Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2010, 06-08 Regular Meeting
AGENDA SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING FORMAL MEETING FORMAT Tuesday, June 8, 2010 6:00 p.m. Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers 11707 E Sprague Avenue Council Requests Please Silence Your Cell Phones During Council Meeting CALL TO ORDER: INVOCATION: Pastor James Kashork, Holy Trinity Lutheran Church PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: ROLL CALL: APPROVAL OF AGENDA: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS: COMMITTEE, BOARD, LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS: MAYOR'S REPORT: PUBLIC COMMENTS: This is an opportunity for the public to speak on any subject not on the agenda for action. When you come to the podium, please state your name and address for the record and limit remarks to three minutes. 1. CONSENT AGENDA Consists of items considered routine which are approved as a group. Any member of Council may ask that an item be removed from the Consent Agenda to be considered separately. a. Approval of the following claim vouchers: VOUCHER LIST DATE W/VOUCHER NUMBERS: TOTAL AMOUNT 05/19/2010 5023 -5029 $829.00 05/21/2010 20240 -20267 $537,182.79 05/21/2010 20268 -20277 $32,608.26 05/28/2010 20307 -20313 $46,993.79 GRAND TOTAL $617,613.84 b. Approval of Payroll for Period Ending May 31, 2010: $349,855.32 c. Approval of Formal Council Meeting Minutes of May 11, 2010 d. Approval of Study Session Meeting Minutes of May 18, 2010 e. Approval of Formal Council Meeting Minutes of May 25, 2010 f. Approval of Study Session Meeting Minutes of June 1, 2010 NEW BUSINESS 2. First Reading Proposed Ordinance Vacating Street (W of 16' & Kahuna) (STV 01 -10) - Karen Kendall [public comment] 3. First Reading Proposed Ordinance CTA 02 -10 Code Text Amendments — Lori Barlow [public comments] 4. Motion Consideration: Accepting Collaborative Planning Agreement — Mike Basinger [public comments] 5. Motion Consideration: Mayoral Appointment to NE Washington Housing Solution Board of Commissioners — Mayor Towey [public comments] 6. Motion Consideration: Broadcasting Option- Greg Bingaman [public comments] Council Agenda 06 -08 -10 Regular Meeting Pagel of 2 PUBLIC COMMENTS: This is an opportunity for the public to speak on any subject not on the agenda for action. When you come to the podium, please state your naive and address for the record and limit remarks to three minutes. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS 7. Public, Educational, Government (PEG) Funding — Cary Driskell 8. SARP (Subarea Plan) Report to Council re Public Meeting Comments — Lori Barlow 9. Advance Agenda INFORMATION ONLY: (will not be reported or discussed) 10. Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) EXECUTIVE SESSION n/a ADJOURNMENT General Meeting Schedule (meeting schedule is always subject to change) Regular Council meetings are generally held every Tuesday beginning at 6:00 p.m. The Formal meeting formats are eg nerally held the 2" and 4"' Tuesdays. Formal meeting have time allocated for general public comments as well as comments after each action item. The Study Session formats (the less formal meeting) are eg nerally held the 1 St 3rd and sometimes 5 Tuesdays. Study Session formats DO NOT have time allocated for general public comments; but if action items are included, comments are permitted after those specific action items. NOTICE: Individuals planning to attend the meeting who require special assistance to accommodate physical, hearing, or other impairments, please contact the City Clerk at (509) 921 -1000 as soon as possible so that arrangements may be made. Council Agenda 06 -08 -10 Regular Meeting Page 2 of 2 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: 06 -08 -2010 City Manager Sign -off: Item: Check all that apply; ® consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Approval of the Following Vouchers; VOUCHER LIST DATE WNOUCHER NUMBERS: TOTAL AMOUNT 05/19/2010 5023 -5029 $829.00 05/21/2010 20240 -20267 $537,182.79 05/21/2010 20268 -20277 $32,608.26 05/28/2010 20307 -20313 $46,993.79 GRAND TOTAL $617,61184 RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Approve claims for vouchers as listed above. BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: STAFF CONTACT; Ken Thompson, Finance Director ATTACHMENTS Voucher Lists �Gf \ ( - s "� e-�lr\�s vchlist Voucher List Page: 1 05/19/2010 11:26:34AM Spokane Valley Bank code: Pk-ref Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description /Account Amount 5023 5/19/2010 002313 BLASHILL, DAN REFUND CANCELLATION REFUND: SULLIVA 102.00 Total : 102.00 5024 5/19/2010 002314 BLIESNER, HEIDI REFUND CANCELLATION REFUND: VALLEY 136,00 Total : 136.00 5025 5/19/2010 002315 CLELLAND, DAVID REFUND CANCELLATION REFUND: BROWN: 102.00 Total : 102.00 5026 5/19/2010 002315 GOOLIE, BRIAN REFUND REFUND DAMAGE DEPOSIT: M1RAI 52.00 Total: 52.00 5027 5/19/2010 002302 HALL, JANET REFUND REFUND DEPOSIT FOR GREAT RO 185.00 Total : 185.00 5028 5/19/2010 001680 SWANSON, CHRISTY REFUND REFUND DEPOSIT: BROWNS PAR? 52,00 Total : 52.00 5029 5/19/2010 002312 VOLUNTEERS OF AMERICA REFUND DEPOSIT REFUND: FIRESIDE LOUP 200.00 Total : 200.00 7 Vouchers for bank code: pk -ref Bank total : 829.00 7 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 829.00 I, the undersigned, do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished, the services rendered, orthe labor performed as described herein and that the Claim is just, due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley, and that I am authored to authenticate and certify to said claim. Finance Director Date Page: 1 vchlist Voucher List Page: 1 0512/120/0 2:45:23PM Spokane Valley Bank code: 2pb2nk Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 20240 5/21/2010 001873 ACME CONCRETE PAVING INC MAY 2010 42577 BROADWAY SULLIVAN CONSTRUC 322,204.45 Total : 322,204.45 20241 5/21/2010 001081 ALSCO LSP0795056 FLOOR MATS:CITY HALL 26.21 Total : 26.21 20242 5/21/2010 001409 BEST LINE 100501432 ANSWERING SVC: CENTERPLACE 32.00 Total : 32.00 20243 5/21/2010 000235 DATA BASE RECORDS DESTRUCTION 55150 SHREDDING CHARGES 159.00 Total: 159.00 20244 5/21/2010 002161 DELLWO, ROBERTS & SCANLON 4071 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES: 09 -1K 63.00 Total: 63.00 20245 5/21/2010 000912 DEX MEDIA WEST APRIL 2010 ADVERTISING: SENIOR CENTER 37.25 Total : 37.25 20246 5/21/2010 001881 DOMRESE, DAN EXPENSES 2010 WSCPA MEMBERSHIP DUES: 220.00 Total: 220.00 20247 5/21/2010 002271 GRASSEL, BRENDA EXPENSES APRIL'S MILEAGE REIMB: GRASSE 45.00 Total : 45.00 20248 5/21/2010 002041 J. SCRIVNER INVESTIGATIONS INC SP -30475 LEGAL SERVICES 317.43 Total : 317.43 20249 5/21/2010 000864 JUB ENGINEERS, INC. 0064303 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 7,513.36 Total: 7,513.36 20250 5/21/2010 001035 NETWORK DESIGN & MANAGEMENT 18072 APRIL 2010: SYSTEM MAINTENANC 6,175.00 18163 QUARTERLY SENTINAL BILLING 1,047.00 Total: 7,222.00 20251 5/21/2010 002260 NRPA MAY 2010 NRPA RENEWAL CERT: GROUP PA 335.00 Total : 335.00 Page: 1 vchlist 05/21/2010 2:45:23PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 2 Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 20252 5/21/2010 000652 OFFICE DEPOT INC. 517291818001 OFFICE SUPPLIES: CP 29.97 Total : 29.97 20253 5/21/2010 000307 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER APRIL 2010 STATE REMITTANCE 83,278.23 MARCH 2010 STATE REMITTANCE 102,340.25 Total : 185,618.48 20254 5121/2010 002243 ORBITCOM 00341302 EITHERNET: MAY 2010 569.00 Total : 569.00 20255 5/21/2010 002294 PATRIOT DETECTION, LLC 3957 BICYCLE LOOPS 2,463.74 Total : 2,463.74 20256 5/21/2010 000029 PITNEY BOWES 1428301 -MY10 POSTAGE METER RENTAL 236.00 Total : 236.00 20257 5/21/2010 000019 PURRFECT LOGOS, INC. 25705 GRAPHICS ON ALUMINUM CORE B 417.41 Total : 417.41 20258 5/21/2010 000322 QWEST MAY 2010 MAY PHONE SERVICE 358.99 Total : 358.99 20259 5/21/2010 002288 SARGENT ENGINEERS INC. 26475 42584 SULLIVAN RD. WEST BRIDGE # 45( 4,737.50 Total : 4,737.50 20260 5/21/2010 001892 SKILLINGS CONNOLLY INC 6590 42230 REAL ESTATE SERVICES CIP 0088 1,334.90 Total : 1,334.90 20261 5/21/2010 000308 SPOKANE CO PROSECUTING ATTY MARCHIAPRIL 2010 CRIME VICTIMS COMP FUND 2,480.20 Total : 2,480.20 20262 5/21/2010 001100 SPOKANE CO SHERIFF'S OFFICE MAY2010 LAPTOP CASE FOR CHIEF RICK VF 26.21 Total : 26.21 20263 5/21/2010 000459 SPOKANE CO TITLE CO MAY 2010 BROADWAY AVE RECONSTRUCTS( 280.00 Total : 280.00 20264 5/21/2010 001872 WA DEPT OF INFO SERVICES 2010040193 42581 ADOBE ACROBAT SOFTWARE UPC 166.81 Page: 2 vchlist Voucher List Page: 3 05/21/2010 2:45:23PM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description /Account Amount 20264 512112010 001872 001872 WA DEPT OF INFO SERVICES (Continued) Total 166.81 20265 5/21/2010 000255 WFOA MAY 2010 WFOA CONF. REGISTRATION: N1M 50.00 Total : 56.00 20266 5/21/2010 001949 WILSON, SAYDEE EXPENSES 2010 WSCPA MEMBERSHIP DUES: 220.00 Total : 220.00 20267 5/21/2010 002177 WYATT, ROXANNE EXPENSES BADGE HOLDERS 18.88 Total : 18.88 28 Vouchers for bank code: apbank Bank total : 537,182.79 28 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers: 537,182.79 I, the undersigned, do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished, the services rendered, or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just, due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley, and that 1 am authorized to authenticate and certify to said claim. Finance Director Date Page: 3 vchlist Voucher list Page: 1 05/21/2010 4 :05 :11 PM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 20268 5/21/2010 002292 ALLISON'S FABRICATIONS 979 -2 GUTTER REPAIR AT CENTERPLAC 1,442.50 Total : 1,442.50 20269 5/21/2010 000030 AVISTA May 2010 UTILITIES: PARKS MASTER AVISTP 7,877.27 Total : 7,877.27 20270 5/21/2010 000918 BLUE RIBBON LINEN SUPPLY INC 9118557 LINEN SUPPLY: CP 209.18 S0040414 LINEN SUPPLY: CP 21.32 Total : 230.50 20271 5/21/2010 001169 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY May 2010 PETTY CASH: 6943,44 35.30 May 2010 PETTY CASH: 7850,51,52,54,59,60,E 56.31 May 2010 PETTY CASH: 7868, 7871 30.50 Total : 12211 20272 5/21/2010 000109 COFFEE SYSTEMS INC 3820:053217 COFFEE SUPPLIES AT CP 16.45 Total : 16.45 20273 5/21/2010 000795 EARTHWORKS RECYCLING, INC. 25270 RECYCLING COLLECTION 27.50 Total : 27.50 20274 5/21/2010 001859 FINANCIAL FORENSICS 3341 & 3350 CSV - LAW ENFORCEMENT AND JE 6,429.00 Total : 6,429.00 20275 5/21/2010 001635 ISS FACILITY/EVENT SERVICES 22959 EVENT SVCS: CP 133.78 22960 EVENT SVCS: CP 78.80 Total : 212.58 20276 5/21/2010 000406 SPOKANE REGIONAL CVB 2313 LODGING TAX REIMBURSEMENT: 1 12,274.00 Total : 12,274.00 20277 5/21/2010 000038 WASTE MANAGEMENT OF SPOKANE 0050927 - 1518 -3 WASTE MGMT: PW 3,976.35 Total : 3,976.35 10 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total : 32,608.26 10 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers: 32,608.26 Page: 1 vchlist Voucher List Page: 1 05/28/2010 1:25:12PM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description /Account Amount 20307 5/28/2010 001606 BANNER BANK 0618 MAY 2010: 0618 555.75 0620 MAY 2010: 0620 316.00 0638 MAY 2010: 0638 370.00 4375 MAY 2010: 4375 300.00 4458 MAY 2010: 4458 676.34 4474 MAY 2010: 4474 256.76 4720 MAY 2010: 4720 384.88 6527 MAY 2010: 6527 2,096.53 8861 MAY 2010: 8861 2,199.44 8879 MAY 2010: 8879 1 322 12 20308 5/28/2010 002196 HOLTEN, MELISSA 20309 5/28/2010 001439 K &L GATES LOCKHART Expenses 2187155 20310 5/28/2010 001669 MCGEE, MARY KATE Expenses 20311 5/28/2010 000193 NORTHWEST CHRISTIAN SCHOOL INC .TUNE 2010 20312 5/28/2010 002322 SATRAN, DUANE Refund 20313 5/28/2010 002264 STAPLES CREDIT PLAN, DEPT 31 -00003 May 2010 7 Vouchers for bank code: apbank 7 Vouchers in this report Total : 8,477.82 TRAVELIMILEAGE REIMBURSEMEP 46.30 Total : 46.30 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 810.00 Total : 810.00 TRAVEL EXPENSES /REIMBURSEMI 300.20 Total : 300.20 CITY HALL RENT 37,300.83 Total : 37,300.83 REFUND OF BUSINESS LICENSE F 13.00 Total : 13.00 OFFICE SUPPLIES: PW 45.64 Total: 45,64 Bank total : 46,993.79 Total vouchers : 46,993.79 Page: 1 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: 06 -08 -10 City Manager Sign -off: Item: Check all that apply: ® consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Payroll for Period Ending May 31, 2010 GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: OPTIONS: RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Budget /Financial impacts: Gross: $ 228,947.05 Benefits: $ 120,908.27 Total payroll $ 349,855.32 STAFF CONTACT: Raba Nimri ATTACHMENTS 1 : • vm MINUTES City of Spokane Valley City Council Regular Meeting Formal Meeting Format Tuesday, May 11, 2010 Mayor Towey called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Attendance: City Staff Tom Towey, Mayor Mike Jackson, Acting City Manager Gary Schimmels, Deputy Mayor Mike Connelly, City Attorney Rose Dempsey, Councilmember Ken Thompson, Finance Director Bill Gothmann, Councilmember Mike Stone, Parks & Recreation Director Dean Grafos, Councilmember Kathy McClung, Community Development Dir Brenda Grassel, Councilmember Rick VanLeuven, Police Chief Bob McCaslin, Councilmember Neil Kersten, Public Works Director Steve Worley, Senior Engineer Scott Kuhta, Senior Planner Inga Note, Traffic Engineer Lori Barlow, Associate Planner Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk INVOCATION: Pastor Darrell Cole of Spokane Valley Wesleyan Church gave the invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Towey led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll; all councilmembers were present. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the agenda. INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS: Mayor Towey welcomed Miss Spokane Valley Hannah Robb and her ambassadors Emmalee Ohlstrom of East Valley High School and Madeleine Walsh of University High School, and presented them with a rose and a Spokane Valley Pin and thanked them for the work they do in representing our City. Mayor Towey then welcomed Washington Recreation and Park Association Citation of Merit - Citizen 2010 award winner Peggy Doering, and presented Ms. Doering with a Key to the City. Spokane Valley Parks and Recreation Director Stone explained that they nominated Ms. Doering for the award, which honors her outstanding and unique achievements and on -going contributions to Parks and Recreation in our community and statewide, and said as the facilitator of Valleyfest, she was a "natural" to be nominated. Ms. Doering thanked everyone for the honor and acknowledged the hundreds of volunteers who join in the planning and participation of Valleyfest. COMMITTEE, BOARD, LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS: Councilmember Gothmann: reported that he met with SNAP and explained they are working on future plans; said he was honored to attend the graduation of nineteen individuals from the Fire Academy; attended a ribbon cutting ceremony for a project at Market Street in Hilliard, and he mentioned how nice their community center looks; said he participated in welcoming the heroes back from the honor flight taken to Washington, D.C.; attended a Govermnent Affairs meeting of the Chamber of Commerce where Avista representatives spoke about the affect of some of the cap and trade and that they closed some of Council Regular Meeting 5 -11 -2010 Page 1 of 18 Approved by Council: 1 : • vm their coal- operated plants and now have several wind - plants, and said coal cost I I per kilowatt hour compared with $1.11 for wind power; he said he participated in the Junior Lilac Parade; went to the YMCA's tenth anniversary, attended the Heritage Fair; attended the Law Enforcement Memorial in downtown Spokane: went to a Law Enforcement breakfast where a Pentagon Admiral spoke of some of his experiences associated with the 9 -11 tragedy; and said there are eight weeks remaining of taping our Council meetings by the Spokane Valley Business Association. Councilmember Dempsey said she also attended the Law Enforcement Memorial and the Law Enforcement Appreciation Breakfast, as well as the Junior Lilac Parade, attended the Spokane Regional Clean Air meeting; the ribbon cutting for St. Joseph's Counseling Center; toured the juvenile detention facility downtown; and attended the International Trade Alliance board meeting where it was reported international shipping rose in the last quarter 40% by ship and 15% by air. Councilmember Grafos: read the following letter regarding the opening of the Volunteers of America Store on east Trent: "I am pleased to announce the successful opening of the Volunteers of America Thrift store at 6206 East Trent. For over three decades my wife and I have managed the Thrift Store for Volunteers of America and were devastated with the loss of our location at 1010 North Atlantic in the City of Spokane. We spent months looking for a suitable location covering the greater Spokane area from Meade to the south hill and from Airway Heights to Liberty Lake. In early December we found this location here on Trent, but found that the zoning would not allow our fonn of business to operate and with programs that the Volunteers of America depending on revenue, we were simply running out of time. Because of the staff, planning committee and city council of Spokane Valley, those obstacles towards finding a location were removed. The actions of the City of Spokane Valley has enabled us to open a 21,000 square foot secondhand retail business that supports emergency assistant programs for men, women and children throughout the Spokane area, Eastern Washington and Northern Idaho. In addition it has allowed us to bring back our long time employees and hire new ones in order to operate our store. Furthermore during our grand opening we were pleased to have Councilman Dean Grafos, which only affirmed to us the City's commitment to see our business open again. None of this would have been possible without the quick action and support of the city council of Spokane Valley, and I would like to personally thank each of you for saving our business time and money through your swift action in this matter." Deputy Mayor Schimmels: reported that he attended a couple of meetings this past week or so, light duty committee meetings with the STA (Spokane Transit Authority) and with the SRTC (Spokane Regional Transportation Council), and said he was a greeter welcoming the Toastmasters last Saturday during their convention held at the Mirabeau Hotel; said he attended a Solid Waste Liaison Board meeting and said there is another meeting scheduled for May 20, and he invited council and