Loading...
Pre-Incorportion Public Hearing Transcripts BRB 555-01 10/02/2001N 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1.8 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 BEFORE THE BOUNDARY REVIEW BOARD October 2, 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: As we come to this meeting, I want to express the Board's appreciation for those of you who have come to give testimony in the past and those tonight, that your testimony has been very civil. We have asked that there not be clapping or cheering or booing or hissing, and everybody has abided by that and you are to be commended for that. Thank you. We wish to welcome you tonight to this special meeting of the Washington State Boundary Review Board for Spokane County. The special meeting is now called to order at 7:00 p.m. The purpose of tonight's meeting is to give you another opportunity to present information and give testimony on BRB 555 -01, the proposed incorporation of the city of Spokane Valley. I would like to ask the Board members and staff to introduce themselves if they would. The Board members to designate or to mention those appointments they have. MR. STONE: Larry Stone, and I was appointed by the Governor. MR. BEU: I am Doug Beu and I was appointed 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 by the County Commissioners. MR. TURBEVILLE: Dan Turbeville, I was appointed by the Special Districts. MR. HAGNEY: John Hagney, appointed by the Governor. MR. NEBERGALL: Robert Nebergall, by the mayors of Spokane County. MR. KAUFMAN: My name is am Bob Kaufman, I am a special Assistant Attorney General, legal counsel to the Board. MR. BASINGER: My name is Mike Basinger, and I am a planner. MS. WINCHELL: I'm Susan Winchall,Director of the Boundary Review Board. CHAIRMAN: We can't forget our able assistant and secretary in the back, Danette Dobbins. At tonight's public hearing, the staff will present an overview of the incorporation process and brief overview of the Spokane Valley Incorporation proposal. 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 given in order of signing. Because of the formal nature of the public hearings, only Board members can ask questions of the 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 speakers. If you do have questions, the Boundary Review Board staff will be available at the break and after the hearing to assist you. To be most effective in your testimony, 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 a brochure on the table in the rear. If you have previously given testimony and you would like to testify again tonight, we would ask that it not be redundant to that testimony which you have given previously. And we ask that you hold your testimony to three minutes. The Boundary Review Board will not make a decision on the proposal at tonight's hearing and will schedule another meeting to deliberate on the proposal. The public hearing will now come to order and this hearing is called to gather facts and hear testimony in the matter of file No. BRB 55501, the proposed incorporation of the City of Spokane Valley. Will all 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 the 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 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: Ms. Winchell, the Boundary Review Board Director will now present the proposal. MS. WINCHELL: I'll go through a brief history of the proposal and kind of the next steps. The notice of intention for the proposed City of Spokane Valley was filed with the Boundary Review Board on May 31, and this is the third public hearing that the Boundary Review Board has had. They held one public hearing on August 8, it was continued to August 27, and now it is continued until tonight. The next step in the process will be in mid October, the Urban Growth area for Spokane County, will be in affect and the Boundary Review Board will deliberate and make a decision on the proposal in early November. They will set a meeting date tonight, and it will eventually go on the ballot, depending on when the Boundary Review Board files its written decision. It looks like it will be either February or March, in the spring. If the ballot measure passes in the spring, another election will be held, a primary election for city officials, and then there will be another election 5 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 held, a final election for city officials, the mayor and city council. If it is on the March ballot, the optimum incorporation date will be the end of February 2003. I wanted to make sure that the Board members had a copy of the comparison on the Washington cities and it has been updated for you. The copies of this is on the table for any of you that are interested in getting a copy, and this will be added to the incorporation study information that we have prepared. So if you have any questions, I am happy to answer questions. On the comparison, one side is the revenues for cities over 50,000 and on the back regarding services for your information. Do the Board members have questions of the incorporation process, the exhibits, or anything on the study? CHAIRMAN: Not at this time. Thank you, Ms. Winchell. We will now hear testimony from the effective agencies, which would be first the fire district, but to lead that would be proponents and we will get this list. Previously it's been fire district leading 