feels there is a need to have the valley own and
operate the facility.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS:
5. Animal Control Discussion.
Deputy City Manager Regor gave background information concerning animal control service including
contract summary, method used in determining estimated cost of animal control, projected animal control
costs, a regional plan for licensing, and next steps which include determining the best service options.
Spokane Animal Control Director Nancy Hill was asked to speak regarding the county's response to the
RFP and the estimated$651,000 annually. Ms. Hill said that more details will be known after the January
20th meeting, that a true regional approach will allow cost savings; that she plans tentatively to go with a
two-year contract to give the community the opportunity to further discuss the regional approach, adding
that a regional committee will be forming and she would like to have at least one Spokane Valley
representative on t hat c ommittee. D uring discussion o f licenses, City Attorney S chwartz s aid h e w ill
research to see if other cities require a license at the point of sale of the pet.
6. Design Build Operation(DBO)Discussion
Public Works Director Kersten went over his PowerPoint presentation which included DBO advantages
and disadvantages, the DBO process,risk allocation, financial guarantees, and similarities and differences
compared with Stockton, California's DBO. Mr. Kersten said that it would take approximately 18
months from RFQ to signed agreement and that the DBO should result in lower rates. City Manager
Mercier added that the County will be the lead on this project and staff will provide details of the public
hearing process at the next council meeting. Mr. Kersten indicated he anticipates the interlocal agreement
to be finalized within the next few months.
Mayor DeVleming called for a recess at 7:40 p.m., and reconvened the meeting at 7:50 p.m.
7. Tourism Promotion Area Discussion
City Attorney Schwartz said that in the formation of the TPA, the first procedural process is to establish a
TPA through notice and an opportunity for all affected rate payers to testify about the TPA; however,the
notice was deficient because it had not been delivered to all of the lodging associations, specifically to the
owners of recreational vehicle parks and similar establishments. Mr. Schwartz explained that in the
"Decision" there are three reasons which caused the Board of County Commissioners to terminate the
formation proceedings for the TPA. Also, to include a City within a county-wide TPA,the city must have
given consent via an interlocal agreement. Mr. Schwartz explained that the City of Spokane signed an
interlocal agreement but it was not the agreement agreed to by the County so the agreement will need to
be modified. Also, the Board of County Commissioners would like some indication from this body on
possible additional issues to be presented in the interlocal agreement. Discussion then ensued regarding
the draft interlocal agreement. Specific issues included: Section 7C and if it differs from State Iaw;
Section 7B and the apparent ambiguous phrase "honor this request;" cost for a TPA manager and who
will act as said manager; clarification of Section 7B regarding the 40% filing a petition; and having a
Council Minutes 01-13-04 Page 3 of 5
section dealing with litigation, indemnification and protection of the city. Councilmember Flanigan
added that he wants to make sure the hoteliers have the ability to remove themselves. Mr. Schwartz will
continue to gather information and report again at the next council meeting.
8. Library Agreement Report.
Deputy City Manager Regor explained that the current offer made by the Library Board mid-December
contained two possible options: one based on property tax valuation, and the other on assumed usage.
Council previously supported the usage concept. Ms. Regor said that the Board came up with a base
usage of $1,902.171, with 2004 adjusted Spokane Valley costs of $2,032,660, which took into
consideration a 6.86% increase factor, and added $67,200 for the value of participating in the reciprocal
agreement between the Spokane County Library District and the City of Spokane Public Library, which
agreement was recently enacted and allows members of any jurisdiction or area to use the other facility
without costs. This brought the board adopted option to approximately $2.1 million. Additionally, the
Board changed the inflation factor from 6.86 to 6.21% as the original percentage was not the final budget
figure. This correction led to the total cost of $2,087,456, or a difference of about $12,000.00.
Discussion turned to the $67,200 figure and how that value was calculated. Ms. Regor also confirmed
that if there is no exchange of funds between the two library districts, the Spokane County Library
District will not experience $67,200 worth of expenses associated with the reciprocal agreement. Ms.
Regor said in reference to the Capital Facilities Plan, the agreement states that the Library District and the
City of Spokane Valley will work to complete the Plan by June 2004; that both entities will contribute
staff time, the District will pay external costs; and should the City not contract with o r annex t o the
District beyond 2004, the City will reimburse the District for up to $10,000 of those external costs; and
that both entities will agree in advance as to what those costs include. Additionally, the City will appoint
a staff member and a citizen as well as staff support, to the Capital Facilities Plan Advisory Committee.
Ms. Regor said the next Board meeting is set for January 20, 2004. It was Council consensus to remove
the$67,200 figure. Mr. Mercier stated staff will provide this counteroffer to the District.
9. International Building Code Discussion.
Building Official Scholtens gave a report on the background of the building code changes and announced
the upcoming January 22 public hearing before the Planning Commission. After their review, the
ordinance will be brought back before Council. Mr. Scholtens also noted that the enforcement of a
statewide building code is mandated by statute.
It was moved, seconded and agreed upon to extend the Council meeting to 9:15 p.m.
10. Legislative Issues Discussion.
Tax Equalization Issues: Councilmember Taylor reported that AWC continues working to clarify the
issues surrounding the sales tax issue in preparation for upcoming hearings; and as the figures are not
specific,AWC is examining the possibility for funding those cities which would be severally affected due
to the anticipated drop in revenue. Council agreed to continue to oppose this legislation pending further
specific information.
Public Facilities District Board: discussed expansion of the Board to six members, which would include
one member of Council. Councilmember Taylor said that the Board is reluctant to expand beyond the
five members they have; and they prefer that one of the two County seats be given to the Valley; and the
County opposes that idea. Councilmember Taylor said the PFD Board would like to know if Council
would support, or not oppose, legislation that provides us a seat by the County transferring one of their
appointments, and if so, we would have the final word on who that appointee would be. Mayor
DeVleming announced he would support a position of no position. Councilmember Munson said he
would not support their position. After further discussion, it was determined that an official decision will
Council Minutes 01-13-04 Page 4 of 5
Date Approved by Council:01-20-04
be made when the legislation comes forward. An opportunity to vote on the legislative agenda will be
included on next week's agenda.
SCAPCA Board: Discussion ensued on increasing the number of representatives for this board, along
with the possibility of this Board dissolving. Councilmember Munson said that he and Councilmembers
Taylor and Wilhite will write a letter to address this topic also. City Manager Mercier suggests Council
pursue appropriate representation on all boards for matters that affect our community and feels that
placing this on the legislative agenda would be consistent with that direction.
It was moved, seconded and agreed upon to extend the Council meeting another fifteen minutes.
It was Council consensus to focus on the first four items addressed in the 1-13-04 Request for Council
Action form,to add SCAPCA Board, and to monitor the issues of Water Rights and Tort Reform.
11. Council Retreat
City Manager Mercier mentioned the February 7 Council retreat (or planning conference), and that the
focus will be on the Review of Departmental Work Plans and Submittal Timetables; Finance and Budget
related Issues; Facilities and Contracts; and Community Involvement and Outreach. Additionally, if more
specifics are needed, another planning conference can be scheduled later.
