Pre-Incorportion Public Hearing Transcripts BRB 555-01 11/05/20011
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
November 5, 2001
3:00 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING BRB 555 -01
Being held at Boundary Review Board
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
copy 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: The public hearing will now
please come to order.
This hearing is called to gather facts and
hear testimony in the matter of file No. BRB 555 -01,
Proposed Incorporation of the City of Spokane.
Will all of those who plan to speak at
today'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
testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
SPEAKERS: Yes.
MS. WINCHELL: So sworn.
CHAARMAN: The Boundry Review Board will
now review the exhibits received and areas requested
for modification proposal.
MS. WINCHELL: As of today, the Board has
received 83 exhibits, which are in this book on the
front. And what I've done for the Board is kind of
sorted the exhibits by modification areas. There is
some exhibits that are general requests, or general
information, and then some specifically have to do with
the different modification areas. I'll just kind of go
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
around and kind of talk about each of the areas.
The first area on the west is the Yardley
area, and the Board received probably the most exhibits
on that. We received eight exhibits asking that the
area be excluded and ten asking that the area be
included. And you've also received public testimony on
that the Yardley area is 1013 acres and an estimated
population of 220 and assessed value of 139 million,
and an estimated sales tax revenue of 1.4 million.
Approximately 35 percent of the land is non urban, all
sewered, served water and sewer by the City of Spokane
and fire service from Fire District 1.
The second area on the map is the Alcott
area, and a lot of the exhibit is that refer to the
Yardley area also refer to the Alcott area. The 158
acres, and it is approximately a population of about
350 people, 140 dwellings units and it's served by the
City water and sewer and Fire Distict 1.
The third area is the Carnahan area, a
hillside residential area. It's in Fire District 1,
it's inside the urban growth area. The boundary line
between Fire District 1 and Fire district 8 goes right
where the green is Fire District 1 and the pink is Fire
District 8. It has an assessed value of 33 million.
The Board has received an exhibit from the County
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
engineers asking that the area be expanded to include a
more defined boundary. And it also received an exhibit
63 from Fire District 8 asking that the boundary remain
the same as the Fire District 1.
The fourth area is the Ponderosa area 4(a)
and (b) on the map. The green area, 4(a) is in the
proposed incorporation, and the area 4(b) is an area
that was asked for the Board to consider it
includeding. And the Board has received, the area 4(a)
is in Fire District 1 and the area 4(b) is in Fire
District 8, and the Board received several exhibits on
this requesting that the entire Ponderosa area be
included or excluded, that it remain the same because
of the neighborhood,'and there are eight exhibits on
that, and then the one exhibit asking that the area
north of 44th be included.
And this in another area where the Board
received testimony from the Fire Districts asking that
the Fire District 1 boundary be used. The fifth area
is an area around 40th Avenue, and at this time it is
predominately undeveloped with some scattered
residences, not sewered and not within the 20 year
sewer project prorities. Emergency services are
provided by Fire District 1 and Spokane County Water
District Number 3. It is approximately 626 acres with
51
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
2`_
an estimated population of about 250. And the Board
has received some exhibits on this. one exhibit asking
that it be included because its in the urban growth
area, and other exhibits asking that it be excluded
because it's not urban in character, and the urban
infrastaucture, and also petitions of residents asking
that it be excluded.
Area number six is an area near Sullivan
Road that is served by Fire District 1, Vera Irrigation
District, sewers are not available to the area, and it
has about 30 housing units and population of 75,
assessed value of about six million.
The area number seven is a Morningside, 52
acres, it has about 30 homes, and it is Fire District
8. County engineers asked that the area be included to
facilitate road maintenance and County service
delivery. It's in Fire District 8, and Vera Irrigation
District.
The eighth area is the Greenacres area. It
is about 343 acres, the assesssed value is about 18.8
million in Consolidated Irrigation District, and Fire
District 1, it does not have sewer service and a
portion is approved for sewer service in the year
2015. It has 140 housing units, and the Board received
several exhibits asking that the area be excluded,
61
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
including a request by the City of Spokane because of
their growth manegement planning process. There was
also a petition presented from 27 property owners
asking that it be excluded.
The ninth area is the area west of Liberty
Lake. And some exhibits that refer to the eighth
area, Greenacrea, also refers to area number 9,
including a request from the City of Liberty Lake. And
another request that a portion is in a development
proposal partially in the City of Liberty Lake. Also
in Fire District 1, Consolidated Irrigation District,
and assesed value of about 13 million, 121 housing
units, with a population of about 300.