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 affected fire districts, but tonight the affected agency would be your Commissioner Kate McCaslin from Spokane County. The affected agencies and proponents have always been able to exceed that three minutes. MS. McCASLIN: I will, in deference to the Board, I will try to keep it less than that. My remarks will be rather short, I hope. I am here tonight testifying on behalf of the Board of County Commissioners. It is actually with regard to one specific topic, and that is whether or not the area we know as Yardley should be included in the proposed city boundaries or not. It is my understanding, although I was not here, that you had received previous testimony from the City of Spokane where it was suggested that that area of Yardley should be left out because of the potential impact on the City of Spokane. On behalf of the Board of County Commissioners, we would urge you to leave that area within the boundary. Our reasoning is actually very simple. We believe it is up to the citizens of the Yardley area to decide their own fate, and we believe furthermore that they have made it very clear that they, in fact, want to make that decision themselves. You know, to a great extent, and it's II 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 really undeniable, the County would be affected in a far greater way than the City. With all due respect to the city, the fact is they only provide one major service to that area and that being the sewer. And in fact, they sell that service, just as a reminder, they do not, in fact, receive tax dollars to support it, it is, in fact, what we call enterprise fund. In other words, it has to raise enough revenue to support itself. If they are not charging enough to recover their investment, that seems to me to be a business decision, and it seems unfair to deny the folks in Yardley what we believe is their right to vote about what ultimately they want their fate to be. The County provides, except for fire and water services, all the other services are, the two biggest of which cost a lot of money, sheriff or police protection and the roads. And I would also remind the folks that the roads are the biggest investment if anything, because according to state law, if an area incorporates after a time frame of 60 days, we turn over all the road right -a -way and all the improvements thereof, for free. We don't get to charge for that infrastructure or anything else. So I think it is notable that the County has the most to lose in terms of that area, and yet we just believe so strongly that it should be up to 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 citizens of Yardley and would urge you to leave that area intact in the proposed city. So other than that, that is my testimony, and I would be happy to answer any questions if you have any. If not, thank you, very much. Good luck with your hearing. CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Next would be Scott Kuhta from Spokane County. He is for information only. We then move to those people in the audience who are giving testimony. We have a Mike Donahue first. MR. KUHTA: Mrs. McCaslin, Ms. Winchell and gentlemen. During our signature gathering on petitions for the incorporation of the Valley, the map that was provided as it was the original map and was advanced by us to the signers of the petitions as the area to be incorporated. Over 6600 people signed the petitions basing their thoughts on the boundaries shown. More than 6000 signed in the shortest month of the year, February. I ask you please to adhere to the boundaries on the original map as closely as possible. With regard t'o Yardley /Alcott area, I came to the Spokane area at age 14 in 1929. Yardley /Alcott had been considered part of the Valley, at least all these 9 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 years. And certainly if the City of Spokane wanted them, they could have moved for annexation before now. Please, please leave them as they are. Thank you. CHAIRMAN: Do the Board members have any questions? (No response). CHAIRMAN: Next would be Walter Bonsack, please. MR. BONSACK: Thank you, gentlemen. I just want to address a much smaller issue than Yardley, I think, and this has to do with the east boundary of the proposed city, which is south of the freeway and goes straight down Henry, north and south down Henry Road. I live with my wife and lots of other people who I do not represent. I am speaking only for myself and my wife. We live in a small area on the east side of Henry Road on First Avenue, East First Avenue. This area goes down Fourth and one street south of that. If the boundary stays at Henry Road, this small residential area consists of entirely one acre lots sandwiched between Liberty Lake and the City of Spokane Valley, and it is a pocket of the County which fill 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 is isolated. The character of this area is exactly the same as far as residential area as on the west side of Henry, which is included in the City. So my request is simply that you consider the logic of following the Urban Growth area boundary line in this area, which would include this little section of housing on the east side of Henry. Thank you. CHAIRMAN: Do the Board members have any questions? (No response). CHAIRMAN: Carla Hines, please. MRS. HINES: That is me, and right now I guess I would like to decline to speak because I had some questions and I didn't quite fully understand the forum, so I will be here at intermission and ask some questions. Thank you. CHAIRMAN: Laletta Sartain. If I mispronounce that, correct me, please. MS. SARTAIN: I am Laletta Sartain, and I am from the unincorporated town of Yardley, and I hope you will leave us to go into the Valley City if we have a choice, because I do not want to go into the City after they put our sewer in this summer. I've had it with them. That's it. 