There being no further business, it was moved, seconded and unanimously agreed upon to adjourn. The
meeting adjourned at 9:20 p.m.
Michael DeVleming,Mayor
ATTEST:
Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk
Council Minutes 01-13-04 Page 5 of 5
T)ntr AnnrnVMA by f:nnncil•O1-7(1-04
EXHIBIT D
MINUTES
City of Spokane Valley
City Council Regular Meeting
Tuesday,January 20,2004
Mayor DeVleming welcomed everyone and called the City of Spokane Valley Regular Meeting to order
at 6:00 p.m.
Attendance:
Councilmembers: Michael DeVleming,Mayor
Diana Wilhite,Deputy Mayor
Dick Denenny,Councilmember
Mike Flanigan,Councilmember
Richard Munson, Councilmember
Gary Schimmels, Councilmember
Steve Taylor,Councilmember
Staff Present: Nina Regor, Deputy City Manager
Cary Driskell,Deputy City Attorney
Marina Sukup,Community Development Director
Neil Kersten,Public Works Director
Cal Walker, Police Chief
Kevin Snyder, Current Planning Manager
John Hohman, Senior Development Engineer
Sue Pearson,Deputy City Clerk
Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor DeVleming led the Pledge of Allegiance.
INVOCATION: Pastor Brian Prior of the Episcopal Church of the Resurrection gave the invocation.
ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called roll.All councilmembers were present.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Deputy City Manager Regor asked that agenda item #2 be removed and
rescheduled for February 10, 2004 meeting. It was moved by Councilmember Denenny and seconded by
Deputy Mayor Wilhite to approve the agenda as amended. Roll Call Vote: In Favor: Unanimous.
Opposed:None. Abstentions:None. Motion carried.
COMMITTEE,BOARD,LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS:
Councilmember Schimmels: reported that he had a very informative meeting Saturday with the
Association of Washington Cities for the new councilmembers.
Councilmember Munson: announced that councilmembers have been involved with numerous training
sessions presented by AWC, and that those sessions have been extremely beneficial in helping
councilmembers better serve this community.
Councilmember Flanigan: mentioned he attended the first meeting for America's Promise, formerly
Spokane's Promise and that the Chase Youth Commission is acting as the umbrella for this program.
Councilmember Denenny: said that the STA held public meetings last week which were very well
attended and heard numerous public comments of those who rely on the public transportation system.
MAYOR'S REPORT: Mayor DeVleming brought council attention to the memo regarding two
opportunities for Council representation on boards and task forces. He mentioned the Regional Animal
Control Task Force is forming to evaluate the possibility of a regional animal control model; that he
would like either two Councilmembers or one Councilmember and one staff. Councilmembers Flanigan
Council Minutes 01-20-04 Page 1 of 4
Date Approved by Council:02-10-04
and Schimmels indicated their interest. Mayor DeVleming said City Manager Mercier will appoint the
staff member. Additionally, the Library Capital Facilities Advisory Committee would comprise a
councihnember, a staff member, and a citizen. Mayor DeVleming reiterated that Mr. Mercier will
appoint the staff member. Mayor DeVleming also announced that we still need citizens to serve on the
Cable Advisory Board.
PUBLIC COMMENT: None
1. CONSENT AGENDA: After City Clerk Bainbridge read the Consent Agenda, it was moved by
Mayor DeVieming and seconded to approve the Consent Agenda as presented. Vote by Acclamation:In
Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions:None. Motion carried.
NEW BUSINESS:
2. Second Reading Proposed Towing Ordinance 04-001. Removed from the agenda; to be discussed
at the February 10 Council meeting.
3. Second Reading Proposed Street Vacation Ordinance 04-002.
After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance by title, it was moved by Councilmember Munson and
seconded by Councilmember Flanigan to approve Ordinance 04-002. Deputy City Attorney Driskell
explained that there have been no changes since the first reading, and that the purpose of this ordinance is
to provide a procedural mechanism for citizens to request vacation of streets rights-of-way. Mayor
DeVleming invited public comment; none was offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous.
Opposed: None. Abstentions:None. Motion carried.
4. Second Reading Proposed Fire District Annexation Ordinance 04-003.
After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance by title, it was moved by Mayor DeVleming and seconded
by Councilmember Flanigan to approve Ordinance 04-003. Deputy City Manager Regor said that no
changes have been made since the first reading, and that this ordinance would provide for the annexation
to b e brought before the public at an election. M ayor D eVleming invited public c omment; n one was
offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion
carried.
5. Proposed Resolution 04-001 Amending Fee Resolution.
After City Clerk Bainbridge read the resolution's title, it was moved by Councilmember Munson and
seconded by Councilmember Denenny to approve resolution 04-001. Deputy City Attorney Driskell
explained that the amended fee resolution incorporates two changes: changing the current street vacation
fee from $300 to $1300, and imposing a tow operator registration fee of$100 related to tow operators
who want to be included on the police tow list. It was also mentioned that the tow operator registration
fee will not be charged until the towing ordinance is approved and effective. Mayor DeVleming invited
public comment; none was offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None.
Abstentions:None. Motion carried.
6. Motion Consideration: City Council Legislative Agenda.
Councilmember Taylor reviewed the draft letter to be sent to the appropriate senators and representatives.
Councilmember Taylor stated that he received information from City Manager Mercier that the
Department of Community Trade and Economic Development does have the authority to expand a current
zone, and that Spokane Valley will be applying for that expansion after further information is received to
determine the appropriate geographic areas. Councilmember Munson added that t his particular law is
under sunset at this session so we would like them to reestablish the law, and then CTED can expand the
zone. That clarification will be made on the letter. The question arose concerning the SCAPCA and if
that board represents us adequately as the City of Spokane Valley is not a small city. After further
discussion, it was decided to ask for one position on the board and not two. It was moved by Mayor
DeVleming and seconded by Deputy Mayor Wilhite to approve the legislative agenda with the discussed
amendments. Mayor DeVleming invited public comment; none was offered. Vote by Acclamation: In
Council Minutes 01-20-04 Page 2 of 4
Date Approved by Council:02-10-04
Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. Councilmember Denenny
said he will pick up the letter tomorrow and hand carry it to the senators and representatives Thursday.
7. Motion Consideration: Library Services Agreement.
Deputy City Manager Regor explained that the Library Board met this afternoon to consider the City's
counteroffer to the Board's December offer; that the Board approved the counteroffer and then held
discussion on how to handle the budget differences as their expenditures exceed their revenues by
approximately $200,000. Ms. Regor said the Board is examining three options: (1) to make a.proposal
for how the Board would shrink the expenditures by $200,000 and spread that system-wide; (2) to take
$200,000 to bring their expenses and revenues into alignment and reflect that from the Valley Branch;
and(3)to take the difference between their December proposal and our counteroffer($67,200) and reflect
that as a reduction in the Valley Branch. Discussion then ensued regarding the reduced level of service
and that it is currently not reflected in the agreement. It was council consensus to wait to see what this
reduced level of service means and to hold this agreement pending that information which should be
decided at the next Library Board meeting scheduled for February 17, 2004.
