Pre-Incorportion Public Hearing Transcripts BRB 555-01 08/27/20011
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
BEFORE THE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD
August 27, 2001
7:00 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING BRB 555 -01
Being held at 1445 North Argonne
Spokane, Washington
PRESENT:
Robert E. Nebergall, Board chairman
Douglas Beu, Board member
John B. Hagney, Board member
Lawrence B. Stone, Board member
Daniel E. Turbeville, III, Board member
Robert Kaufman, Special Assistant Attorney General
Peter Fortin, Consultant
Susan Winchell, Director
Michael Basinger, Planner
Danette Dobbins, Staff Assistant
1
\ BETTY SITTER, C.S.R.
Spokane, WA (509)926 -2670
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
PROCEEDINGS
CHAIRMAN: Good evening. Welcome to
tonight's public hearing.
The purpose of today's meeting is to give
you information and give testimony, on August 27, 2001,
on BRB 555 -01, Proposed Incorporation of the City of
Spokane Valley.
I would like to have the Board members
introduce themselves, please, and their appointing
agency.
MR. BEU: I am Doug Beu, and I was
appointed by the County Commissioners in 1998.
MR. STONE: I am Lawrence Stone, I was
appointed by the Governor.
MR. HAGNEY: I am John Hagney, appointed by
Governor Locke.
MR. TURBEVILLE: Dan Turbeville, by the
Special Purpose District.
MR. NEBERGALL: Robert Nebergall, appointed
by the mayor of Spokane County.
And to my right is Robert Kaufman, Special
Attorney General, and Mr. Peter Fortin, who is the
consultant of the Spokane Valley proposal. And then we
have Danette Dobbins, who is our secretary, and Susan
2
BETTY SITTER, C.S.R.
Spokane, WA (509)926 -2670
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Winchell, Director, and Michael Basinger, who has done
our map work.
At tonight's continued public hearing, the
staff will give a brief summary on the Spokane Valley
incorporation proposal and exhibits received to date.
Scott Kuhta, representing the Spokane County Planning
Department, will describe the status of the urban
growth area. The proponents will then have the
opportunity to present additional information.
Representatives of the agencies affected by the
proposal will then be given an opportunity to address
the Board, and then those signing the roster will be
called in the order of signing.
Because of the formal nature of the public
hearings, only the Board members can ask questions of
the speakers. If you have questions, the Boundary
Review Board staff will be available at the break at
8:00 and after the hearing to assist you.
To be most effective in your testimony, the
speakers are asked to direct their comments to the
factors and objectives the Boundary Review Board is
required to consider in making its decision. A list of
these factors and objectives is available in the
brochure at the table.
The public hearing will now come to order.
3
BETTY SITTER, C.S.R.
Spokane, WA (509)926 -2670
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
it
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
This hearing is called to gather facts and
hear testimony in the matter of File No. BRB 555 -01,
the proposed incorporation of the City of Spokane
Valley.
Will all of those who plan on speaking at
tonight's public hearing, please rise and raise your
right hand, the Planner will now administer the oath.
MS. WINCHELL: Do you swear or affirm
that the testimony you are about to give will be the
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
SPEAKERS: Yes.
MS. WINCHELL: So sworn.
CHAIRMAN: We will now hear from Scott
Kuhta of the Spokane County Planning Department.
Excuse me, Susan is going to do something
first.
MS. WINCHELL: At the public hearing August
8, the Board received testimony and exhibits, which
number, I think we have 45 exhibits that the Board
members have, and these are available in a notebook in
the back for any of you who would like to read through
the exhibits or the incorporation study.
Some of the testimony the Board received at
the last meeting included testimony asking that the
Board consider the Pasadena Park area as a separate
M
BETTY SITTER, C.S.R.
Spokane, WA (509)926 -2670
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
area and be excluded from the Valley Incorporation
proposal. The Board asked for more information on this
area and the staff put together kind of some facts on
Pasadena Park area which the Board did not receive in
the incorporation study.
And the boundaries of Pasadena Park, the
area south of Wellesley, and on this map the area north
of the river and inside the red lines which are the
urban growth. The area has a population of about 2038
people, 815 housing units, and it is composed of 2.5
percent of the population total of the incorporation
area. It represents 4 percent of the land area. The
taxable assessed value of the area is about 117
million, that is about 3 percent of the assessed value
of the proposed city. That is some of the information
about the Pasadena Park area.
The Board also asked for some additional
information on the Yardley area, and Mr. Fortin will
go through the information he has about Yardley.
MR. FORTIN: I know we had a question from
the audience last meeting on the amount of property
taxes and sales taxes within the Yardley area, and what
I have done is I provided to you percentage of the
Yardley area property tax and sales tax and percentage
of the total City of Spokane Valley. The property tax,
3
BETTY SITTER, C.S.R.
Spokane, WA (509)926 -2670
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the assessors office gives Yardley area $209,000
property tax, that is at $1.60 a thousand, and based
on the total amount collected, or would be collected
within the City of Spokane Valley, 7.12 million, that
is 2.9 percent of the total. On the sales tax, the
Yardley area is estimated to generate 1.36 million
dollars after the County gets the 15 percent. So
compare the 1.36 with the 14.3 million that would be
estimated to come into the City of Spokane Valley, the
Yardley area generates about 9.5 percent of that total.
CHAIRMAN: I think now we are ready for
Scott Kuhta.
MR. KUHTA: My name is Scott Kuhta, and I
am with the Spokane County Division of Planning. I was
asked to give an update of the County's comprehensive
planning process, and I am happy to announce that
as of Friday August 24, the Board of County
Commissioners did orally approve the comprehensive
plan, including urban growth areas of Spokane County.