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 CHAIRMAN: Any questions? MR. HAGNEY: Could you be more specific why have you had it with the City? MS. SARTAIN: Well, first they came along with this machinery, they beat my trees like this until they knocked the limbs off. Down the street, the man was going to come with me tonight, they knocked the bark off the trees down there. All of us in our block which is a double block, have argued with them the way they left the street and the condition they left, not the paving but where we walk and things like that, and some of them have talked to them more than once. I have talked to them more than once. MR. HAGNEY: How did your neighbors feel about this? MS. SARTAIN: Most of them are businesses, but the man who was coming with me was not able to, and he is a property owner too, and he specifically is real unhappy with the way they treated his tree out front, and he says that he called them and they did not get a reply back. I called them the Thursday before the plane went in the building, and then I waited for two weeks because I thought maybe the man had to go out and inspect something other than that -- our sewer -- and 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 anyhow, the Monday after that, after the two weeks, I called them and finally told them don't ignore me, and he said -- he came out and looked it over, and what did I want them to do. I told him what I wanted. I can't argue with them that much. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for your testimony. Next would be Annette Remshard. MR. STONE: I think it would be good if the speaker gives their address. CHAIRMAN: We would like you to give your address if you would, please, your residence address. MS. REMSHARD: My name is Annette Remshard, and I reside in Greenacres at 1705 North McMillan Lane. I have given a written update to the Boundary Review Board on the Yardley polling information. I submitted it to the Board at the last meeting on August 27, 2001, and we have received more letters from the residents of Yardley that were all affirmative in the desire to be part of the new city of Spokane Valley. We also ran a poll of the people who stopped by the incorporation booth at the Interstate Fair, and these are the results: 121 people who reside in Spokane Valley responded, and we only counted those 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 who do reside in the county or in the Valley were counted; 118 wanted to be part of the new city of Spokane Valley, for a total of 97.5 percent. Only 3 wanted to remain in the unincorporated county, for 2.5 percent. None wanted to be a part of the City of Spokane. 62 percent felt that the new City of Spokane Valley would enhance service at a lower cost, while 57 percent of the people felt that safety was the greatest importance of being part of the new city." Thus, with all the following conversations I've had with the Valley citizens leads me to one possible conclusion, nobody wants to be a part of the City of Spokane. If the Boundary Review Board takes Yardley out of the incorporation boundaries and denies these citizens, along with the rest of the Valley citizens the right to vote, it is paramount to unrighteous dominion. The citizens of Spokane Valley have the right as Americans to determine how they want to have their government and have the constitutional right to vote for their leaders so they may have a voice in their government with direct representation. We need to choose leadership who will be directly accountable to citizens in matters of zoning, planning, taxing, environment and public safety concerns. We as citizens have the right to determine Hn 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 direction our city will take to insure the quality of life that we all want for our seniors, our children, and ourselves. we have the responsibility to choose leadership to represent our needs,' not of those_ of others that are not affected by their determinations. The people of Spokane Valley are independent and they want to have a city that can attract businesses that pay a living wage jobs, jobs that will keep our children here and able to raise their own children in the manner that would make everybody proud. we need to utilize the talent that we have locally, not lose our children to other areas for lack of opportunity here. The Spokane Valley citizens are unique and deserve the opportunity to determine how their lives will be lived, served, and governed. Thank you. CHAIRMAN: Any questions? (No response). CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Loyd Peterson. MR. PETERSON: Thank you, my name is Lloyd Petersen, 3001 North Joel Court, Otis Orchards. The reason why I came this evening, there are two areas -- the gentleman back here spoke of the 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 one area that is between the