The tenth area is the Otis Orchards. The
Otis Orchards area community goes further east than
showing in number ten, so that is a part of the Otis
Orchards area. Urban services provided by Fire
District 1, Consolidated Irrigation District, and it is
not served sewers with and not included in the County
20 year sewer service project. 460 housing units and
population of about 1100, 1200 acres, assessed value
is about 44.8 million. The exhibits the Board
received were some that the area neighborhood not be
divided and two,speakers asked that the Otis Orchards
area be included.
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 11th area is the Northwood area, and
it has a population of 1600, 698 acres, suburban
development of single family homes and apartments.
Served by Fire District 9, the Pasadena Park Irrigation
District, and a small portion of the area is sewered at
this time and the rest is scheduled to be sewered in
2003. Public testimony the Board received from Fire
District 9 asked that the area not be included. And in
addition, several exhibits asked that it not be
included because they were satisfied with the existing
level of services and that it was a logical service
area for Fire District 9.
The 12th area the Board was asked to
consider modififying was the Pasadena Park
neighborhood. This is an older neighborhood of largely
single family homes south of Wellesley and north of
Millwood. Services provided by Fire District 1,
Pasadena Park Irrigation District, and a portion of the
area is sewered at this time and the rest is proposed
to receive sewers in 2002 and 2006. There's 850
housing units and population of about 2000, and 891
acres, and with a taxable assessed value of 117
million. Testimony that the Board received asked
that the area be excluded. There was a petition of the
property owners and several of the residents that
7
BETTY SITTER, C.S.R.
Spokane, WA (509)926 -2670
t
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
either presented testimony or submitted exhibits said
that they felt more of a connection to the town of
Millwood and a satisfaction of services currently
provided.
That is a summary of the modification areas
that the Board has received so far. We have a map on
the table, too, if you want to see the areas.
Any questions?
MR. STONE: When you talked about one area
you said City of Spokane but you meant Liberty Lake.
MS. WINCHELL: Liberty Lake, that's right.
If the Board members don't have any questions, we can
go to the public testimony?
CHAIRMAN: The Boundry Review Board will
now take testimony from those who would wish to
testify, and we'll call on Mr. Dennis Scott first,
please.
MR. SCOTT: Good afternoon. My name is
Dennis Scott, and I live at 24324 East Pinehurst Lane.
I have a memorandum that I will turn in for the record,
if that is all right. I ask with some concern that I
approach the Board. I have lived in the Spokane area
for 27 years and have learned to listen to the talk on
the streets. The talk that I've heard recently is
that this Board has decided to remove Yardley from
[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
the proposed boundaries of the City of Spokane
Valley. It would appear that you bowed to the
political pressure from City Hall, and if this is true,
I am saddened as your job is to be above politics, or
at least that is what I wanted to believe.
This is the fifth time that the voters will
have an opportunity to see if they want to form a
new city. The payments believe that several things
have changed to make this proposal more viable.than at
any time in the past. It is interesting to note that
Yardley has been included in each of those elections,
and also interesting to note that the City has had many
years to annex this area, it has not been done, and you
should wonder why. Could it be that the property
owners in that area are not interested in being part of
the City of Spokane? Recent polls polls of the
area have shown that the residents actually want to
remain as they are, however, if given a choice they
would elect to form a new city. The City of
Spokane wants to try and make a case that they are
providing water and sewer facilities in the area and
that investment justifies the fact, that they should be
able to annex the area. The City does not hesitate to
state that they have paid for the installation of water
lines to the tune of two millions dollars and sewer
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
line to the tune of 4.8 million dollars. What they
neglect to tell you is that they surcharged the rates
of water and sewer, up to 50 percent of those of the
normal rates, this charge -- will repay the City for
those investments without any cost to the residents of
the city. You would think that by paying a
surcharge of this amount would be quite an incentive to
ask to be annexed, but it hasn't. Why would you take
the position that the property owners in the area don't
know what they need or want by the proposed boundary of
the new city. The city wants to lament that they don't
have area to expand and their commercial land is too
small to encourage new development. I doubt that, as
they have extended water and sewer facilities into the
West Plans area which has many properties that are
vacant and ready for new building.
The area of Yardley is already developed
for the most part, but the City of Spokane, wants the
tax base. Having their eyes set on the tax on the
tax rich area is not bad in itself, however, the City
does not take care of the rest of the city. It would
be very unfortunate for the Board to allow the City to
annex this area and then have the City take this area
to pay off their increasing debt and then to allow this
area to degenerate as they have so many other areas.