They did direct the planning staff to prepare a
findings of fact for their decision, and we are working
on preparing those findings and finalizing the urban
growth area map and the land use designations and
making sure that we have incorporated all the Board's
minor revisions.
0
BETTY SITTER, C.S.R.
Spokane, WA (509)926 -2670
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The Board also adopted the JPA, which is a
joint planning areas for Spokane County around small
towns in the City of Spokane. We expect that within, I
would say four to six weeks, we will have the findings
before the Board of County Commissioners for their
signing and adoption, and until that time the interim
urban growth area is still the boundary that we use for
regulations.
So as of now, we have an oral adoption of
the comprehensive plan for the urban growth areas, and
we will be working on findings for the Board to sign
hopefully in about a month.
Any questions?
(No response).
CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
We will now hear from Dr. Philip Rudy of
the Spokane Valley Incorporation Committee, proponent of
the incorporation.
DR. RUDY: Honorable members of the Boundary
Review Board, ladies and gentlemen, my name is Philip
L. Rudy. I am the spokesperson for the coalition and
the various groups that are proponents for the
advancement of incorporation for the City of Spokane
Valley.
It is always been our goal to move ahead as
WA
BETTY SITTER, C.S.R.
Spokane, WA (509)926 -2670
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
expeditiously as possible, and we were very pleased
last Friday when the County Commissioners came up with
the final urban growth area, however, we would like to
make a statement to you gentlemen this evening, and
that is that we prefer as proponents -- and this was
unanimously voted on by our group this noon -- that we
would like to have the largest area possible for the
incorporation of the City of Spokane as defined by the
urban growth area as limited by Fire District No. 1.
Having said that, we have been notified
also that it is not really official until the County
Commissioners file written findings. So it is our
preference that you on the Board will not make your
decision until the decision is filed by the County
Commissioners and it is signed, sealed, and they have
filed those written findings. If that is what is
necessary to make it complete so that it does not
become exposed to judicial proceedings, or whatever the
term may be.
So while we are very anxious and have
always looked forward to having this on the ballot on
November 6, in light of doing things prudently and
deliberately and as well thought as possible, we would
not be upset if we do not have the election on November
6. We feel that it is in the best interest of the
M
BETTY SITTER, C.S.R.
Spokane, WA (509)926 -2670
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
citizens of the City of Spokane Valley of the proposed
City of Spokane Valley, that the largest area be
incorporated within the limitations of urban growth
areas as defined by the County Commissioners as limited
by Fire District No.l.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN: Do the Board members have any
questions of Dr. Rudy?
(No response).
CHAIRMAN: We will now hear testimony from
those signing the roster. We would like to limit your
comments to three minutes each in order to hear from
each person on the list and we will be getting that list
in just a moment.
We have representatives this evening from
the County Planning and from the Valley Fire
Department, the City of Spokane and Spokane Fire
Department, and because of the detail and the nature of
this testimony, they will not be limited to a
three - minute time frame.
In keeping with that, we will call for Mark
Grover of the Valley Fire Department.
MR. GROVER: My testimony will be limited
to answering questions this evening.
CHAIRMAN: Any questions of Mr. Grover?
9
BETTY SITTER, C.S.R.
Spokane, WA (509)926 -2670
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(No response).
CHAIRMAN: Thank you, sir.
Mr. Mercer, City of Spokane.
MR. MERCER: Thank you, sir.
I have a letter from the Mayor of the City
of Spokane, and following my presentation, Chief
Bobbie Williams of the City's Fire Department is here,
and he would also like to provide some comments.
Following your hearing of August 8, 2001,
on your consideration of the boundaries of proposed
City of Spokane Valley and having subsequently reviewed
written testimony submitted, the City of Spokane would
like to provide additional clarifying information.
The first and foremost issue before the
Boundary Review Board is the boundary for proposed City
of Spokane Valley. Assistant Chief Larry Rider of the
Fire District 1 has provided the Boundary Review Board
both oral and written testimony that would lead one
to believe that the proposal before you is the
annexation of Yardley /Alcott areas by the City of
Spokane.
AUDIENCE: We can't hear you.
Please speak into the mike.
Start again.
MR. MERCER: For the record, my name is
10
BETTY SITTER, C.S.R.
Spokane, WA (509)926 -2670
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
John Mercer, Planning Director of the City of Spokane,
and I have a letter to read to the Board by Mayor John
Powers.
"Dear Mr. Nebergall and Board members,
Following the hearing August 8, 2001, on consideration
of the boundaries of the proposed City of Spokane
Valley, and having subsequently reviewed written
testimony submitted, the City of Spokane would like to
provide additional clarifying information.
"First and foremost, the issue before the
Boundary Review Board is the boundary for the proposed
new City of Spokane Valley. The Assistant Chief Larry
Rider.of Fire District 1, has provided the Boundary
Review Board both oral and written testimony that would
lead one to believe that the proposal before you is
annexation of the Yardley /Alcott areas by the City of
Spokane. Annexation of these areas by the City of
Spokane has not been proposed and is not the issue
before the Board.
"Regardless of the decision by the Boundary
Review Board on the propoed boundaries, Fire District 1
will continue to serve and collect revenue from these
areas for the foreseeable future. Nothing in the
proposal currently before the Boundary Review Board
will change the service area or boundary of Fire
11
BETTY SITTER, C.S.R.
Spokane, WA (509)926 -2670
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
District 1 nor will it impact Fire District 1's ability
to provide service to its customers.