proposed city and the City of Liberty Lake, now there is another area that is just on beyond, that if you look at the map back there it lies between the city of Liberty Lake and the new proposed City of Spokane Valley, and the northern boundary of that would be the river, the Spokane River. Those areas would be little islands that would be very difficult for the county to service those areas because of the location of them and being cut off from everything else. So I would think it would be to everyone's advantage to incorporate those two areas within the new city of Spokane Valley. CHAIRMAN: Any questions? MR. STONE: Do you know the size of that area? MR. PETERSON: I couldn't hear you. MR. STONE: If I understand you, they are areas south of Spokane River, right? MR. PETERSON: Right. MR. STONE: And east of Henry Road? MR. PETERSON: Yes, it would be between Henry Road and the new City of Liberty lake. MR. STONE: Do you know approximately how big an area that is in acres or square miles? MR. PETERSON: If you would allow me to go 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 back, I can point it out on the map. MR. STONE: That would be good. MR. PETERSON: This area right here. So this area and this smaller area here are the two that would be cut off from any access by the County, the County would have to go through either the City of Liberty Lake or the City of Spokane Valley to get to either one of those to service those. So they should be a part of the new City of Spokane Valley. CHAIRMAN: And you live in the area that is the most southerly, correct? MR. PETERSON: This area right here. CHAIRMAN: Excuse me, you're talking about the area just south of that? MR. STONE: No, he's talking about the area north. MR. PETERSON: Both this one and this one. MR. STONE: But you live in the north area, right? MR. PETERSON: If those two went out and were part of the City, the County could very easily -- I mean the new city could take care of those areas nicely, but the County if they are left out, the County is going to have a heck of a time left out because they will have to go through one of the cities with the road 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 equipment and trucks and everything to service that area, so it makes sense that be made part of the city. CHAIRMAN: This is the area that is east of Henry? MR. PETERSON: Yes. MR. STONE: And north of the City of Liberty Lake? MR. PETERSON: Between the Spokane River and the new Liberty Lake City. MS. WINCHELL: I think if you look at Map 2 in your report, you will see the area that he is referring to. MR. STONE: Do you live in that area then? MR. PETERSON: No, I do not, no. MR. STONE: Because we have had testimony from some that want to exclude the area that is west of that from the proposed City of Spokane Valley, both Greenacres and an area called west of Liberty Lake, so we had mixed testimony on that. Okay. MR. PETERSON: One of the problems there is the people that want to exclude that are mostly people who have acreage and they feel that some day they would like to develop those areas. Well, if they don't become part of the city, there is no way they will ever be able to-develop them because the County has Im 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 set so that the smallest you can have is five acres, so they will never be able to develop that to lots and blocks. So the only way that those people will be able to properly develop their property in 10, 15, 20 years, who knows, but they will never be able to develop it properly unless they are part of the city. CHAIRMAN: Any questions? (No response). CHAIRMAN: Mr. Dennis Scott, please. MR. SCOTT: Good evening. My name is Dennis Scott. I live at 24324 East Pinehurst Lane. I would like to clarify one thing that was just said about the area to the north. I believe that that particular area has ownership that is split between the area that has been left out of this proposal and the Liberty Lake new city limits. And Liberty Lake has been approached by the property owner to annex that area, so you might put a question in to Liberty Lake to see whether that is true. The second thing is, you probably already know, that this area can be developed because it is within the growth management area, so as long as it meets the County zoning criteria to be developed -- the only thing is they would have to contract for services with either Liberty Lake or with the new city, if it is 19 BETTY SITTER, C.S.R. Spokane, WA (509)926 -2670 11 formed. 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 point that I wanted to address was the area of Yardley that obviously has come under a lot of scrutiny, and I certainly agree with Commissioner McCaslin. And whatever services that the City of Spokane provided to the area, whether water or sewer, they charge a monthly rate for that. That rate should reimburse them for the cost of that infrastructure just the way any other utility operates. I am not aware of any services that are paid for with general city revenue. And if that is the case, then they are not providing any services and they cannot stand up before you and, gee, you owe it to us because we provide services. Water and sewer services can be contracted with anybody that has a service area. That particular service area was given to the City of Spokane by the County only because they could be there first to supply that service, but