others and said they are starting a governance issue that is long over -due, they have a facilitator and will try to determine the direction to move within the next three to five years, and said that meeting will be held in the Spokane City Council Chambers downstairs; and said he also attended the Museum show last Saturday and enjoyed looking at the antique cars and tractors. Councilmember Grassel: reported that she spoke to the Realtor's Association last week to give an update from a new Councilmember regarding the SARP Program and Council's vision for the city; attended the Junior Lilac Parade; toured the juvenile detention facility, and went to the Spokane Valley Heritage Fair. Councilmember McCaslin: no report. MAYOR'S REPORT: In lieu of a report, Mayor Towey Motorcycle Awareness Month, accepted by Michael Mustered Association; (2) Amen'Corps Week, accepted by Gabe Brown Council Regular Meeting 5 -11 -2010 Approved by Council: read the following proclamations: (1) and others of the Gold Wing Touring of Community Minded TV; (3) Helmet Page 2 of 18 1 : •vm Safety Month accepted by Marion Lee; and (4) Older Americans Month accepted by Diane Smith, volunteer at Aging and Long Tenn Care Planning and Managing Council. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Towey invited general public comments, and asked people to try to keep remarks to three minutes if possible, and if there are written comments to hand them to the clerk. Charles Roach, 14518 E Sharp Avenue read his written statement: "I was reading the Valley Voice Saturday May 8th regarding the latest council meeting. I pondered to myself on this question, who are councilmen Gothmann and Schimmels and Councilwoman Dempsey representing'? I have attended council meetings and retreats of the old and new council. It appears, as they interact with the staff, they work for the interest of some of the staff some of the time and not the citizens of the city of Spokane Valley. We had an election last November 3r and that the majority of the people voted for a change in direction, promised by the new council members. The vote by the way was the largest since incorporation. The staff has proposed we should change Broadway from Park to Pines to one lane each way with a center turn lane and bicycle lanes. I am against the change. The ADA changes needed for this section of road could be changed with a portion of the city's matching money, for this project. This is totally about SARP to drive the traffic to Sprague Ave. the county changed the road to four lanes about twenty -five years ago to accommodate better traffic flow on a destination arterial. I have never heard of any pedestrian being hit by a vehicle on this section of Broadway, since the road was changed to four lanes. If we were interested in children's safety we would have bicycle lanes on Pines in front of North Pines Middle School and on Sprague Ave. The grant money farce is only good if you need the project and you can pay for it. We are facing budget deficits in the near future and have spent money like we print it. I would hope the new council would continue with the plans that they were elected to do, and not be swayed by some of the Mercier dominated staff. In closing, I have lived in the Spokane Valley for over thirty-three years without a master's degree; however, I have a doctorate in real life." John Fisher, 15526 E 4th spoke regarding the panhandling issue; said this issue is large and can't be ignored any longer as it is costing people enormous amounts of money; he said business owners and taxpayers bear the cost of cleaning up after these people; the panhandlers create dangerous problems regarding traffic as they stand in the medians and on the freeway ramps; he said they're holding us hostage, which is nothing short of wholesale extortion; he said he has been observing panhandlers and walking next to them and he gave examples of some of their stories; he said some have lengthy criminal records and some carry knifes, and said he has seen some people purchasing beer; he said he would like to see it made "illegal" and said there are many organizations offer food, clothing, and shelter and those in need can take advantage of that, but said that panhandling is very lucrative, and the only way to clean it up is to make it illegal and take the profit out of it. Marc Mims 15127 East 26 Avenue: said he has been a resident for 19 years, is self - employed as a software developer and he is a cyclist; and said he was dismayed to read comments about Broadway re- stripping and would like council to consider that improvements for cyclists are a benefit for motorists, and said if we move cyclists and pedestrians out of the traffic lanes to their own space, they can proceed at their own speed without intermingling with traffic and the traffic will flow better; he said that the court systems state that cyclists have a right to the road; he said driving is a privilege and requires licensing; and cyclists have a Constitutional right to travel on roads, and said that foot and bike traffic is a legitimate form of transportation, and said there are many people in the community who are avid cyclists who will ride on the roads whether or not there are bike lanes, but explained that if improvements are made, it encourages others to ride bikes; that every bike that replaces a car on the road gives many benefits, including less traffic to contend with, he said as a cyclist, he has had numerous altercations with motorists, that cars have pulled out in front of him and cut him off, or cars drive in front of him and pull open doors to hit him, that he has been pepper - sprayed by a motorist, and has been spit on by a motorist; and said the mentality in the valley is that cyclists don't belong on the roadways, and he said this sort of Council Regular Meeting 5 -11 -2010 Page 3 of 18 Approved bN� Council: 1 : • vm improvement in addition to improving traffic flow, sends a message that bicycling is a valid form of transportation. Diana Sanderson, 11716 E 14 Avenue said she has lived here for 38 years, said she thinks Spokane Valley and the new city is amazing; she and her husband love the community, and they want more people to come here; said