"When and if annexation were to be
proposed, that issue would then legitimately before the
Boundary Review Board. The cost to the City of Spokane
to providing these services would be a factor
considered by the City Council be before annexation
procedure and would be a topic of discussion before the
Boundary Review Board at that time.
"Assistant Chief Rider's associations
regarding the City of Spokane and Fire Departments lack
of ability to provide ample fire protection are both
premature and misleading at best. The City of Spokane
Fire Chief Bobby Williams will address these issues
separately.
"The City of Spokane has requested that
the Yardley and Alcott areas be excluded from the
boundaries of the proposed new City of Spokane Valley.
To reiterate our previous comments, the exclusion of
these areas for the proposed boundaries would be
consistent with the factors to be considered under RCW
36.93.170.
"Both areas are adjacent to the corporate
boundaries of the City of Spokane and are addressed in
our newly completed comprehensive growth management
12
BETTY SITTER, C.S.R.
Spokane, WA (509)926 -2670
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
planning act. In addition, the City of Spokane
provides both water and sewer service to these areas
and has done so for many years. The portions of the
Yardley area have been served by the City of Spokane in
excess of 30 years, in fact, Yardley Water District
No. 3, now owned by the City of Spokane, was granted a
franchise by construction by the Board of County
Commissioners in November 1945.
"The Boundary Review Board approved the
current water and sewer service boundaries for the
Yardley area in 1990. Exclusion of these areas to
achieve the preservation of a lot of the service areas
that are already in place pursuant to (inaudible) found
in RCW 36.93.180.
"The cost of purchasing the City of Spokane
water and sewer infrastructure by the new City of
Spokane Valley, should also be a consideration should
these areas not be excluded. Should the voters approve
a new City of Spokane Valley, that municipality would
be required to comply with the Growth Management Act by
preparing the documents of its own comprehensive plan
and proposing its own urban growth area.
"Yardley and Alcott areas were designated
as urban growth areas and West Plain areas by action of
the Board of County Commissioners in 1997. The oral
13
BETTY SITTER, C.S.R.
Spokane, WA (509)926 -2670
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
decision of the County Commissioners on Friday, August
24, 2001, reaffirmed those designations. If the new
City so chooses, it could propose these areas be part of
the urban growth area. The areas would serve as a
buffer between the two municipal jurisdictions, Spokane
County and the new City of Spokane Valley, special
purpose district regarding land use and service would
be appropriate. Eventually these areas could be
annexed into one or the other of these municipalities.
"In closing, we again ask that you consider
all the efforts involved in complying with the Growth
Management Act, as well as the substantial efforts of
the City of Spokane to serve these areas. Please
exclude Yardley and Alcott areas from the boundaries of
the proposed City of Spokane Valley. Respectfully,
Mayor John T. Powers, Jr., City of Spokane."
CHAIRMAN: Any questions?
(No response).
CHAIRMAN: Next we will hear from Bob
Williams, Chief of the Spokane City Fire Department.
MR. WILLIAMS: Thank you_ Good evening.
Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, I would
like to read this document into the record and I
believe you have been provided copies of the document.
"Dear Board members, this information is
BETTY SITTER, C.S.R.
Spokane, WA (509)926 -2670
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
provided for your consideration in determining if the
Yardley and Alcott areas should be included in the
proposed City of Spokane Valley. The City of Spokane
has requested that the boundaries for the proposed city
of Spokane Valley be modified to exclude both the
Yardley and Alcott areas.
"As I understand the process, your
evaluation is to make a determination if that request
will be approved or denied. Based on testimony that I
have reviewed regarding this matter, there appears to
be an innuendo that your decision will result in
automatic annexation of the Yardley and Alcott areas
into the City of Spokane. Procedurally, all parties
know that this is not the case.
"Fire District 1 has provided emergency
response to Yardley and Alcott, areas for a number of
years. Whether you approve or deny the requests made
by the City, Fire District 1 will continue to provide
services to these areas. If the City of Spokane at
some future date proposes annexation, there will be a
separate evaluation regarding the feasibility of that
annexation, deliberations of the Boundary Review Board
at that time should consider the changes that would
result in service delivery to the area proposed for
annexation. Evaluating what the changes in service
15
BETTY SITTER, C.S.R.
Spokane, WA (509)926 -2670
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
delivery might be before such a proposed annexation
occurs, is not prudent. There are just too many
variables that would have to be addressed.
"As has been stated by Mr. Mercer and Fire
District 1, there is an agreement between the City and
the Fire District that addresses the principle
components regarding possible annexation of this area
by the City.
"If and when the City proposes to annex
these areas, the provisions of that agreement would
have to be met I would suspect, and expect nothing
less from Fire District 1, that the provisions
regarding the negotiating the "adverse impact on the
District" would include the issue of response time and
distances to the area of any proposed annexation.
"At that point in time, the City would have
to identify how it would deal with providing the
services, the fire department, delivery. There could
be several options, and I will list those: Contract
with Fire District 1 for services to that area, for a
short term or long term; provide services from current
City facilities; provide new City facilities; provide
services from a City /District facility in agreements
with each other by servicing areas that are difficult
to access.
16
BETTY SITTER, C.S.R.
Spokane, WA (509)926 -2670
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
"It is not known which of these options or
others might become a reality, because at this point it
is pure speculation. Just like Fire District 1, the
City of Spokane Fire Department would evaluate the
conditions of the area to which service has to be
provided, and would make a recommendation on providing
the best service possible based on those conditions.
"Knowing the professional personnel
involved with making those service delivery
recommendations, all available information would be
taken into consideration, not just population.
Alternatives would be evaluated that could allow both
jurisdictions the ability and flexibility to approve
service delivery in their own areas. There would not
be a disruption of emergency service response during
that discussion or deliberation.