they are being paid for that service. The only point is that to take Yardley out, it was talked about at two meetings ago that you had here, where the Fire District 1 indicated that their service was planned since 1942 to cover that area, and, in fact, if they were excluded, the City of Spokane would have to spend several hundred thousand 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 dollars, or perhaps a couple million dollars in order to build service stations in order to provide an equal level or better services to that area. If it has already been covered, it doesn't seem too logical to exclude it in order to spend money that is not necessarily right now in order to provide that service. At the last meeting, there were some specific questions asking for presentations by the City of Spokane and Spokane County Utilities, and it was asked to have that presentation be made at this evening's meeting. If that information has been submitted to this Board, then I think it would be appropriate if the staff would address specifically what that information is so that the audience can respond to it to know whether or not they are precluded from some information that has been submitted to the Board. Thank you. CHAIRMAN: Any questions? MS. WINCHELL: Do you want me to respond to that? CHAIRMAN: Sure. MS. WINCHELL: The City of Spokane has not submitted the cost of the infrastructure they've invested in the Yardley they will submit a letter, they have not submitted to date. If you are interested 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 in any of the exhibits that have been submitted, there is a book that has all the exhibits that have been submitted so far. CHAIRMAN: Exhibit 36 has a point of information, there was a fax sent from the City of Liberty Lake requesting modification of those areas from the proposed boundary. Next, Mr. Edward Mertens, please. MR. MERTENS: Good evening everyone. My name is Edward Mertens. 1310 North Pierce Road, Spokane, Washington 99206. I am the chairman of the community action committee, a member of the coalition to incorporate the City of Spokane Valley. Since I am the signature on the petition, I feel compelled to enter in testimony regarding the following information. In February 2000, our committee announced publicly we were moving to take action to try to incorporate the Spokane Valley. That was 20 months ago, and in that time the staff and the Boundary Review Board and members of the Board have been very helpful in providing necessary steps for us to proceed. All the public meetings have been held as well as the necessary steering committee meetings regarding finances, et cetera. Now that we know that the County Commissioners 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 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 have finalized the growth management boundaries and the legal aspects soon to be completed, we can all proceed to our goal of incorporation of the Spokane Valley. It has come to our attention that the petition we used to gather signatures on, has the picture of the proposed city. I don't know if you gentleman have actually seen this one. This is the one that we had in the mall in December and we had at the Fair and had it publicly shown as the proposed city, and you will note that it says on the bottom, Proposed City of Spokane Valley, and Washington State Boundary Review Board for Spokane County, and it was provided to us by the Boundary Review staff. I am a salesman by trade, and when I see something like this, I like to sell the picture. A picture is worth 1000 words. But you can see that if it is formed in the Fire District 1 boundary, and some of these odd ones we have here on the map, it starts to confuse the public. We have complaints from them saying the picture I have on the petition does not look like the new plan. I have a copy of the petition back there, if you gentlemen have not seen it I will provide you each with one, but that is the picture that is on the back. By law we have to have that on the back of the petition when we get people to sign it. 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 Many of the people who have signed it have definitely indicated that it is not the way it is appearing now, and on the petition it is clearly stated that it may vary. But this is not detailed on the petition. My signature is on that petition and I am telling people the story about a picture and now I don't know where the picture is going to go. The strong pressure being put on by the City of Spokane to have the Yardley area removed, and possibly Kaiser, we heard that might be a possibility. We must strongly insist that the proposed city as presented by the picture we were using all through the signatures gathered be maintained. I want to put these little forms on here to give you an idea how much is going to be taken out of our city if you do take them off. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Mertens? MR. KAUFMAN: If you are going to be referring to this, you will need to mark it as an Exhibit. MR. MERTENS: That's all right. We will mark it as an exhibit. MR. KAUFMAN: Do we have a number or letter he can assign to this? MS. WINCHELL: No. 71. PO! 