she grew up in Spokane City and said some of the meetings at Spokane City years ago were less than fruitful as they "hit on each other" to stymie and form an "us and them" and said after reading the newspaper this weekend about the meeting taking place, she said she hopes we are not forming that same pattern; she said we have had people serving for years who have put a lot of time and energy on the Spokane Valley, and said there are new people coming in and learning a great deal; she said we want a city manager that is competent, and said we should not look for minimal as that wont pack it for this valley; she said we are 87,000 people, an election was won by perhaps 1500 votes on the parties that won, and she said that Council is to represent all of them and said everyone needs to work as a community, and said she feels the City Manager must have a degree and must also have some experience; and said to set a salary that is now $10,000 above whatever the current acting city manager's salary is, and $10,000 below, that she thinks Council should look back and see why the other figure was chosen and what kind of person Council is looking for; she said she realizes there are not endless funds, but feels whoever will be the leader will set a tone and will keep us out of trouble, and she said we need to work toward less crime through better education, and said we need someone who knows that. Catherine Harris, 13908 E 32n Avenue: said as a health care worker, Valley resident, motorist and cyclist, she extended thanks to Council for their open- mindedness in evaluating Broadway for improving multi -use; said as a health care worker for 20 years, she finds it tragic that the obesity epidemic is so bad they had to replace their entire hospital beds as they can't accommodate the weight of the patients; and said she greatly appreciates anything Council can do to encourage people to get out as she takes care of people once in the hospital, but can't keep them out of the hospital with preventive medicine, and again expressed her appreciation to Council for doing anything they can to improve fitness, accessibility and encourage an increasing amount of the population, to be active as stated in several of the proclamations read tonight. Gene Hinkle, 11916 E Sprague Avenue: said if any Councilmembers read today's Spokesman Review, the front page says "Repaving project faces a bumpy road" and said what it shows is Second Avenue, and said "the city of Spokane is supposed to pave 110 miles of their bumpy streets, and have supposed to do this since 2004 and they are finally getting around to it, and as I mentioned a couple of weeks ago, there's all these things coming forth like `bonkers for bicycles and complete streets "' and said they are having an argument down there, and the front page color photo shows a bicycle rider without a helmet. Mr. Hinkle then read his prepared statement: "Street Projects and Necessary Oversight. The take always: what we have seen over the past months is that the city council and citizens must be involved in the street planning process. If we, the taxpaying & motoring public are not involved, what we get for streets can be what the vast majority of us do not want. Such as, four lane streets being turned into two lane streets. Such audacity, the [use of] power of EMINENT DOMAIN which was used to take the property from the citizens [on particularly on Broadway] to create a four lane street, and then with NO NOTICE, vote or input the current road department slips in the latest fad of two lane, streets with a center turn lane. These road department planners are NOT all wise & knowing. When they make mistakes, or follow the latest "IN THINKING" the public IS NOT WELL SERVED. So no more blank checks, no more do what you think is best, because then we have to wait another twenty years to get it RIGHT [and I told you two weeks ago when I spoke about how Sprague Avenue had all these obstacles in it and on and on, and I asked the current road department chainman for the county at that time, Bob Turner, and I said why did you put all those in there and put those big river rocks on in there, and he just kind of said well, that was what we did then. Well, that's not good enough and that's what's going on now.] I recommended a city council member and some concerned citizens be given advanced notice on these street projects so they Council Regular Meeting 5 -11 -2010 Page 4 of 18 Approved by Council: 1 : MW can be PROPER OVER SIGHT. Also, on any repaving projects, the business & home owners need to be notified well in advance, so they can give their input. NO MORE of this BLIND SIDING of the public." So back to Broadway again, he said "this property was taken by eminent domain, and so now with a slight of hand and say it's for safety, that safety moniker was just cleverly put in so that there could be no argument, because who's going to argue against safety; well, they don't get it right and I gave you examples of Sprague and the death that had to occur at the shelter crossing to the Ponderosa, fought with the County and the railroad for several years, and then we just moved out of the Ponderosa, and said sure enough there was the death, and then they found time and money to re -do that intersection, and winded up with University, and said now we have something safe" and said "if you think I'm just making this up about the fads, I invite you to go down to Sullivan Road and 32 d and then drive north and you're going to see the bike lanes, then you're going to see no bike lanes you'll see wavy sidewalks because that was the in -fad thing to do, so the folks in the road department need oversight and they need it from the citizens and the City Council." Chris Clark, 16010 East Sprague, Lloyd's Tire & Automotive: concerning the construction which will be done on Sprague and Sullivan, he said if that whole section is shut down it will harm his business and all other businesses in the area, and he proposed perhaps doing something at night or keep some traffic moving through there, he said they have only been in business for eight months and doesn't want any harm to his or other businesses; and asked again not to shut down the whole intersection. Scot