"In closing, it is requested that the Board
address the issue of the Yardley and Alcott areas
remain in the boundaries of the proposed City of
Spokane Valley based on the merits of existing law and
regulations, not upon speculation of what a future
annexation might bring."
Any questions?
CHAIRMAN: Do the Board members have any
question?
17
BETTY SITTER, C.S.R.
Spokane, WA (509)926 -2670
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. STONE: Are you familiar with the
testimony in our last public hearing?
MR. WILLIAMS: Somewhat, yes,sir.
MR. STONE: On the map 1 stations that
covers a great deal of the Yardley area for Fire
District 1 is No. 6, are you familiar with that one?
MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
MR. STONE: That is outside the area that
the City of Spokane has asked to be excluded; right?
MR. WILLIAMS: As I understand it, yes,
sir.
MR. STONE: And I know that you said
several times in your letter that speculation is just
that, and recognized that we have to look at the
possibilities for the future. And I am interested,
when you were listing several options there provided
services from current City facilities, I would like
your comment on Fire District 1 gave us their comment
that existing City facilities could not serve within
the very rapid response time. So a comment on that
would be appreciated.
MR. WILLIAMS: Obviously there are a number
of alternatives there. That is one alternative.
Whether that is a selected alternative would have to be
evaluated when they get to that point in time. I think
BETTY SITTER, C.S.R.
Spokane, WA (509)926 -2670
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
District 1 is correct when they say response from your
current facility would be quicker than the response
from our current facility.
But you have to believe that we are not
going to focus in on just alternatives, that is
shortsighted on anybody's behalf. We have to look at
all the opportunities and alternatives available to us.
So if, in fact, that was the only alternative looked at
and alternative chosen, I would agree with the Fire
District 1's analysis, that their current facilities
would be closer.
I also believe that there are opportunities
for discussion between the City Fire Department and
Spokane Valley Fire Department as it relates to the
alternatives to service this and other areas that have
not been discussed but can certainly avail themselves
to discussion.
CHAIRMAN: Any other questions?
(No response).
CHAIRMAN: We will now take public
testimony from the audience at large, and as I call
your name, I would like you to keep in mind we have
three minutes and then we will have the person who is
speaking follow right behind, if you would.
We are going to start today with Mr. Loyd
19
BETTY SITTER, C.S.R.
Spokane, WA (509)926 -2670
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Peterson, if you please.
MR. PETERSON: Thank you. That's what a
person gets for coming early. You have to be number
one. I'd like everyone here, including the Board
members to know, that I am probably the only person
in this audience who has gone through this process once
before. My wife and I lived in the City of Lacy
before it was the City of Lacy. We had a South Sound
Shopping center that was built in the City of Lacy and
the City of Olympia wanted the tax revenue from that
shopping center and they started an annexation process
to annex that area. We said no, we don't want that, we
would rather have our own city. We formed our own
city. People said taxes will go up if you form your
own city, they didn't they went down. By law, they
have to go down, because the City cannot charge the
road tax that the County has the ability to assess. So
that argument was shot down.
Now, as to the Yardley area, there is only
one reason why the City of Spokane wants that left out,
and that is so they can annex it. Why? Most probably
the main reason is because of Costco moving out to the
valley. They lost all that sales tax revenue that they
were collecting from Costco. Costco was not the maker
of the problem with the River Park Square Parking
20
BETTY SITTER, C.S.R.
Spokane, WA (509)926 -2670
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Garage, neither were we people that live out here in
the Valley. I see no reason why we out here in the
Valley should suffer because of the fiasco they have in
the City of Spokane and the lack of revenue in the City
of Spokane now produces.
So, please, leave our Valley intact and
leave the Yardley area in, let us govern ourselves.
I've been working on this trying to get us incorporated
for 20 years, that is how long I've lived in the Valley
and how long I've worked trying to get us incorporated
out here. So, please, let us have our City, total
City, thank you.
CHAIRMAN: I failed to mention that I think
in fairness to everybody concerned, we would not have
any booing, hissing, or clapping as we have speakers,
and I think that would be appropriate.
Mrs. Annette Remshard, please.
MS. REMSHARD: This evening I would like to
present a poll that we did after the last meeting. We
polled the people of Yardley and Alcott. This is a
mail -in poll. It was received by 230 registered voters
in the Yardley and Alcott areas. We received a return
of 53 polls. Out of the 53 return, 42 indicated that
they would like to be a part of the new City of Spokane
Valley, while 11 indicated that they wanted to remain
21
BETTY SITTER, C.S.R.
Spokane, WA (509)926 -2670
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
part of the unincorporated County while six of that 11
stated if they had to choose, they would choose to be a
part of the new City of Spokane Valley. No poll
returned indicated a preference to be a part of the
City of Spokane.
The average poll return is 5 percent, this
poll return was 20 percent. Those returns showed in
favor of the new City of Spokane Valley by 85 percent.
Zero said, yes, they wanted to be a part of the City of
Spokane, 42 said yes they wanted to be included with
the new City of Spokane Valley, 11 said they wanted to
stay a part of the unincorporated county.
And then we also asked two other questions,
if you feel the City of Spokane Valley will enhance
services to the area, 23 of the 42 indicated they
thought that was correct, and yes, I feel my safety and
life are important factors in this decision, 25 of the
42 indicated that as well.
And I gave Susan copies of this poll so you
can each have a copy of it to study it for yourselves.