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. MERTENS: I intend to give you the map. It appears that none of you have seen that map, is that correct? That is what we have been working off of. It just amazes me that now we have to tell them you are going to take those areas out, take the heart right out of our city, so we strongly recommend that you take care of this for us and leave those two areas as they are, and various things as to Fire District 1. And we can get back to the people that are being left out of the Northwood Ponderosa, but we have -- the new city has the right to come up with new growth management areas. We talked to a lot of them at the Fair and talked to them a lot at the mall and a lot in the grocery stores. PAI BETTY SITTER, C.S.R. Spokane, WA (509)926 -2670 Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN: Any questions? (No response). CHAIRMAN: Thank you, sir. Cary Driskell, please. MR. DRISKELL: My name is Cary Driskell. My office address is 12704 East Nora. My residence address is 11014 East 21st. I am here tonight on behalf of the Community Action Committee. I have been retained to look at some legal issues for them on the PAI 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 incorporation. In doing so, I studied in depth the laws that support incorporation. Particularly RCW 36.93. The thing that impressed me from the outset about that statute is it says the overriding purpose in the formation of the Boundary Review Board, is that such Boards are to resolve conflict for unincorporated areas, that is your primary goal. Now, I guess my biggest concern is the request by the City of Spokane to remove the Yardley and Alcott areas from the proposed incorporated area. There are nine objectives that the Board must look to in whatever recommendation it makes, for instance if they decide to pull any of the territories out, it can to a plus or minus ten percent, however, in doing so, the Board must be able to provide substantial evidence whatever they do in that regard. Now, in the nine objectives that the Board must keep in mind, a recent Washington case law from the Supreme Court state that of those nine objectives, more of them has to be furthered in what you do than I guess would be hindered. Now, if the Board were to pull out the Yardley and Alcott areas, frankly, none of those nine objectives could be met. If left in the proposed new city, then at least five of those would at least be 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 furthered, to some extent. I have provided a letter, a copy to each Board member, and left that with Ms. Winchell, so you will have an outline specifically how that analysis goes. I guess, getting back to the overriding purpose of the Board, if you were to pull Yardley and Alcott out, you would in affect create an island right in between the new city and the City of Spokane. There would then be a substantial conflict between the City of Spokane and the new city for that very tax rich area. Everybody knows that that is really a plum that both cities want. If you leave it out, you create a substantial conflict within derogation of your duty. I think the record is pretty clear that the citizens of Yardley strongly, strongly oppose any annexation to the City of Spokane. If you look to what purpose the Board might have in excluding Yardley and Alcott area, it could only possibly be to reserve that area for the City of Spokane and in the future annexation. If the residents of the Yardley area strongly oppose it, that is pretty compelling evidence that the annexation will not occur there to the City of Spokane. If that is the case, why create an island in the first place. 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 I would like to thank Commissioner Mccaslin for the comments. They were succinct and to the point. It is an election issue, and people that live in the area need to choose for themselves and it would create. a lot less problems in that area if it were left in. Thank you. CHAIRMAN: Any questions? (No response.) CHAIRMAN: Thank you. This concludes our testimony of this hearing at this time. Do Board members have any questions in regard to any of the information that we have received tonight? MR. STONE: I think we have had, I think, 71 exhibits, if I'm keeping track right, and we have heard from some, I think, 52 speakers, and I think it's been very -- I appreciate all of the information that we have gotten. As I see it as one Board member, we have a big job in front of us now to assess the factor of the Boundary Review Board and the objectives and make some decisions. There has been several areas that different parties have either asked to remain or be added to the boundaries of the proposed city and others that have 99 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 asked areas be removed, and what I would like to suggest is that staff, in part five on alternatives to incorporation, the areas that are in question are listed. And there is a number of the factors that we would use listed in there, and request staff to look at those in terms of the objectives and make some analysis before our next meeting. I think, obviously, particularly in the Yardley and Alcott areas, we have heard and read several exhibits and testimony that are for keeping and adding to that area, and we have also had a number of exhibits and testimony saying that it should not. So I think particularly an eastern and western end of the proposed city. The proponents that used the Fire District 1 boundaries within the UGA, and we are going to have to make some decisions