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 would seems that the best thing the City
could do is to take care of the downtrodden areas that
already exist, and show a benefit to being within
the boundaries, how could this be done; creating a
healthy atmosphere for businesses to do it. Instead,
the City wants to take the position of forcing anyone
that uses their services to not be able to have a voice
in annexation. Does this seem like a fair and friendly
approach to individuals that will be paying taxes in
to the general fund? If your mandate is to resolve the
conflict, I would suggest that you leave Yardley within
the proposed boundary. If you remove it and the City
of Spokane Valley is successful, Yardley then
becomes an area which Spokane and Spokane Valley are in
a race to annex the area. Instead of resolving the
conflict, you have created one, and I implore you to
rethink your position if the talk on the street is
accurate, and allow Yardley to remain is then the
proposed boundaries and let the property owners decide
by voting whether or not to create the new city.
CHAIRMAN: Questions?
(No response).
CHAIRMAN: Mr. Tom Gregory, please.
MR. GREGORY: Good evening, my name is Tom
Gregory. I reside at 10909 East 23rd, Spokane Valley,
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
Washington. I am here to speak as a commissioner and
as a fire commissioner for District 1 and as an
individual.
I second what Dennis said, that is one of
the things that I was going to bring up. We are
concerned about Yardley mainly because it has been a
part of the District 1 for roughly 60 years. We've
provided service there when the City chose not to.
That area is important to us as a tax base.
The boundaries that the proponents of
Spokane Valley City have created is District 1,
basically. I have no problems with any of the other
areas because we have interlocal agreements with
District 9 and District 8 where adequate fire and
paramedic services are provided.
The Board of Commissioners for Fire District
1 has not taken a formal position in support or
rejection of the proposal at this time. We have kind
of been waiting on you people to make a decision. And
now we are down to the hour where the County has
already basically said Yardley is not going to be in
the City's growth area and that kind of leaves us in a
position of maybe creating a no -man's land between the
City. If you decide to move it back and put Yardley as
a potential for the City of Spokane, that is going to
OVA
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
create a no -man's area unless the County Commissioners
would give. So I strongly recommend that you keep
Yardley in.
One other thing, I have a problem and I
have been kind of involved with the new century
plan and a lot of things trying to bring this community
together, and I was one of the big pushers for the
Citizens for Valley Sewer and I took a lot of heat for
that, but it is time that we move on and the time has
come now.
The City talks about growth, but there is
not really a growth area to handle a lot of people in
the Yardley area. Please consider that. Most of it is
industrial, but those 200 or something people that
have been there have been part and could have been
annexed to the City a long time ago. My whole point is
if the City would act together and have been proactive
all these 60 years, people would have been fighting to
get in instead of fighting to get out, or stay out. So
I urge you to make a decision, and I'm sure our Board
Wednesday, I intend to make a motion that we support
incorporation of the Spokane Valley.
Thank you.
CHAIRMAN: Any questions of Mr. Gregory?
(No Response).
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
CHAIRMAN: Thank you, sir.
Dan Sander, please.
MR. SANDER: Good afternoon. My name is
Dan Sander, I live at 8315 East Bridgeport in Millwood.
And while I am not a resident of the proposed area, I
am a property owner in the Orchard Avenue area, and I
would like to provide a few comments on the Orchard
Avenue area.
I've watched with interest over the years
as this has come and gone, and thought of coming
before, but until I saw the ad this weekend and
realized again that I saw the criteria that you need to
evaluate, and I just felt I needed to come and share my
thought with you.
The Orchard Avenue area is kind of snuggled
between Millwood and the City of Spokane and between
the Spokane River and Trent and the Burlington
Northern, Sante Fe Railroad tracts. This area is an
older neighborhood, and I don't know when the last time
a plat was, maybe the 1930's or so, but it is a single
family area. There is some commercial development,
industrial development right along Trent there, but
it's not a large tax base. It is a pretty neat little
area. From a socio- economic standpoint, we too, as
Pasadena, probably are more tied to Millwood than
14
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 rest of the Valley, the rest of the Valley having
experienced growth and all the other issues that the
proponents have brought forth.
More importantly, I think that Orchard
Avenue is.isolated, not only by the Freeway, but by the
railroad tract and the State highway. It's out there
by itself. And my fear is that this neighborhood may
be forgotten by the new city when it is formed, if it
is formed, and because of its remoteness and
uniqueness, we will be left to our own. So I would
suggest that this will be considered for elimination
from the current proposal, and if necessary in the
future, let the residents and the property owners in
that particular area look at the options available,
Millwood or City of Spokane Valley or whatever options
that are available in the future, that we need a voice.
CHAIRMAN: Any questions?
MR. STONE: If you could show us on the map
the area you are outlining or describing.
MR. SANDER: This area right down here,
(indicating) this being Felts Field, along the river,
the town of Millwood and Trent Avenue, basically. And
that is the south border of Millwood.