Burgess, 15915 East Sprague: said he manages Les Schwab Tire Center across from Lloyds, said he has eighteen full time employees and is very concerned about the shutting down of that intersection; and said it would be devastating for his business, and said he doesn't understand why we can't divert off that intersection, said that that's a in 'or arterial focus for their business, they have a huge customer base and said customers won't drive around the block to get service; and again expressed his concern about the devastating effect it would have on his business; that they're trying to keep the employees working, that we are in a tough economy, and said three weeks of downtime is a long time, and said he feels there is something that can be done and hopes for such consideration. Glenn Burdick, 16215 East Sprague: said he owns Save More Building Supply about five blocks the other side of the aforementioned intersection, said they employ twelve full time people; they are open six days a week and said he can't imagine what it would do to have that intersection shut down completely; he said regarding the letter sent out, everyone that he has talked to has been flabbergasted; that instead of doing it like was done at the Broadway intersection or maybe like Pines when it was left open and manipulate the traffic to make it work, he said no one can believe it will be just shut down, he said this is the busiest time of their season and said he hopes a way can be figured out; that Broadway seems to work well; that he was concerned but it has worked out well, and said he doesn't know who would benefit from an entire shut down and can't imagine residents or emergency workers wanting to do that or why it would be necessary; and pleaded for another option. David Jacobs, 16023 E Sprague Avenue: explained that he is one of the owners of Jacobs Upholstery; said they employ twenty people and agreed with others that shutting Sprague and Sullivan for three weeks will hurt his business, and said he is "mad as heck" but said he is mad at himself, he said he is aware and agrees there needs to be processes and procedures which need to be followed; and he apologized to his neighbors for not attending the meetings where these things were discussed; he said he doesn't know what more the city could have done short of sending staff down to pick him up and take him to a meeting to get him involved; he said he felt that other projects on Sprague, Pines and Bowdish, went so well; he said he doesn't have a business there but in travelling through he was able to go where he needed to go; and said he assumed that was what would happen here as well; he said he understands there was a lack of community involvement; that the city staff will do what they feel is the best and most efficient, but said if Council Regular Meeting 5 -11 -2010 Page 5 of 18 Approved by Council: 1 : •VW possible, he would appreciate the city re- visiting this and the full closure of the intersection will hurt his business. Michele Johnson, 16011 East Sprague: stated she is the co -owner at Maco Auto Painting and said she concurs with previous speakers about the closure at Sprague and Sullivan and said she assumed there would be some traffic flow going through the intersection; she said they are coming into their busiest season and this closure will hurt her business significantly; she said business is already down from economic times, and coming into a busy season with her customers not easily getting to her business, will be devastating; said they employ six people; she said she doesn't know if there will be a huge savings to the city for closing it and doing the project more quickly, but said she feels the lost revenues from the B &O taxes from businesses will also be hanuful to the City; and said she too would appreciate it if this could be re- visited. Kelli Henderson, owner BJ Auto Sales: said her business is located on East Sprague, and she concurs with the other concerned business owners that it will be detrimental to all businesses and asked for reconsideration of other options. Bill Coyle 15614 East Sprague: said he has a business very close to the intersection, and said the financial impact they are facing from this intersection closure is something they haven't been able to calculate, said their business is a short season, very concise business; and said with the closure of that intersection they will lose substantial business particularly from homeowners from the south and to the west of them; and said their business is a family owned business with ten employees, and any impact would be severe; and expressed thanks to the engineers and mentioned at the meeting in December at the church, and that they had the ability to move the timeline for this project, but when questioning why it would not be controlled traffic, said the main reason seemed to be some financial impact and shorter closure would be better for the project; and said based on comments from other businesses in the vicinity of Broadway and Sullivan, even with controlled traffic, the impact to their businesses has been severe; and said if at least we could get controlled traffic he would be extremely grateful. John Bradley, 15823 E Sprague, _ Napa Auto Parts said he is the store manager of NAPA Auto parts at the intersection, said he has eight employees; said that not only do they have customers visit their store, they make deliveries through that intersection; said about 60% of his business is wholesale and they need to get through the intersections to get the parts to customers; and said he can't imagine what shutting the intersection would do and said it would be devastating to them; and said he doesn't understand what direction traffic will be directed; and said hopefully this can be reconsidered. Dan Allison, 1203 N Warren Road: said he has lived at that address for 33 years and in the valley for 61 years; and read his prepared statement: "My home is located 1 block north of Broadway and 1 block west of Adams. My exits from my neighborhood is either Adams or Best. With no east/west traffic control at these intersections it is very tedious, at best, to enter Broadway. The safety project that was implemented along the stretch of