Dear members of the Boundary Review Board,
I ask that when you vote, that the vote of the members
of the Board, that the boundaries of the proposed City
of Spokane Valley will remain consistent with the
borders of Fire District No. 1 as proponents have
22
BETTY SITTER, C.S.R.
Spokane, WA (509)926 -2670
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
lE
1s
2(
2]
2�
2_
24
2c
advocated for these reasons. That if any of the fire
district borders are encroached, they will take away a
portion of the operating budget.
We are concerned with citizen safety in and
out of the Valley borders. If a fire district budget
gets short changed, it damages their proven ability to
provide services and safety, which is our primary
concern.
If an area wants to be annexed after the
incorporation vote, then the budget of the fire
district will not be affected as we have been told.
The area could then be annexed without compromising the
safety of the citizens because of monetary restraints.
Please consider the safety of the citizens
above all else.
The fire districts were set up logistically
with careful consideration. The proponents have
studied this for months, and with your vote you could
enhance services or endanger the safety of the
citizens. We ask that you follow the boundaries of
Fire District No. 1 along with the UGA boundaries
approved by the Spokane County Commissioners on Friday,
August 24th, 2001, for the borders of the incorporation
of the Spokane Valley.
Thank you.
23
BETTY SITTER, C.S.R.
Spokane, WA (509)926 -2670
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIRMAN: Any questions?
(No response).
CHAIRMAN: Mr. Ray Hansen, please.
MR. HANSEN: I am Raymond Hansen, president
of Hansen Industries, developor of property around
Spokane Valley Mall. I am a proponent of the Valley
becoming a city. I studied this in considerable depth.
I believe a new city will be able to lower taxes and
provide better services as a government entity than
exists in the County.
I am a substantial tax payer, and I do
believe that becoming a city, controlling our own
destiny, lowering taxes for all citizens, negotiating
for better services, developing a smaller, more
responsive government that is answerable to the local
citizens will create efficiencies that a larger
government entity cannot do.
I would like to further comment that
Kootenai County recently lowered taxes, considerable,
and the reason they gave, and this was on the real
estate portion, of course we all know half our taxes go
to the schools, and a lot of it it goes here and there
that you can't change, but they actually lowered by
about 20 percent a portion of the real estate tax that
they collected. The reason they did that was because
BETTY SITTER, C.S.R.
Spokane, WA (509)926 -2670
' 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
.15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
of substantial development.
Now, there is a misbelief out there that if
you have development, taxes goes up. well, the reverse
is true. It went down in Kootenai County.
There is substantial development out here.
We just heard that the tax collected in this area that
the City would like to have was about 1.3 that is the
.85 of the sales tax, the .1 comes back to the city and
15 of that stays in the County and the bulk of it goes
to the State. I calculated Costco alone will have
that much tax. So there is a big tax base there, that
is what it is all about.
The total affect of the shopping center
when you put in the multiplier affect of the jobs
created and all that, is close to a billion dollars when
it's fully developed. It may take another five years,
it is about half developed now. The shopping center
itself is about 90 percent and the rest of it is barely
started. So there is going to be a tremendous tax base
and commercial development does not demand much in the
way of services. So we've got a lot to do out here,
and if I didn't believe this, I wouldn't be for it,
because I am a substantial tax payer.
Thank you, very much.
CHAIRMAN: Any questions?
25
BETTY SITTER, C.S.R.
Spokane, WA (509)926 -2670
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(No response).
CHAIRMAN: Iris Kiger.
MS. KIGER: I am from Pasadena Park, and
it's one of the issues that has been on our heart for
quite awhile.
Through public hearings, the Pasadena Park
property owners, tax payers, residents, and other
members of interest, were advised that the Pasadena
Park neighborhood community plan would be implemented
with official controls by order of the Board of
Commissioners on May 10, 1994.
Pasadena Park is a unique area with two
significant south boundaries; the natural Spokane River
and the established north boundary of the City of
Millwood, separating it from the rest of the Spokane
Valley. In light of this geographical location and
it's prior recognition by order of the Board in 1994,
it is therefore expedient that Pasadena Park be
excluded from the boundaries of the proposed city.
Respectfully submitted, Iris Kiger.
CHAIRMAN: Any questions?
(No response).
CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
Mike Conner.
UNIDENTIFIED MAN: Donahue?
26
BETTY SITTER, C.S.R.
Spokane, WA (509)926 -2670
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CHAIRMAN: No, we have a Mike Conner living
at 18809 Fairview Court.
MR. DONAHUE: I don't know how that word
Connor got in there.
CHAIRMAN: Pardon me, it is Donahue.
MR. DONAHUE: Everything that I have said
has probably been said better than I can say it, so I
would like to pass my time on to someone else.
CHAIRMAN: Mr. John Gray.
MR. GRAY: Mr. Chairman and members of the
Board, my name is John Gray, and I live on East Second
Avenue; about a block and a half east of Havana Street,
between Deerborn and Custer. I've lived there my whole
life, 76 years, and we've enjoyed living in the Valley
for that length of time. My wife and I have been
living there for 50 years now. I hope that we become a
city in the Valley, Spokane Valley City. I would hate
to see us annexed by the City of Spokane.
I did not receive this letter, this mailing
that that lady talked about where we voted, or somebody
voted on it, anyway. I don't know how they missed us,
because our address has been the same for 50 years.
But anyway, I hope you people on the Board will
consider that myself anyway, would sure love to be
incorporated in the Valley. And ever since this first
27
BETTY SITTER, C.S.R.
Spokane, WA (509)926 -2670
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
took place many years ago, I voted for the Valley
incorporation every time, but unfortunately it has not
passed yet.
I don't know where, of course, we are
pretty close to where the old Alcott schools used to
be, in fact, I went to Alcott school when I was a kid.