8. Motion Consideration: TIB Grant Funds.
Public Works Director Kersten explained that this is a housekeeping item,that the funding for the projects
has been approved,but that TIB requests that we certify all local matching funds for the Barker Road and
the Bowdish Road and 24th Avenue sidewalk projects. Director Kersten said this would also require
amending the budget. It was moved by Mayor DeVleming and seconded, to authorize staff to cert61 the
City has committed local match funds for the Barker Road Project and the Bowdish Road and 246 Avenue
Sidewalk Project for 2004 and 2005 and to amend our 2004 budget to reflect total project funding. Mayor
DeVleming invited public comment; none was offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous.
Opposed:None. Abstentions:None. Motion carried.
PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS:
9. Hotel/Motel Grant Proposals.
Councilmember Flanigan reported that the Hotel/Motel Committee met to review and discuss the grant
requests; that no consensus was reached for the funding amount for Valleyfest and Valleyfest
subsequently not requested not to b e i nvolved in t his year's g rant process. T herefore,the C ommittee
recommends the following allocations: (1) Centennial Trail $2,000; (2) Convention Visitors Bureau
$150,000; (3)Plantes Ferry Park$20,000; (4) County Fair and Expo center$25,000; (5)Regional Sports
Commission $100,000; and (6) Winery Association Brochure Production $2,000; for a total fund award
of $299,000. After brief discussion on possible reserves, Attorney Driskell said he will research to
determine if there are additional funds remaining, it the committee should reconvene to-handle those
funds. It was moved by Councilmember Munson and seconded by Councilmember Schinimels to approve
committee recommendations. Mayor DeVleming invited public comment; none was offered. Thereafter
followed brief descriptions of the projects, and brief comment from a representative from the Convention
Visitors Bureau and Regional Sports Commission. Ms. Regor also mentioned that she feels the intent of
this allocation is to reimburse expenses from the time of Council approval until the end of the calendar
year. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion
carried.
10. Stormwater 208 Program Discussion.
Senior Development Engineer John Hohman went over his stormwater 208 program PowerPoint
presentation. Mr. Hohman added that the ordinance which would regulate this would address
implementing regulations and not the comprehensive plan itself. Mr. Hohman also stated that he
anticipates putting together a steering committee along with a technical advisory committee comprised of
engineers and members of the public.
Council Minutes 01-20-04 Page 3 of 4
Date Approved by Council:02-10-04
•
11. Rotchford and 14th Stop Sign Report.
Public Works Director Kersten explained the background of this issue and said that the City's traffic
engineer has looked at the area and determined that a stop sign is not required at this point as that road is
designated as a local access road, and the entire length of that road has not yet been accepted as a City
street due to construction deficiencies. Mr. Kersten said that during the comprehensive plan process that
road would get upgraded to an arterial and if that were to occur, a stop sign would be required. After
discussion on the future of the road and the need for a stop sign, it was moved by Councilmember Taylor
and seconded by Councilmember Munson to install a stop sign for eastbound traffic on 14th at the
intersection of Rotchford. Mayor DeVleming invited public comment; none was offered.
Councilmember Denenny mentioned he feels this is not an appropriate action as we are not deciding on
stop signs for other similar streets. Vote by Acclamation:In Favor: Mayor DeVleming, Councilmembers
Schimmels, Taylor, Munson, and Flanigan; Opposed.' Deputy Mayor Wilhite and Councilmember
Denenny;Abstentions:None. Motion carried.
12. Advance Agenda.
Councilmember Munson asked that a travel policy discussion be included on the February 3 agenda.
Mayor DeVleming also mentioned that he would like to reconvene the governance committee and that
former committee members included himself,Councilmembers Denenny and Flanigan and the interim
Deputy City Manager.
13. Tourism Promotion Area.
Mayor DeVleming explained that after discussions with the President of the Hotel/Motel Association, Mr.
Anderson and his attorney, Commissioner Phil Harris, and the Mayor from downtown, there were three
suggested revisions to the interlocal agreement: (1) eliminate paragraph 7C, (2) determine who would pay
for any 1 itigation, and(3)clarification o f w ording. Mayor D eVleming said the group stated that the
intention is if 40% initiate the process to disestablish, then the commissioners decided whether to take
action or not, and if they didn't disestablish, that allowed the local jurisdictions to give 90-days notice to
terminate. Mayor DeVleming said they agreed that their group would pay for any litigation but that they
did not want to eliminate paragraph 7C. Councilmember Munson said that he would not vote for this as
written, and quoted paragraph RCW 35.101.140 "Disestablishment of the Area Hearing and Resolution.
The legislative authority may disestablish an area by ordinance after a hearing before the legislative
authority. The legislative authority shall adopt a resolution of intention to disestablish the area at least 15
days prior to the hearing required by this section. The resolution shall give the time and place of the
hearing." Councilmember Munson added that the text does not state that the hoteliers can disagree and
not disestablish. Further discussion ensued regarding the 40%, disestablishment, the resolution process,
and the meaning of paragraphs 7B and 7C. This matter will be taken back to those involved parties and
brought back for further council consideration at the February 10 Council meeting.
It was moved, seconded, and unanimously agreed upon to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m.
Michael DeVleming, Mayor
ATTEST:
Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk
Council Minutes 01-20-04 Page 4 of 4
Date Approved by Council:02-10-04
DRAFT
EXHIBIT D
MINUTES
City of Spokane Valley
City Council Regular Meeting
Tuesday,March 23,2004
Mayor DeVleming called the 40th City of Spokane Valley Regular Meeting to order at 6:00 p.m., and
welcomed everyone to the meeting.
Attendance:
Councilmembers: Staff:
Michael DeVleming,Mayor Dave Mercier,City Manager
Diana Wilhite,Deputy Mayor Nina Regor,Deputy City Manager
Dick Denenny, Councilmember Mike Jackson,Parks&Recreation Director
Mike Flanigan, Councilmember Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney
Richard Munson,Councilmember Ken Thompson,Finance Director
Steve Taylor,Councilmember Marina Sukup,Community Development Director
Neil Kersten,Public Works Director
Tom Scholtens,Building Official
Scott Kuhta,Long Range Planner
Greg McCormick,Long Range Planning Manager
Excused: Sue Pearson,Deputy City Clerk
Gary Schimmels Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor DeVleming led the Pledge of Allegiance.
INVOCATION: Councilmember Munson gave the invocation.
ROLL CALL: It was moved by Mayor DeVleming and seconded by Councilmember Wilhite to excuse
Councilmember Schimmels from tonight's meeting. Vote by acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous.
Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. City Clerk Bainbridge called roll; all
councilmembers were present with the exception of excused Councilmember Gary Schimmels.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Mayor DeVleming announced that item #11 will be removed from
tonight's agenda to be brought back at another date. It was moved by Mayor DeVleming and seconded
by Councilmember Munson to approve the agenda as amended. Vote by acclamation: In Favor:
Unanimous. Opposed:None.Abstentions:None. Motion carried
COMMITTEE,BOARD,LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS:
Councilmember Denenny reported that during the National League of Cities Conference in Washington,
D.C., he attended numerous seminars, established interactions with others, contacted legislators, and
attended conferences and interviews with Senators and Congressman Nethercutt.
Councilmember Taylor added that he too attended those conferences, and attended a seminar which dealt
with local planning and the Charrette process, which was also introduced at a recent Spokane Valley Joint
Council/Planning Commission meeting; he also attended a seminar on liability MTBE (gasoline
additives)contamination which was very interesting and informative.
Deputy Mayor Wilhite reported that she attended the recent conference on Federal Highway and
Transportation Funding and the Highway Funding System in general.
Council Minutes 03-23-04 Page 1 of 8
Date Approved by Council:
DRAFT
Councilmember Munson said that on March 16 he attended a meth action team meeting, which is a
regional group attempting to come up with action programs to address and mitigate the affects of drugs on
our society.
MAYOR'S REPORT:Mayor DeVleming reminded everyone that the Mayor's Ball is this Saturday.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor DeVleming explained the process for taking public comments, and
invited any public comments not on topics listed on the agenda.
Jeanne Gates, Veradale: on behalf of the members of the Spokane Valley Senior Center, she expressed
thanks to Council for attention to the visits at the center, and support during the transition; and that she is
excited about working with the Council on an ad hoc committee.
WASTEWATER ISSUES: PUBLIC COMMENTS. Mayor DeVleming opened the floor and invited
public comments concerning the wastewater issues.
Howard Herman, 117 N McDonald: said as a friend to the Council,believes Council is about to commit a
grievous error in contracting away ownership and future operation of the treatment plant; wants to argue
not to do so, and wants to know what Council knows about the proposed interlocal agreement with the
county; he wants discussions about the program; said approximately 90% of the meetings thus far have
been study sessions with no interplay with the public and feels there should be significant citizen input
regarding the interlocal agreement; that the topic deserves a number of public meetings and not just one
or two.
Tony Lazanis, 10626 E.Empire: said that study sessions are private sessions and don't involve the public;
does not favor an agreement with the County to give the City of Spokane Valley's assets away to the
County; asked Council not to "give our future away to the County;"that Valley people will be paying for
about 80%of the county's plant.
Eleanor Henderson: expressed concern about this issue, feels the citizens are not informed enough; that
she worked on the election board the last time this was an issue and 90% of the Valley voted against this
type of thing;that she wants more meetings so citizens can.let council know how they feel.
Ray Perry, 2020 N Eli: wants to admonish Council and hopes Council will invite public to many
meetings; that this is a very serious matter and the outcome will have long lasting affects, wants council
to invite the public to look at the whole scheme.
Richard Behm, 3626 S. Ridgeview Drive: said he was designated as an expert in the field; in the late 70's
he was one of the original people at the meeting to designate the aquifer as a sole source issue and has
been involved in sewer and water issues since that time, wants more public hearings and more time to
have people voice their opinions.
Dr. Phillip Rudy, 10720 East: feels we need to own the plant and it needs to be in the City limits of
Spokane Valley; that if the plant were in the City of Spokane, the City of Spokane could condemn and
purchase the plant according to law if the City of Spokane Valley went into a partnership with the City of
Spokane; said that utilities generate large amount of money, that Spokane County has in excess of 30
million dollars in wastewater reserves and that was collected from ratepayers,most of whom reside in the
valley;that the City of Spokane Valley needs the ability to generate its own reserve funds.
Wayne Frost, 3320 N Argonne: said that he does not live in the valley, but the company he represents
owns a large amount of land in the valley; that he is a representative of the Local Governance Committee
Council Minutes 03-23-04 Page 2 of 8
Date Approved by Council:
DRAFT
of the Chamber of Commerce; that the public feels left out of the loop and the desire is for more
information; in the past he's offered the Chamber to act as facilitator, and that invitation is still open;that
he encourages Council to look at opportunities that perhaps have not yet been considered, and that the
Chamber of Commerce is willing to look at this from an independent viewpoint.
Ed Mertens, 1310 N Pierce: said that the EPA reported that they might not allow the river to take any
more sewage; feels we have to step back and look at what they'll give us; if we can't go into the river
maybe we need a different plan; feels we have a right to put that in our control.
Eldonna Gossett, CEO Chamber of Commerce: wanted to reinforce the comments of Wayne Frost;wants
to help get citizens involved and would like to form a task force to work with Council to come to good
conclusions.
Mayor DeVleming invited further public comment; none was offered. Mayor DeVleming invited Public
Works Director Kersten to offer comment.
Director Kersten mentioned the council packet list showing the history of the meetings; that the County is
moving ahead with the Playfair site; that a meeting was held February 25 at the Eastside Community
Center for the Environmental Impact Study, which is scheduled to be completed mid-summer; that he and
members of the County met March 2 regarding the interlocal and that there will be some formal public
hearings on that matter; that the Board of County Commissioners met March 16 on that interlocal and
they had comments which will be brought back to Council in April. Director Kersten said that he met
with members of the Department of Ecology(DOE)who gave an update of the information they received
from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and that the EPA told the DOE that the EPA does not
want the DOE to issue any discharge permits into the river until the total maximum daily load (TMDL)
study is completed; and added that there is no specific timeframe for completion of that study, although
there is a tentative time of summer of 2005. Director Kersten added that depending on the outcome of
that study, this issue could stretch out for a year or more. He also mentioned that on March 16,the City
of Spokane entered into an agreement with Playfair with the intent of having part of that site used as a
regional wastewater treatment plant.
In response to Councilmember Denenny's question about the implications if we were to change direction,
and in response to Councilmember Munson's question about Mr. Emacio's recent paper, City Attorney
Schwartz explained that we have a sewer collection system which is owned and operated by the County.
In Mr. Emacio's basic assumption paper, which was premised upon the draft interlocal agreement still
under consideration, Attorney Schwartz said that Mr. Emacio stated that the "City of Spokane Valley
cannot legally take over the county's collection system." Attorney Schwartz then read and explained
RCW 36.94.180, which addresses the ability of a newly incorporated city to operate a sewage system
owned by the County. Attorney Schwartz said that this statute has not been interpreted by our
Washington State courts; that Mr. Emacio made the above statement because he interpreted the word
"may" in the above statute to require that it be a negotiated agreement between the City and the County
with respect to an assumption of the collection system by the City from Spokane County.
Attorney Schwartz continued by discussing the assumption of an area lying within or the assumption of
the facility, equipment and property lying within the City, all of which brings up more questions: What
happens if a treatment plant is constructed outside the City? Can you or is there a desire to condemn it?