Broadway between Pines and Sullivan (reducing 4 to 2 lanes) was not needed 3 years ago and is not needed now on the section from Pines to Park. What was needed on stretch 41 was timed traffic lights. That may be the same for stretch 42. If indeed safety was a concern of our street/traffic departments. Then adding the blinking signals at the school zones would be the correct remedy for child safety. Those new signals were added through grant money for safety. Those signals are money well spent. Changing intersection traffic lights would be another project that could be easily and cost effectively be accomplished for safety. The accidents that are happening on Broadway happen at the intersections, not on the run of the street. At the last council meeting we had the street dept show us how the grant money was acquired. They showed us on a graph what money was spent and what money was left. Mr. Kerstin and Mr. Worley showed us that the street fund for snatching grant money was almost empty. But they still want to spend this money that was voted on in '08 for this project for '10. It was Council Regular Meeting 5 -11 -2010 Page 6 of 18 Approved by Council: 1 : • vm voted on by a council that had no problems spending our money. That council majority is gone. Mr. Schimmels made the comment that "We had better not send the grant money back because it will reflect badly on us." I am going to bet that those who sent us the grant money, have no money in their funds either, in fact Mr. Kerstein and Mr. Worley told us that in their presentation [that was exactly what was happening with the grant money.] Just because somebody has grant money, should not be the determining factor for us to spend close to $250,000. [The $250,000 could go to that intersection that's stopping growth in those businesses to help them rather then spend it on Broadway.] I have heard that we could spend much less and get the ADA requirements done and maybe even add the school zone lights and change the traffic signal timing. We can do those when we have the money and spend much less rather than draining our street funds on these lane changes. I would ask the council to vote down spending any money on the Broadway project and for that matter also change the 1s part of Broadway back." He said he has another little short section too regarding SARP, and he read that prepared statement: "I have seen at the last 2 council meetings, and have been told that it is not the first time that SARP has hindered and hurt businesses along Sprague whether it be decades old or fairly new. I and others would like the 3 council members who were part of and voted for the SARP that ultimately added the comprehensive plan in at the last minute, [the SARP to the comprehensive plan] to shed some light on their motives and reasoning behind these moves. It is not like SARP just popped into our lives as these 3 seem to play it. With the new council members trying to undo what the old council has done for the betterment of our city. I think those 3 council members, Gothman, Dempsey, and Schimmels should take the time to enlighten us the citizens on their motives. We the citizens have spent over a million dollars on this city center and SARP fiasco. I would like Mayor Towey to give them a chance to respond tonight if they can." And he said one other little one: "Last week at the council meeting Mr. McCormick and Kathy Klung had made a presentation to the council. During the discussion that followed, Councilman McCaslin was asking a question when McCormick and Klung got up and went back to their seats in the gallery section. Councilman McCaslin said, "Hey! I'm still talking ". They kept walking. Mr. McCaslin made the statement "That was rude! ", You are rude!" as he looked at them. They made no attempt to acknowledge that they had even done anything at all. Mr. McCaslin was right, that was unacceptable behavior and they were very rude." In response to Mr. Allison's comments about the three councilmembers who were on the council previously, Deputy Mayor Schimmels said Mr. Allison is not very well informed, and said that he [Deputy Mayor Schimmels] voted against SARP; and suggested that Mr. Allison remember that; and said that isn't the whole story. Deputy Mayor Schimmels said there is a six -year street plan that moves through every year carrying these projects; and said these projects don't come out in a vacuum; they didn't happen yesterday and they won't happen tomorrow if they don't go through that process, and he suggested Mr. Allison re -think some of his attitude, and said that we have a system, that Council doesn't design it, but said Council follows through with most of it. Robert Foote, 9706 West 72nd said he is the general Manager of Community Minded Television; and said that over the past few months, he has watched council meetings regarding the PEG agreement that was signed by the preceding council, and the de- construction of a lot of long fought -hard work on behalf of Spokane Valley's staff; he asked Council what kind of city and identity does this Council want for this city; he said the PEG: Public, Education and Government; the government portion which this Council is considering concerning council meetings; but said regarding the Public and Education portion fee, it is not a tax, that he realizes Council has voiced they will do everything they can not to have tax increases; but said this is a way to give the coimnunity and the public access to the airways which are monopolized by huge corporations like Comcast, AT &T, Horizon, etc., and said he would like Council to consider is that the Public and Education portions of those fees are necessary to keep a station like Community Minded Television on the air to provide outreach for educational institutions to provide classes on television for those who are at home or unable to travel, and said now more than ever local communities are turning to PEG channels for information as the local newspapers fail, and as media consolidation continues, and Council Regular Meeting 5 -11 -2010 Page 7 of 18 Approved by Council: 1 : • vm local information is consumed by 24 -hour cable cycles; and he urged Council to weigh their decision and understand the large and