because we have had a lot of testimony on Ponderosa area, so I think looking at that would be important, too. So these are some of the things that I just suggest that we think about and maybe the staff could assist us with organizing some of that. MS. WINCHELL: I have a question. You referred to part five of the report? MR. STONE: This big report, yes. A lot 29 BETTY SITTER, C.S.R. Spokane, WA (509)926 -2670 7 L 3 4 E 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 of factors are listed there which is very helpful. CHAIRMAN: Is there any specific information other than that the Board would requested? MR. HAGNEY: If the City was to submit after this meeting, information concerning their costs in the Yardley Alcott area, how would we handle that? Would that be handled as an exhibit, and if so, would we not be obliged to -- I think Mr. Scott, as Mr. Scott alluded to, we would then be obliged to hear testimony of people wishing to respond to that evidence? I am asking a question of procedure. MS. WINCHELL: It's possible to keep the testimony open for written comments, and I don't know possibly before the November 5 -- MR. KAUFMAN: Any exhibits that the Board receives, whether at that particular meeting or while the record is kept open, is public record and the public has a right to inspect and a right to respond to. So I think that what is going to be important is that people who are interested in responding to that stay in touch with the Board and see what the Board has received and they can access that and respond to it. MS. WINCHELL: It could be the given at the next meeting if it is that week, that would be good, whenever it is going to be here. You could ask if 30 BETTY SITTER, C.S.R. Spokane, WA (509)926 -2670 L 7 9 c 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 anyone -- I think we would want to take new testimony. I don't know. CHAIRMAN: I would think that the testimony we had and the exhibits that have been submitted should be sufficient to arrive at a conclusion. MR. STONE: I don't think we should close the public testimony until our next meeting. Ms. Winchell informed me that she has checked with the Board members calendars, and the next time that we could meet, all five of us without a conflict would be November 5, and if we close the public portion of our meeting now, we would -- I think we should not close the public portion until our next meeting. MR. HAGNEY: I would offer a motion on that. MR. STONE: We probably don't have to make a motion to not close it, but we need to continue it. MS. WINCHELL: So you would continue to November 5 for written testimony, and if someone wanted to respond to the written testimony they would have an opportunity at the November 5 meeting. MR. KAUFMAN: You just want to keep it open, period. CHAIRMAN: Are you asking for written testimony? 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 MR. STONE: I think it should stay open, period. If we need to have an expert speak to us -- MS. WINCHELL: All right. That would be one way, and then you would have to close it then because you would always be getting more testimony. MR. STONE: We have to close at some point, that's obvious, but the decision needs to be completed by January 12. MS. WINCHELL: They want to go to the March ballot, so it would be January 12, 60 days before the election, approximately. MR. HAGNEY: Let me clarify something, that the reason that I brought that issue up is because it seems as if it might be possible that the City or others might submit other exhibits. And if that is the case, then I think it would be prudent to keep, as Mr. Stone suggested, prudent to keep the option of testimony open until the November 5th, at which time if there is additional testimony in response to any exhibits, there will be an opportunity to respond to that. There is no reason why at that meeting if there was not any additional testimony, close the testimony and then begin deliberations. From a procedural standpoint, does that seem all right? CHAIRMAN: Entertain the motion to continue 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 the public hearing until N County Public Works. MR. STONE: Is MS. WINCHELL: I know that you can't meet or 3 to 6, I guess, is the 5th. ovember 5 at 3:00 p.m. at the 3:00 p.m. the best time? For the Board members, yes. after that. I think 3 to 5 window available on November CHAIRMAN: Do I hear a motion? MR. BEU: So moved. MR. HAGNEY: Seconded. CHAIRMAN: The motion has been made by Mr. Beu to continue the public hearing until 3:00 p.m., Monday, November 5th, Spokane, County Public Works Building. The Board will written testimony until that date. The Board will file its written decision within the 40 days after we close the public hearing. MS. WINCHELL: I have kind of a procedural question. The Board's regular meeting would usually be on Veteran's Day, can we reschedule this regular meeting until November 5th? MR. KAUFMAN: As long as we give notice. CHAIRMAN: The meeting is adjourned. Thank VASIJ (Adjourned at 7:50 p.m.) 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 STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ) ss: REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE COUNTY OF SPOKANE ) 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 7, 2002. Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, residing in Spokane. 19V BETTY SITTER, C.S.R. Spokane, WA (509)926 -2670