Do you negotiate for capacity? What interest do you have in that outside facility? Attorney Schwartz
said that although one interpretation of the word "may" means there must be a negotiated contract,
perhaps other interpretations differ. In addition, Attorney Schwartz stated, if you were to do an
assumption, you cannot materially interfere with the operation of the remaining county system. Attorney
Schwartz said that in his opinion that means if you were to attempt to proceed with an assumption under
Council Minutes 03-23-04 Page 3 of 8
Date Approved by Council:
DRAFT
this statute,judicial intervention would be necessary to determine if there is the ability to assume without
the consent of the County,but the materially affect hurdle would still be an issue.
Finance Director Thompson then stated his concerns about moving ahead as the loan investor in a
wastewater treatment plant in Spokane Valley; he stated that the County is in line to get an approximate
70 million dollar loan at 1.5%; if Spokane Valley solely were to move ahead on the project, we would
want to make sure we could also a similar loan as if we were to pay 4.5 to 5% in the market, the debt
service would become significant; he also mentioned that the capital facilities charge that the County now
charges and the user fees would likely have to increase; which doesn't mean the fees would not increase
with any new plant. Director Thompson said another issue is, we have 26,000 of the users within our city
limits and another 9800 that will eventually be connected to that system; to bill 36,000 accounts we
would need additional staff(10-15 more)just to handle the telephone traffic; in addition, we would not
want to sell the bonds until the discharge permit has been issued (or we definitively know it will be
issued). Director Thompson said we would also be required to consider a debt service coverage factor,
which means after deducting the plant operating cost from the revenues there must be enough left over to
have between 1.3 and 1.5 times the debt service,which allows the bond buyers to have a comfort level to
know that there are extra revenues available; that we would also need a debt service reserve, which is
usually equal to one year's debt service or the highest year's debt service, which could amount to six
million dollars each year. Director Thompson explained that we must ensure that the capital facilities
charge and user fees are competitive to the outlying area in order not to discourage people from locating
their homes and businesses in the city limits; and that if we were to try to handle this project alone, it
would dominate our work plan for the next five years and would likely accomplish little else. If the
assumption issue goes to court, Director Thompson said, it would take years in time and substantial legal
fees. In summary,Director Thompson said he has concerns this project might be too large for the City of
Spokane Valley at this point.
Public Works Director Kersten said that one of our concerns is actually acquiring the permit; and that we
encouraged the County to send a letter to DOE clarifying if a permit could be obtained. Director Kersten
said that we received a letter November 7 from Richard Wallace, Manager of Water Quality at the DOE,
which stated that based on the current design, they would issue a permit. However, last week, the DOE
requested a meeting with us, the County and the City of Spokane, and told us that EPA said that they do
not want DOE to issue a permit at this time until the TMDL study is complete. Director Kersten said that
if another site would be considered, another EIS would need to be conducted; that the County spent
several years looking at possible sites, and that Director Kersten would estimate another one to two years
to find a different site, and another six to nine months for an EIS. City Manager Mercier said that we
have been advised by the County that the wastewater system currently has capacity at their projected
growth rates, to last to about 2009, and it may take five years to go through the design, construction, and
development of that facility in order to be available and useful.
Mayor DeVleming said this is just the beginning of presentations and public comments on the issue.
2. CONSENT AGENDA: After City Clerk Bainbridge read the consent agenda, it was moved by Mayor
DeVleming and seconded by Councilmember Denenny, to approve the Consent Agenda. Vote by
Acclamation:In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed:None.Abstentions:None. Motion carried
NEW BUSINESS
3. Second Reading Proposed Towing Ordinance 04-001 —Cary Driskell
After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Mayor DeVleming and seconded by
Councilmember Munson to approve Ordinance 04-001. Deputy City Attorney Driskell then discussed the
background of this ordinance, and said in addition to the changes discussed at the previous council
meeting, he is also recommending an amendment to this draft by eliminating section 10.E.13 which is in
Council Minutes 03-23-04 Page 4 of 8
Date Approved by Council:
DRAFT
contradiction with other state law, and to then re-number the remaining numbers of that section. Mayor
DeVleming moved to amend his motion to reflect the modifications suggested by Attorney Driskell;
seconder agreed. Mayor DeVleming invited public comment.
Bettie Simmons, 35045 Inland Empire: said as there is a valley tower here, she will defer to him.
Rodney Sankey, 3907 E. Wellesley: said his business address is 14921 E. Trent; that he owns a towing
company; he is concerned about the junk vehicle towing for free; said requiring performance without
payment is similar to seizure of the business; he is also the AAA contactor for the Spokane Valley and
does over 1,000 calls a month out here; he pays a driver to perform the tows and objects to the free
towing; said only 60% of the impound vehicles are retrieved and he takes a loss on the remaining 40%; he
suggested making it on a rotation basis and they would have no objection; and that his fee to haul a junk
vehicle is$30.00.
Kay Seek, 13617 E. Wellesley: said her towing company is located in the Spokane Valley at 7125 E.
Broadway; said the information given by Mr. Sankey is incorrect as his yard is not located in the Valley;
that is a tentative site and has not yet been approved by the State Patrol; that she represents six of the
seven Valley companies that are located within the city limits; that they are not supportive of the
ordinance as written;that increasing insurance costs is not setting a level playing field;that we are willing
to regulate them but have no provisions to regulate other towing companies that come into the city; there
are many towers who do not pay insurance and don't pay taxes;that private towing is set at the State level
and not the County level.
Betsy Merrell, owns Rouse's Towing, 2621 University: they are the largest towing company in this
county; said there are numerous incorrect facts; she feels the insurance liability amount should be one
million dollars; that they are required to carry five million because they run large trucks;junk vehicles is
an issue, however; as Spaulding Auto Parts receives $100 per ton and the average car weighs two tons,
Spaulding gets approximately $200 per vehicle and they get nothing; that Mr. Driskell's premise is the
towing company will get more law enforcement tows from the City of Spokane Valley — but she feels
there will be a few more but not many; and it usually cost her between $100 and $150 to process each
junk abandoned vehicle; she suggests Spaulding pick up the cars for free and keep the proceeds and
eliminate the middle person; that law enforcement officers must be present when they pick up vehicles in
order to protect drivers and that issue should be addressed. She said also if a towing company twice
refuses to pick up vehicles they may be removed from the law enforcement list; that several companies
are one-truck companies and there will be times when they will be busy and more than two times in a six-
month period when a company might turn down this type of call.
Richard Brandenburg, 12121 E. Portland Ave: owns and operates Outback Towing; said he can't approve
of this ordinance.
Jim Seek, 13617 E. Wellesley; co-owner of Victoria Towing; said that AAA only requires $500,000 in
insurance and our requirement is ten times the state requirement; that language is missing regarding State
Patrol having the final say in towing; and that he would like to see council direct staff to answer some of
these questions and come back again after the matter is more settled.
