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