MR. STONE: What is the east border?
MR. SANDER: I have that. The boundary of
oil
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 town of Millwood, the railroad tracks and Trent and
the river and the stair -step businesses that exist now.
CHAIRMAN: That is near Bessie, isn't
it?
MR. SANDER: No, that is Vista, that area
was annexed to the town of Millwood five years ago.
CHAIRMAN: Any questions?
(No. response).
CHAIRMAN: Cary Driskell?
MR. DRISKELL: My name is Cary Driskell, I
live at 11014 East 21st, Spokane, Washington.
My comments are directed toward the
potential exclusion of Yardley and Alcott. When the
City of Spokane requested that, it was really a two -
part basis for exclusion of those areas. obviously,
the City of Spokane wants those areas removed for
future annexation.
The first basis for doing so as stated in
the City's exhibits, is that essentially Yardley and
Alcott were allocated to the City under its
comprehensive plan both by itself and Spokane County.
Spokane County adopted its comprehensive plan and final
urban growth area this morning. That document does not
allocate those areas for growth to the City of Spokane,
instead they are reserved to Spokane County. As such,
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
the City's basis for that part of the request is
certainly not valid.
The oral statements by the Board of County
Commissioners in August were certainly to that affect,
but now it is finalize.
The second real basis is that the City of
Spokane is providing suburban services to those areas.
While it is true that the City is providing sewer and
water, that is only a few of the urban services that
are required to be provided in urban areas. The City
is not providing fire protection, police protection,
EMS, not doing anything to pay for the roads. It would
be beating a dead horse to, I guess, discuss how the
City takes care of the roads.
If the sewer and water provided by the
City, they did that under an interlocal agreement with
Spokane County, under that agreement the City of
Spokane is allowed to add an additional utility
surcharge, they are charging those residents anywhere
from 30 to 50 percent over and above what the actual
cost of the services are. Commissioner McKaslin on
Friday at a meeting she was at, stated that her opinion
is that in all likelihood those surcharges have paid
off the investment already for the pipes that are in
the ground, if not, they soon will.
FUI
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
And so I guess the statements by the City
of Spokane that it would be out a lot of money don't
really hold up. And even if the new city of Spokane
Valley did end up getting the Yardley area, the City of
Spokane paid for the pipes in the ground, the City of
Spokane would wither continue to get a stream of
revenue from the use of that infrastructure or the new
city could purchase it, and under either scenario, the
City of Spokane would be made whole.
Fire District 1 has done, I think, a pretty
good -- a very good job outlining the impact to the
Fire District if Yardley and Alcott were annexed to the
City of Spokane. It would have a devastating effect on
their financial outlook for one thing, and two, their
ability to service. It would create a very jagged line
boundary that they would have to do some serious work
to be able to cover those areas. I believe the
testimony was that they would have to build a new
station to cover those areas that are already covered
now without any additional costs.
That is all I have, unless there are any
questions.
CHAIRMAN: Any questions?
(No response).
CHAIRMAN: Mr. Pete Higgins.
W
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. HIGGINS: My name is Pete Higgins, I am
a resident of the Valley, 20221 East 8th Avenue. I
have been a resident of the mitigating area number 8.
I am resubmitting some new names of neighbors who have
asked to be excluded from the area. Actually, those of
us who went out and gathered signature, we have two
people who spoke in favor of it, quite a few that were
undecided, but over 80 percent of the people said they
did not want any part of this and could not understand
why we were being thought of as being part of this.
A little history, many years ago -- well,
when the interim urban boundary, well, even before
that, when the comprehensive growth boundary was
enacted in 1990 I believe it was, a group of residents
from this area requested of the County Commissioners to
be excluded from, we were designated 3.5, or urban,
they went in front of the commissioners and requested
to be excluded from the 3.5 designation and the
majority of the residential area, almost all of the
residential area of mitigating number 8 is SR1, it is
already one acre or larger. So we knew the people who
lived there knew why they were buying there and living
there, and that was to be part of a semi -rural area.
Mitigating area number 8 as it appears on the map is
very nicely defined except that when the boundary is
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
finally drawn the southern edge is excluded because it
is outside of the urban growth boundary, and we then
have one jagged piece of the southern edge that is a
part of the urban boundary. Actually, there is only
the south side of 8th, there is only two houses
included in this area. The boundary, the western edge
of this boundary is Hodges Road, and the eastern edge
is Henry, about a half mile in width, I believe there
is 10 homes on the north side of 8th facing 8th, and
two on the south side. If you went on Henry, I didn't
count the ones on Hodges, but if you went on Henry,
there is, I believe seven homes from 8th to Sprague,
and that is about 8 /10s of a mile.