Mayor DeVleming invited further public comment; none was offered. Councilmember Taylor said he
feels there are more questions that could be answered and would like to ask staff to review the comments.
It was moved by Councilmember Taylor and seconded by Councilmember Flanigan to table the motion
and move the issue to the next council agenda. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed:
None. Abstentions:None. Motion carried.
Council Minutes 03-23-04 Page 5 of 8
Date Approved by Council:
DRAFT .
Mayor DeVleming called for a short recess at 7:35 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 7:45 p.m.
4. Second Reading Proposed Sign Amendment Code Ordinance 04-008—Scott Kuhta
After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Mayor DeVleming and seconded by
Councilmember Taylor to approve Ordinance 04-008. Long Range Planner Kuhta explained that this
ordinance would permit greater wall signage for schools, hospitals, and other public uses, and went over
the background of the ordinance. Mayor DeVleming invited public comment; none was offered. Vote by
Acclamation:In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed:None. Abstentions:None. Motion carried
5. Second Reading Uniform Development Code Ordinance 04-013 —Marina Sukup
After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Councilmember Munson and
seconded by Councilmember Flanigan to approve Ordinance 04-013. Community Development Director
Sukup gave an overview of the ordinance and said that there have been no changes since the last meeting.
Mayor DeVleming invited public comment; none was offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor:
Unanimous. Opposed:None. Abstentions:None. Motion carried.
6. First Reading Proposed Ordinance 04-014 Amending Ordinance 40 and 41 —Tom Scholtens
After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Councilmember Munson and
seconded by Councilmember Flanigan to advance Ordinance 04-014 to a second reading to be scheduled
after CTED gives their reading on approval. City Manager Mercier mentioned that this ordinance will be
set for final approval after receipt of comments from CTED. Building Official Scholtens explained the
background of the ordinance, after which Mayor DeVleming invited public comment.
Clay Conrad,Architect,2121 East Temple Road: said he lives outside the City limits but that he practices
on a number of projects in the City and has a number of projects held up because of this previous
ordinance; he feels the intent would be served well by the ordinance adopting the 2003 Building Code,
and he urges timely adoption.
City Manager Mercier said staff is urging CTED to answer as promptly as possible. Mayor DeVleming
invited further public comment; none was offered. Vote by acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous.
Opposed:None. Abstentions:None. Motion carried
7.Proposed Resolution 04-005 Designating Bidder for Construction of CenterPlace—Neil Kersten
After City Clerk Bainbridge read the resolution title, it was moved by Mayor DeVleming and seconded by
Councilmember Denenny to approve Resolution 04-005. Director Kersten gave an overview of the issue
and said as evidenced by the bid tabulation sheet, bids were tight and competitive, and that staff
recommends passing the resolution and authorizing the City Manager to enter into a contract; he added
that there are contingencies set aside to handle possible changes. Mayor DeVleming invited public
comment;none was offered. Vote by acclamation:In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed:None. Abstentions:
None. Motion carried.
8.Proposed Resolution 04-006 Designating Official Newspaper—Chris Bainbridge
After City Clerk Bainbridge read the resolution title, it was moved by Councilmember Munson and
seconded by Councilmember Flanigan to approve Resolution 04-006. City Clerk Bainbridge explained
that there have been no changes since this was last discussed with council, and the Spokane Valley
circulation figures are enclosed for the Valley Herald and the Spokesman Review. Councilmember
Taylor said he feels the substantial savings warrant changing to the Valley Herald, and that the
Spokesman Review did a fine job and the change is matter of cost. Councilmember Munson said he will
vote against the resolution in favor of going with the Valley Voice as an alternate. Mayor DeVleming
invited public comment; none was offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Deputy Mayor Wilhite, and
Councilmembers Taylor, Denenny, and Flanigan. Opposed Mayor DeVleming and Councilmember
Council Minutes 03-23-04 Page 6 of 8
Date Approved by Council:
DRAFT
Munson. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. Mayor DeVleming said this discussion will come back
next year as we will use the Valley Herald for a one-year period.
9. Motion Consideration: Senior Center Bus—Mike Jackson
It was moved by Mayor DeVleming and seconded Councilmember Munson to offer financial assistance to
the association in an amount not to exceed the $4,300 for the remainder of 2004, to assist them as they
take responsibility for transportation at the Senior Center. Parks & Recreation Director Jackson said he
feels good about the communication that occurred between City Staff and Council and with the Senior
Center Association in an attempt to identify the cost of operating the bus; that last week the Senior
Association asked that we consider an arrangement similar to what they had with the County, and a copy
of that agreement is enclosed. Mayor DeVleming invited public comment.
John Haley,E. 13905 DeSmit: presented figures for driver's wages,bus insurance, fuel,maintenance, etc,
and said that he estimates $13,170 to maintain the bus; he added that he would like to know what is the
end result of our animal control, how much money are we spending on our pets in the City of Spokane
Valley,and that he will send e-mail to the appropriate staff to get those answers.
Maryann Warren, 1102 N.McArthur Road: extended thanks because the bus is needed.
Mayor DeVleming invited further public comment; none was offered. Vote by acclamation: In Favor:
Unanimous. Opposed:None. Abstentions:None. Motion carried.
10. Spokane Housing Authority Report—Executive Director Dianne Quast
Director Quast went over the annual report and explained some of the programs they offer, including
home ownership program, the Sharon Lord Apartments, housing vouchers which amount to
approximately 1.6 million dollars a month to assist families in maintaining homes; and stated that that
program is in great jeopardy and she encourages Council to add this issue to their national legislative
agendas.
11. Spokane Regional Convention&Visitor's Bureau John Brewer
This item was moved from the agenda and will be re-scheduled.
12. Report on Planning Studies and Budget—Greg McCormick
Manager McCormick gave his PowerPoint presentation and background on the previously presented
Charrettes and RUDAT, adding that Council requested more information prior to making a decision to
move forward. After discussion on a city center, economic analysis on Sprague/Appleway, the draft
scope of work, the upcoming community meetings and community feedback, it was decided to wait
further until more community input has been received.
13. Employee Classification System—Dave Mercier
City Manager Mercier reported that Council enacted several ordinances and resolutions to establish a
personnel system, and embedded in some of those is the notion that the City Manager and staff would
review that material from time to time; that staff is aware of that call to periodically assess the content of
the job descriptions and of the ongoing intent to assure that the classification system bears some relation
to market rates and costs; adding that staff will undertake a review of what was done by interim staff and
will attempt to make market rate comparisons. It was determined that staff will establish the direction in
this regard,and report back to council with their findings.
14. Towing Contract Form—Cary Driskell.
In the interest of time,this item will be postponed until the following council meeting.
Council Minutes 03-23-04 Page 7 of 8
Date Approved by Council:
DRAFT
It was moved by Mayor DeVleming, seconded by Councilmember Munson, and unanimously agreed
upon to extend the meeting to 9:30 p.m.