It's always been known as the Carnhope District as I
remember. We lived in the Carnhope Irrigation
District, our voting precinct is the Carnhope Precinct,
so anyway, somebody has been calling it the Alcott
District. But whatever it is called, I hope that we
will be a part of the Spokane Valley City.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN: Any questions?
(No response).
CHAIRMAN: Mr. Mertens, please.
MR. MERTENS: Good evening, Chairman and
the Board. I certainly appreciate all the efforts
you've done and have been doing.
I stated back in my testimony on the 8th
that I was simply astounded that we had to go through
all this to say that we wanted to get a city. It's
been a real education, but there has been something
that has come up and it has been brought to our
attention and will read the letter that you will be
NM
BETTY SITTER, C.S.R.
Spokane, WA (509)926 -2670
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
getting a copy of there from Susan. It says:
"Gentlemen, It has come to our attention at
the last public hearing, August 8th, 2001, at the
Nevell Auditorium, that Mr. Lawrence Stone had
mentioned that he was a land and business owner in the
Yardley area, which has been included in the proposed
City of the Spokane Valley. We have been advised that
we should have registered a concern as to Mr. Stone
being able to make an unbiased vote on the final
decision by the Board when a decision is made.
"We are hereby registering this concern and
want it placed in the record. However, we remember
that Mr. Stone did state that this would not prevent
him from making a proper and unbiased vote. We trust
that this will be the case.
"Respectfully submitted, Edward J. Mertens,
Chairman of Community Action."
CHAIRMAN: If I might comment, Mr. Stone
has previously stated for the record his conviction to
remain impartial in his decision. I have served on
this Board with Mr. Stone for five years, and in every
situation he has been totally fair and impartial, and I
am sure he will be in this.
MR. MERTENS: Thank you.
MR. STONE: I just want to say that as I
29
BETTY SITTER, C.S.R.
Spokane, WA (509)926 -2670
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
mentioned in the last meeting, actually I own property
in Airway Heights and the City of Spokane and Spokane
Valley and unincorporated Spokane, so if I was to
exclude myself anytime property ownership came up, I
wouldn't be able to serve.
But my family and myself have operated a
business in Spokane Valley since 1956, and I have been
working in the Spokane Valley since I was about six
years old, working out in the shop -- at least I
thought I was working when I was about six years old.
But I have been involved with the Spokane Valley for a
long time. And I have been a resident of Spokane
County for 46 years, and I would disassociate myself if
I had any question about it. But I am very content
that I can be fair and impartial on these proceedings.
CHAIRMAN: Mr. Pete Higgins, please.
MR. HIGGINS: Good evening, and thank you.
I am a resident of Greenacres, mitigating
area No. 8 on the map. I went around in the
neighborhood -- you do have a copy of the signatures of
neighbors. Most of them aren't, or a good share of
them aren't home. In fact a little more than 50
percent of the streets that I walked down. I did cover
much of the area.
CHAIRMAN: Would you mind stating your
30
BETTY SITTER, C.S.R.
Spokane, WA (509)926 -2670
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
name.
MR. HIGGINS: Pete Higgins. I had one
person speak in favor. Most people didn't understand
why they were being included. No one had ever been
counseled one way or the other that this area would be
included, with all large lots, and I explained to them
just because we are Fire District No. 1 -- but more
than 50, probably approaching 75 percent of the people
don't want any part of it, 10 to 15 percent will say
that they haven't made up their minds yet. I talked to
four people that hadn't made up their minds, two people
whose spouses were gone and said they didn't want to
make the decision, and one that said they were in
favor.
The other part of this that I would like
to address is in the forming of the city. I've heard
an awful lot of comments that we would be able to
control our own destiny. I was a citizen member of the
subcommittee on concurrency for transportation issues
as they affect the regional transportation district
under the auspices of GMA.
I learned one thing on that subcommittee,
and that was that all the districts have to work
together to reach a conclusion on the problems in the
area, outside the Valley and inside the Valley. One
31
BETTY SITTER, C.S.R.
Spokane, WA (509)926 -2670
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
would be light rail, the County has the right -of -way
for light rail, but the city would, I'm sure, be
required to step up to the plate on certain issues.
Probably more important than light rail,
particularly in the short term, is the bridging of the
Valley project. That would affect air quality for the
city. It would affect transportation, it would affect
local movement of people in all directions, and it
would close 52 railroad crossings in Spokane County and
grade separate all railroad crossings from the Valley
to Athol, Idaho; that means Havana, Park, Barker,
Harvard, there is a handful more. You would not be
waiting for any trains. And the UP Line would be
located within the boundaries of the BN right -of -way,
so we would not be spending "any time. It would be a
much more efficient system but it is going to be very
expensive, most of it coming from the Federal
government, but the city would then control most of the
major crossings in the Valley and this expense would be
immediate and large.
And I wondered how, since it's no longer
part of the County, I wondered how the citizens in this
Valley and this city could move forward to complete
this project in the time frame that it looks like it is
moving towards.
32
BETTY SITTER, C.S.R.
Spokane, WA (509)926 -2670
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN: Any questions?
(No response).
CHAIRMAN: Mr. Bill Crawford.
MR. CRAWFORD: My name is Bill Crawford and
I live in Veradale
We heard some, what appeared to me to be
conflicting testimony tonight from the Spokane Fire
Chief, that seemed to contradict what Assistant Chief
Rider testified to at the last hearing, and I'm not
sure which one is correct, but I guess the question
that I would have is if it's not broken, why try to
mess with it. Why would we go to the trouble of
changing the district and having to go back and come to
some sort of an agreement between the two fire
districts to serve an area that is already being well
served right now. The only reason that I see is the
City of Spokane wants this area for the money, plain
and simple.