CHAIRMAN: Mr. Basinger, could you set that
so we can see the area he is speaking about.
MR. HIGGINS: This area right here, this is
outside of the request, but it happens to be part of
the fire district. This area here, Hodges Road, and
this area of Hodges is a dirt trail. It isn't even a
gravel road. Hodges here, then this piece here, was
developed in what they called 1 -acre lots. I believe
it was like 30, approximately 30 homes on a 30 -acre
development, I live right here on this corner.
This area here is outside of any sewering
plans in the next 15 years. All this area from here 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
here and from here to here is all one acre. The main
transmission line for natural gas goes through the
area. There is no -- well, on the northern edge there
is a couple of lots, but in the whole, the entire area
has been developed. There is no room for any type of
development other than what we have, and that is all
one acre, and like I said, almost no one wants to be
part of either city.
And as it stands, I personally feel this
way. If I was to become a part of a city, I would at
least want the choice of whether I wanted to be part of
this proposed incorporation, which has nothing in
common with where we live, or Liberty Lake. Liberty
Lake comes right to here and it goes this way. They
come to the corner of 8th and Sprague or Sprague and
Henry, I would at least like the choice of deciding
which designation or jurisdiction I would like to be "a
member of.
I have a lot more in common with Liberty
Lake than I do with the heart of the Valley, but right
now none of us, practically 100 percent of us have no
desire to be part of this incorporation.
That is all I have to say.
CHAIRMAN: Any questions?
(No response).
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
CHAIRMAN: Any other public testimony.
We will hear from the proponent, Mr. Ed
Mertens.
MR. MERTENS: Good afternoon, my name is
Ed- Mertens, 1310 North Pierce, Spokane Valley, 99206.
I am 72 years old and I have lived in the
Valley all but four years when Sears had me over in
Olympia. This is why I am interested in incorporated
the Valley. I was given specific rules and regulations
to go by to get the petition on the ballot. I was told
there was 40,000 registered voters in this area, and I
had to have 10 percent of them to be certified to say
that the ballot could run. It appears that I don't
know if the rules are the same with us as those that
stand up and say they want this out and that out,
individuals saying we don't want to be in there. Were
they given the same rules as we were that they had to
get signatures of so many people, registered voters in
the area to say that we wanted to incorporate.
I am disappointed, it doesn't appear
that that's happened, and I'm dismayed with it that
it's gone s long as it has. We have been working eight
full years on growth management. I went to quite a few
of those hearings when Steve Hasson was the chairman.
I got involved and I am involved now, and I know that
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
everyone has the right to say what they want, and I
believe the Constitution of the United States tells you
that. I am just wondering if you men have really been
given the same rules to watch each one that comes in
writing, to say I want to be left out. Were they asked
to go get a petition and certify voters said what
they wanted that? That is what I think you are going
to have to make your decision on. I was given a map
that you gentlemen saw on that past meeting where I put
up the certain sections that possible may be taken out
by you, take the heart right out of something that I
saw as really a good plan. I had to finalize that
petition to say that we wanted to keep the
neighborhoods the same and all that. Our committee
went through all that, and I am just really dismayed,
and I don't think all these other people that say we
don't this or that, were they given the same rules that
we had to go by, and I think that is where your
decision has to lie. Right now we have a lot of
disappointed people out there that they see it chopped
up. The growth management, I don't know how they came
up with those boundaries, but they certainly didn't
follow the ones that we were giving them. That is what
we wanted as a city.
I beg you to consider that the different
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
I beg you to consider that the different
changes that came through to you, if it is by politics
or pressure from the area like the City of Spokane or
individuals that just can't stand to be in the City, we
have the proof that we can give them one of the finest
cities in the whole state of Washington, and that is
what I hope that your final decision will be resting
on, is when the people, whoever came to see you, sent a
letter, verbal testimony and such as that, had the same
rules that we had to follow.
That is all I have.
CHAIRMAN: Any questions?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN: That concludes all the testimony
for the public hearing.
Is there any specific information the Board
members require or are there any further questions that
the Board has.
(No response).
CHAIRMAN: I will entertain a motion to
close the public hearing.
MR. STONE: I'll move.
MR. TURBEVILLE: I'll second.
CHAIRMAN: Motion made by Mr. Stone to
close the public hearing and seconded by
24
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. Turbeville. All in favor say aye. So moved.
(Adjourned at 3:45 p.m.)
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
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 14,
2002.
Notary Public in and for the
State of Washington, residing
in Spokane.
26
BETTY SITTER, C.S.R.
Spokane, WA (509)926 -2670