15. Formation of Student Advisory Council—Mayor DeVleming
Mayor DeVleming gave his PowerPoint presentation on the formation of a Student Advisory Council,and
added that he will recommend budgeting $500.00 from the discretionary fund to cover items such as
mailings, advertising, letterhead, agendas, etc. Councilmember Taylor expressed concern about staff
support as he did not want to overburden staff. Mayor DeVleming said he expects staff to help
minimally, but does not anticipate staff being burdened. It was Council consensus to place this item on
the March 30 agenda for further consideration.
15a. Fire District Update—Nina Regor
Deputy City Manager Regor gave a synopsis of what has occurred to date concerning the election and
annexation, and stated that the April 27 election date was chosen to provide time for a second election if
that proved necessary; and that staff is now considering the possibility of an election September 14; she
added that no costs have been expended thus far and the ballot has not yet been printed. It was moved by
Mayor Devleming and seconded by Councilmember Munson to request Spokane County to remove the
Fire District Annexation ballot issue from the April 27, 2004 ballot. Vote by acclamation: In Favor:
Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. It was then moved by Mayor
DeVleming and seconded by Councilmember Munson to submit the fire district annexation issue to the
Boundary Review Board on a notice of intention and immediately invoke jurisdiction. Vote by
acclamation:In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed:None. Abstentions:None. Motion carried.
It was moved by Councilmember Flanigan, seconded by Councilmember Munson, and unanimously
agreed upon to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m.
Michael DeVleming,Mayor
ATTEST:
Christine Bainbridge,City Clerk
•
Council Minutes 03-23-04 Page 8 of 8
Date Approved by Council:
•
EXHIBIT E
City of Spokane Valley
DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE
Description of proposal: A ballot measure making permanent the annexation of the City of Spokane
Valley, Spokane County, Washington,into Spokane County Fire Districts Nos. 1 and 8:
Proponent City of Spokane Valley
Location of proposal, including street address, if any: This action is considered a non-project action
under ROW 43.21C.
Lead agency: City of Spokane Valley.
The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse
impact on the environment An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under ROW
43.21C.030(2)(c). This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other
information on file with the lead agency. This information is available to the public on request
[ ] There is no comment period for this DNS.
[ ] This DNS is issued after using the optional DNS process in section 197-11-355 WAC. There is
no further comment period on the DNS.
[X] This DNS is issued under 197-11-340(2);the Iead agency will not act on this proposal for
14 days from the date below.
Responsible official: Marina Sukup,AICP
Position/title: Director of Community Development Phone: (509) 921-1000
Address: 11707 East Sprague Avenue,Suite 106;Spokane Valley,WA 99206
Date "Sf Z SA Signature
ca•u�,a
You may appeal this determination to(name) Marina Sukup,AICP
at(location) City Hall located at 11707 East Sprague Avenue,Spokane Valley,WA
no later than(Apri112,2004) 5:00 p.m.
by(method) Written Statement of Appeal
You should be prepared to make specific factual objections.
Contact Scott Kuhta,AICP to read or ask about the procedures for SEPA appeals.
1
Distribution List:
1. WA State Department of Ecology(Olympia)
2. Spokane County Division of Building and Planning, John Pederson
3. City Of Spokane,Interim Planning Director Dave Mandyke
4. City of Liberty Lake,Doug Smith
5. City of Millwood,Heather Cannon
6. Spokane County Fire District No.1, Kevin Miller
7. Spokane County Fire District No.8
8. Eastern Washington Boundary Review Board,Susan Winchell
9. Spokane County Utilities Division,Bruce Rawls
10. Spokane County Engineering Department,Ross Kelley
11. Spokane County Health District,David Swink
12. State Department of Health,Scott Torpie
2
WAC 197-11-960 Environmental checklist
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
Purpose of checklist:
The State Environmental Policy Act(SEPA), chapter 43.21 C RCW,requires all governmental agencies to consider the
environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement(EIS)must be prepared for all
proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment The purpose of this checklist is to provide
information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal(and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal,if
it can be done)and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required.
Instructions for applicants:
This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies
use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an
EIS. Answer the questions briefly,with the most precise information known,or give the best description you can.
You must answer each question accurately and carefully,to the best of your knowledge. In most cases,you should be
able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not
know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal,write"do not know"or"does not apply." Complete answers to
the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later.
Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer
these questions if you can. If you have problems,the governmental agencies can assist you.
The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on
different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects.
The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably
related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact
Use of checklist for nonproject proposals:
Complete this checklist for nonproject proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN
ADDITION,complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS(part D).
For nonproject actions,the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should
be read as"proposal," "proposer,"and"affected geographic area,"respectively.
A. BACKGROUND
1. Name of proposed project,if applicable: A ballot measure making permanent the annexation of the City of Spokane
Valley,Spokane County,Washington,into Spokane County Fire Districts Nos. 1 and 8
2. Name of applicant: City of Spokane Valley
3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Nina Regor,Deputy City Manager,City of Spokane Valley,
11707 E.Sprague Ave.,Suite 106,Spokane Valley,WA 99206.
4. Date checklist prepared: March 23,2004.
5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Spokane Valley
6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): An election is tentatively scheduled on September 14,
2004.
7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? If yes,
explain. N/A
8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this
proposal. N/A
9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property
covered by your proposal? If yes, explain. N/A
10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. The proposed annexation will
be reviewed by the Boundary Review Board of Spokane County.
11. Give brief complete description of your proposal,including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are
several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those
answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.)
State law allows a newly formed city to annex into an existing fire district or districts for the year of incorporation.
That temporary annexation may be extended for one additional year to give cities additional time to analyze the
various fire service alternatives. The temporary annexation extension was approved for 2004. The City Council of
Spokane Valley and the Boards of Spokane County Fire Districts Nos. 1 and 8 have agreed to propose a ballot
measure making permanent the annexation into the two districts along existing district boundaries.
12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed
project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range,if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of
area,provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if
reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or
detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. N/A
2
eL
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
1. Earth
a. General description of the site(circle one): Flat,rolling,hilly,steep slopes,mountainous,
other N/A
b. What is the steepest slope on the site(approximate percent slope)? N/A
c. What general types of soils are found on the site(for example,clay,sand,gravel,peat,
muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils,specify them and note any prime
farmland. N/A
d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so,
describe. N/A
e. Describe the purpose,type,and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed.
Indicate source of fill. N/A
f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing,construction,or use? If so,generally describe. N/A
g.About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project
construction(for example,asphalt or buildings)? N/A
h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion,or other impacts to the earth,if any: N/A
2. Air
a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal(i.e.,dust,automobile,
odors,industrial wood smoke)during construction and when the project is completed? If
any,generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. N/A
b. Are there any off-site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so,
generally describe. N/A
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air,if any: N/A
3. Water
a. Surface:
1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site(including
year-round and seasonal streams,saltwater,lakes,ponds,wetlands)? If yes,describe type
and provide names. If appropriate,state what stream or river it flows into. N/A
2)Will the project require any work over,in,or adjacent to(within 200 feet)the described
waters? If yes,please describe and attach available plans. N/A
3)Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed
from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected.