There have been two straw polls taken, one
by KXLY a little over a month ago, and one by the
proponents a little over a week ago, and both come out
roughly 80 percent of the people in the Yardley area
want to be included in the new city.
Also the study done by Mr. Fortin included
33
BETTY SITTER, C.S.R.
Spokane, WA (509)926 -2670
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that area in the revenues. So to disrupt that, disrupt
the results of the study, possibly disrupts the fire
service and goes against the will_of the people in that
area, I don't see any reason to exclude that area from
the new city.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN: Gayle Puu Carroll, please.
I'll call for John Wittenberg while you're
taking care of those things, please.
John Wittenberg.
MR. WITTENBERG: Mr. Chairman, members of
the Board, my name is John Wittenberg. I reside at
2109 North Bessie, which is between Park Road and
Argonne area.
I think the only thing us people want is
the freedom of choice to adjust our own destiny in the
future. Right now we have one and a half County
Commissioners representing depending on what figure you
use, 80 to 90,000 people. At the present, these
people, by and large, you can't please everyone, but
they are doing a good job.
People say, well, let things stay the same.
Things don't stay the same. Very likely, you people
could be sitting in someone's living room when this
area would be cleared out. Mr. Hansen can attest to
34
BETTY SITTER, C.S.R.
Spokane, WA (509)926 -2670
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that by his huge development. The only thing that is
constant in life is change.
And I remember when I was stationed here
back in 1943, I was just a kid then. I am an
octogenarian now, but they were talking about a
north -south freeway then. It would be great,
Mr. Higgins, if we could put an underpass or overpass
over every railroad in the Valley, but I don't think it
will come to pass with the history of the north -south
freeway.
People say that what part of no don't you
people understand who want a new city. You know, when
you climb a mountain -- when I was 50 years old I
joined the Spokane Mountaineers and started mountain
climbing, and you only accomplish anything one step at
a time. So what is this, how many steps is this that
we are involved in now. By God we'll keep at it until
we have our city out here and with your help, we thank
you very much.
CHAIRMAN: Questions?
(No response).
CHAIRMAN: Gayle Puu Carroll.
MS. CARROLL: I'm sorry, I was expecting
to have an overhead tonight, and I had only overheads
prepared, so we are going to try to make due with what
916
BETTY SITTER, C.S.R.
Spokane, WA (509)926 -2670
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
we have available.
If I could ask you to move the map just a
little bit so I can pick up Dishman Mica Road on the
west side.
My name is Gayle Puu Carroll, and I live at
East 11823 - 38th Avenue.
What I have to ask of you tonight is a
little bit different than what you've heard from other
speakers. I am concerned about where you are drawing
the city line in the south part of the Valley here,
right -- I guess what you are proposing for the
incorporation is the Fire District 1 line that is just
at 44th Avenue and the interim urban growth line
presently is at 44th Avenue. I don't have a way to
point that out to you, but you can see 40th, 40th
Avenue right here runs right into Dishman Mica Road.
I want you to just kind of visually follow
this here, and come back up Bowdish Road right here,
32nd Avenue, and come across 32nd Avenue here is Pines
Road, here is State Route 27. The road right here,
40th Avenue, if you look at the handout I gave you, I
believe you have a copy of the arterial road plan that
Spokane County adopted in 1986, and in 1986 40th Avenue
was to connect from Dishman Mica Road to Highway 27 and
beyond, so there is east -west access through this area
36
BETTY SITTER, C.S.R.
Spokane, WA (509)926 -2670
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
of the Valley. And as you can see, it has not
happened.
There are a number of reasons why it
hasn't happened, and it is detailed for you in some
written testimony that I have previously submitted.
But I'd like for you to look at the problem we have.
You have a huge area here that is destined to be urban
development, and I don't believe these statistics that
I saw handed out today, which is 600 acres here,
approximately 100 units, and that means 1 unit per six
acres, and that is not urban density.
If you have urban density here, you do not
have proper infrastruture in the way of urban arterials
to move traffic effectively up this arterial up this
arterial out this arterial, which is a direct route to
the city, without putting a substantial impact on
existing neighborhoods.
So I am asking that you keep the line at a
minimum at the urban growth line and not at any
different line, be it this line here at 44th or some
other line established by Spokane County in their urban
growth adoption. It simply can't handle it. And if it
is not taken care of in terms of being responsive to
planning growth, then you get reactive kinds of road
plans, and that is not what is intended by GMA and not
37
BETTY SITTER, C.S.R.
Spokane, WA (509)926 -2670
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
intended by SEPA.
It is pretty straight forward issue, it's
not there. And why it's not there, it's up to you to
read and figure it out, but it was always supposed to
be there, and if you look at the subdivision plan
originally in 1977, this road was supposed to be here
and the County took it away. It's not there. So if it
can't be built, don't make this part of the city, and
the County shouldn't be including it in the urban
growth area.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN: Any questions?
(No response).
CHAIRMAN: We'll take a five minute recess.
(Recess taken.)
CHAIRMAN: Dorothy Carter please speak
next.
(No response).
CHAIRMAN: We'll move on to a Don
Kachinsky.
MR. KACHINSKY: I am Don Kachinsky, and I
live at 716 South Koren Road, that is two blocks east
of 8th and Carnahan, in the area right between the
Alcott and the Yardley area.
We've been very concerned in the past about
RE
BETTY SITTER, C.S.R.