Indicate the source of fill material. N/A
3
•
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR `• A.
AGENCY USE ONLY
4)Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general
description,purpose,and approximate quantities if known.. N/A
5)Does the proposal lie within a 100-year floodplain? If so,note location on the site plan. N/A
6)Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so,
describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. N/A
b. Ground:
1) Will ground water be withdrawn,or will water be discharged to ground water? Give
general description,purpose,and approximate quantities if known. N/A
2)Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or
other sources,if any(for example: Domestic sewage; industrial,containing the
following chemicals;agricultural;etc.). Describe the general size of the system,the
number of such systems,the number of houses to be served(if applicable),or the number
of animals or humans the system(s)are expected to serve. N/A
c. Water runoff(including stormwater):
1) Describe the source of runoff(including storm water)and method of collection
and disposal,if any(include quantities,if known). Where will this water flow?
Will this water flow into other waters? If so,describe. N/A
2)Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so,generally describe. N/A
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface,ground, and runoff water impacts,if any: N/A
4. Plants
a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: N/A
deciduous tree: alder,maple,aspen,other
evergreen tree: fir,cedar,pine,other
shrubs
grass
pasture
crop or grain
wet soil plants: cattail,buttercup,bullrush,skunk cabbage,other
water plants: water lily,eelgrass,miifoil,other
other types of vegetation
b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered?N/A
4
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.N/A
d Proposed landscaping,use of native plants,or other measures to preserve or enhance
vegetation on the site,if any:N/A
5. Animals
a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be
on or near the site:N/A
birds: hawk,heron,eagle,songbirds,other:
mammals: deer,bear,elk,beaver,other:
fish: bass,salmon,trout,herring,shellfish,other:
b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site.N/A
c. Is the site part of a migration route? If so,explain.N/A
cL Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife,if any:N/A
6. Energy and natural resources
a. What kinds of energy(electric,natural gas,oil,wood stove,solar)will be used to meet
the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating,
manufacturing,etc.N/A
b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties?
If so,generally describe.N/A
c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal?
List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts,if any:N/A
7. Environmental health
a. Are there any environmental health hazards,including exposure to toxic chemicals,risk
of fire and explosion,spill,or hazardous waste,that could occur as a result of this proposal?
If so,describe.N/A
1)Describe special emergency services that might be required.N/A
2)Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards,if any:N/A
b. Noise
1)What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project(for example:
traffic,equipment,operation,other)?N/A
5
r • •
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
2)What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a
short-term or a long-term basis(for example: traffic,construction,operation,other)?Indicate
what hours noise would come from the site.N/A
3)Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts,if any:N/A
8. Land and shoreline use
a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties?N/A
b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so,describe.N/A
c. Describe any structures on the site.N/A
d. Will any structures be demolished? If so,what?N/A
e. What is the current zoning classification of the site?N/A
f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site?N/A
g. If applicable,what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site?N/A
h. Has any part of the site been classified as an"environmentally sensitive"area? If so,specify.N/A
i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project?N/A
j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace?N/A
k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts,if any:N/A
I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land
uses and plans,if any:N/A
9. Housing
a_ Approximately how many units would be provided,if any? Indicate whether high,mid-
dle,or low-income housing.N/A
b. Approximately how many units,if any,would be eliminated?Indicate whether high,
middle,or low-income housing.N/A
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts,if any:N/A
6
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
10. Aesthetics
a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s),not including antennas;what is
the principal exterior building material(s)proposed?N/A •
b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed?N/A •
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts,if any.N/A
11. Light and glare
a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly
occur?N/A
b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety harard or interfere with views?N/A
c. What existing off-site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal?N/A
d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts,if any:N/A
12. Recreation
a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity?N/A
b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so,describe.N/A
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation,including recreation opportunities to be provided by
the project or applicant,if any N/A
13. Historic and cultural preservation
a. Are there any places or objects listed on,or proposed for,national,state,or local preser-
vation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so,generally describe.N/A
b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic,archaeological,scientific,or
cultural importance known to be on or next to the site.N/A
c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts,if any:N/A
14. Transportation
a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site,and describe proposed access to the
existing street system. Show on site plans,if any.N/A
7
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not,what is the approximate distance to the
nearest transit stop?N/A
c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the
project eliminate?N/A
cL Will the proposal require any new roads or streets,or improvements to existing roads or
streets,not including driveways? If so,generally describe(indicate whether public or
private).N/A
e. Will the project use(or occur in the immediate vicinity of)water,rail,or air transportation?
If so,generally describe.N/A
f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project?If known,indicate
when peak volumes would occur.N/A
g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts,if any:N/A
15. Public services
a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services(for example:fire pro-
tection,police protection,health care,schools,other)? If so,generally describe.N/A
b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services,if any.N/A
16. Utilities
a. Circle utilities currently available at the site: electricity,natural gas,water,refuse serv-
ice,telephone,sanitary sewer,septic system,other.N/A
b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project,the utility providing the service,
and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might
be needed.N/A
C. SIGNATURE
The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead
agency is relying on them to make its decision.
r
Signature:
Date Submitted: , f Z•t/Q•LI•
8
TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT EVALUATION FOR
AGENCY USE ONLY
D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NONPROJECT ACTIONS
(do not use this sheet for project actions)
Because these questions are very general,it may be helpful to read them in conjunction
with the list of the elements of the environment
When answering these questions,be aware of the extent the proposal,or the types of
activities likely to result from the proposal,would affect the item at a greater intensity or
at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general
terms.
1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water;emissions to air,production,storage,or release of
toxic or hazardous substances;or production of noise? Passage of the proposed ballot measure will continue the
fire and emergency medical services of Spokane County Fire Districts Nos.1 and 8 within the corporate
limits of the City of Spokane Valley.
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: N/A
2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants,animals,fish,or marine life? The proposal will have no affect
on plants,animals,fish,or marine life.
Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants,animals,fish,or marine life are: N/A
3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? The proposal will not deplete energy or
natural resources.
Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: N/A
4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or
areas designated(or eligible or under study)for governmental protection;such as parks,
wilderness,wild and scenic rivers,threatened or endangered species habitat,historic or
cultural sites,wetlands,floodplains,or prime farmlands? The proposal will not affect environmentally sensitive
areas or areas designated for governmental protection.
Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: N/A
5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use,including whether it
would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans?
The proposal will have no affect on shoreline use.
Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are: N/A
6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public
services and utilities? The proposal will have no affect on transportation or other public services and utilities.
Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s)are: N/A
7. Identify,if possible,whether the proposal may conflict with local,state,or federal laws or requirements for the
protection of the environment The proposal does not conflict with any local,state,or federal laws.
9