Spokane, WA (509)926 -2670
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the annexation by the City of Spokane and their attempts
to come out to the Valley. We've supported having a
city out here for the last 25 years, and one of the
things we would like to look at is in the area between
Yardley and Alcott there is a space of eight blocks,
two and a half blocks from Sprague to the freeway and
another four and a half blocks that goes between the
freeway and 8th Avenue, which is the north boundary of
the Alcott area.
We are concerned particular, because if
this area is left out and the Yardley and Alcott area
are taken in by the City of Spokane or left for them to
take over, it leaves us in an area without much chance
of having good service. We are close to Fire District
station No. 6, which is on Sprague Avenue just north of
me. One of the other things we are concerned about is
the fact that if the City of Spokane should annex that
area, the taxes that they collect on their services
there, which are water, sewer, and garbage, amounts to
17 percent that is added to those services for those
people in those areas.
If the Alcott area or the Yardley area were
taken over by the City, they automatically get a 17
percent increase in taxes by those services supplied by
the City of Spokane. In addition to that, they collect
39
BETTY SITTER, C.S.R.
Spokane, WA (509)926 -2670
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
6 percent on telephones, 6.38 percent on the
electricity, and 4.17 percent on the natural gas bills.
And the City of Spokane has a peculiar way
of looking at their taxes, and they do not exempt any
government entity, including the Federal government or
the State government or the County government or the
City itself, so that means the fairgrounds, which
occupies a good part of the Yardley area, is going to
be subjected to all these City taxes. So this area
should be left out.
one of the other things we would like you
to look at is Fire District 1 and the area that they
encompass in the Valley, has always been considered a
good part of the Valley itself and should be held
intact so that this area will be cohesive in its
entirety. Eventually the City would be looking at
other areas east of the current proposition for the
Valley to annex into the areas as they develop east.
I'm just asking that in order to protect
those areas in the western part of the proposition for
the new city in the Valley, that Yardley area and the
Alcott area be left within the boundaries of the new
city.
we very much need to have the protection of
those things included for us.
till
BETTY SITTER, C.S.R.
Spokane, WA (509)926 -2670
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN: Any questions?
(No response).
CHAIRMAN: Tony Lazanis.
MR. LAZANIS: Honorable Chairman, Honorable
members of the Board. My name is Tony Lazanis. I live
at 10625 East Trent Avenue in Spokane Valley.
I am here tonight again to urge you folks
to keep the boundary. You have the authority to take
10 percent or add 10 percent, and I am here to ask you
to leave the boundaries as they are and add another 10
percent.
A smaller government, closer to the people
and the Valley provide that, and it provides good
services and good government and I hope you folks leave
the boundaries where they are.
Another thing I mentioned that you,
Mr. Higgins had brought up the bridging to the Valley.
I've been involved for 20 years on that, and I have
raised money for the study and the safety issues,
noise, and safety issues and I think if the 90 percent
I think is federal -state funded and maybe 5 or 10
percent local money, and if the County can, you know,
they have the money right now to utilize, if the County
can do -- can help pay the 5 or 10 percent, I'm sure
41
BETTY SITTER, C.S.R.
Spokane, WA (509)926 -2670
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
lE
1s
2(
21
2,
2;
25
2`.
the City can do the same, because all of us cares about
the safety and about the noise that occurs out here.
So please, leave the boundaries as they are
and add another 10 percent to it.
Thank you, very much. And I know why
really to be honest with you, I know why I'm nervous,
I don't know why, but I always get nervous before I
get up in front. You know, if you take Yardley out, I
think the people in Yardley will suffer because they
will directly affects their dollars and they take
dollars and use it elsewhere. So please leave the
Yardley in the boundaries and add 10 percent. Thank
you, very much, and I know you are going to do the
right thing. Thank you, sirs.
CHAIRMAN: This concludes the testimony of
this evenings hearing. Are there any specific points
of information that the Board members require or are
there any further questions that we might have?
UNITENTIFIED MAN: Mr. Nebergall, when do
you think you will have your decision?
CHAIRMAN: Our decision will have to wait
until such time as the County has arrived at the
adoption of the growth management act. And the
public hearings will be continued to a date and place
to be determined at our regular September 10 meeting,
42
BETTY SITTER, C.S.R.
Spokane, WA (509)926 -2670
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
lE
li
lE
1�
2C
21
2,
2:
2e
21
and at that time the Board will receive additional
information or testimony as is deemed to be given.
I would now entertain a motion to adjourn
the meeting.
MR. BEU: Motion to adjourn.
MR. TURBEVILLE: Seconded.
CHAIRMAN: Thank you. We are not going to
adjourn, we are going to continue to our next meeting
which will be the 10th of September. Motion made by
Mr. Doug Beu and seconded by Dr. Turbeville.
(Meeting adjourned.)
5W
BETTY SITTER, C.S.R.
Spokane, WA (509)926 -2670
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
lE
li
lE
l�
2(
2:
2.
2:
2
2!
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) ss
COUNTY OF SPOKANE )
REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
I, BETTY A. SITTER, Certified Shorthand
Reporter and Notary Public in and for the State of
Washington;
DO HEREBY CERTIFY:
That the foregoing is a true and correct
transcription of my shorthand notes as taken upon the
public hearing on the date and at the time and place as
shown on page one hereto;
That the witness was sworn upon his oath to tell
the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and
did thereafter make answers as appear herein;
That I am not related to any of the parties to
this litigation and have no interest in the outcome of
said litigation;
WITNESS my hand and seal this February 12,
2002.
Notary Public in and for the
State of Washington, residing
in Spokane.
BETTY SITTER, C.S.R.
Spokane, WA (509)926 -2670