important role the PEG channels and in the operations plan the future of media and the information needs of the local communities in this visual age; and said there is no other media that has the capability and potential of PEG channels to inform the local community, and he gave examples of other PEG channel programming including safety programming, park and recreation programming, school sports, arts, academic competitions, distance learning, higher education sports and arts programming, ethnic and cultural programs, fitness and lifestyle, and military, political, and home and garden; and said before Council considers not to undertake that 35¢ per month per subscriber fee, which he explained is less than one newspaper one day, that that is something Comcast has undertaken in order to give a little something back by making those fees pass- through fees; and said that the City of Spokane Valley collects nearly one million dollars in right -of -way access fees from Comcast as part of that agreement; and if Council wanted to consider not having an increase go out to Comcast subscribers, that perhaps Council would consider rolling back that nearly million dollars a year by about 10 %, and again asked how much of a voice does Council want to give citizens, and give the opportunity to create new jobs and make their views heard by their neighbors. Councilmember Grassel asked who owns Community- Minded Television, and Mr. Foote responded the company is a 5010, and is a private LLC under Community Minded Enterprises; and said the City of Spokane requested it when Comcast decided they didn't want to support PEG; they looked for someone to take on that job and said Community- Minded Television does a lot of great work in the community coordinating non -profit organizations, and they undertook that task with the City of Spokane with the understanding that the City of Spokane Valley and Spokane County were in the middle of their Comcast negotiations, and everyone would come together to support the community access station as well as provide funds for educational programming. Councilmember Dempsey reminded citizens that this Broadway re- stripping didn't come out of a void; that there were multiple opportunities for public comment; it was in the newspaper and said there was a lot of talk about the Broadway re- stripping; that the decision was made last year and not something that just came up last week, it was discussed long and thoughtfully and with a lot of research; and said there were some who agreed with the project and some who disagreed with the project, and said at some point one must move on; and she asked Mr. Jackson if the closing of the intersection would be re- addressed. City Manager Jackson explained that Public Works Director Kersten will make a presentation next week to Council on that topic including the pros and cons of each option, and said staff can take guidance from council and staff does listen to public and council comments, but the decision of how best to detour the traffic and the budgetary advantages are really an administrative decision, and that staff does factor in council and public comments; and said the Public Works Department and staff make dozens of similar decisions each year and each requires considerable research, and said when Council hears Mr. Kersten's presentation next week, Council will be appraised of the effort and consideration taken into for the decision; and said it is something that staff could reconsider. Heleen Dewev, 1101 West College in Spokane: said she represents the Spokane Regional Health District as the Physical Activity and Nutrition Program Coordinator; said regarding Broadway safety project, that for physical activity promotion, their agency as well as other public health jurisdictions around the country have gone from basic education to promote being active, to really looking at what gets people active; and she said that in Spokane County, 63% of our residents are considered obese or overweight; and said that alone puts them at risk for obesity - related illnesses; and said the most effective thing to do to get people active is to build a healthy community, and said that includes having bike lanes, and having access to transit, and safe walking routes and sidewalks, and safe motor vehicle corridors; she said turning Broadway into two lanes with a center turn lane, would make it the safest as it gives the pedestrian, the bicyclist and the auto driver a perceived sense of security and promotes them to slow down; and said she Council Regular Meeting 5 -11 -2010 Page 8 of 18 Approved by Council: 1 : • vm wanted to offer the opportunity for anything the Spokane Regional Health District can do to educate this community on being a healthy community, and what that looks like. Councilmember Grafos: said he has additional comments on the intersection of Sprague and Sullivan and he said there were some property owners and businesses that were not able to come in and testify tonight, and he read the following letter: "The closure by the City of Spokane Valley of the Sprague and Sullivan intersection for a period of three weeks beginning June 21s 2010 will be very detrimental to our employees and our business. It is our hope that the council can reverse the decision of the Public Works Director and his decision to close this intersection for this road project. We believe the complete closure of this intersection (one of the busiest in the City) will have a huge economic impact on our business and our employees. We believe a project lasting between 6 and 8 weeks without completely closing the intersection would have a much smaller impact on our business. We are all struggling to survive and keep our people employed in these tough economic times. We assumed, that this project would be completed in a similar manner to the Evergreen Rd project, Broadway and Sullivan project, or the Sprague and Pines project, which were completed without a complete shutdown of the intersection." Mr. Grafos said this is signed by Steve Valentine, Store Director of Fred Meyer on the corner of Sullivan and Sprague; by Curt Holick, General Manager of the Dairy Queen; Brandi Behrans, owners of A &W Restaurant; Mill Macklin, owner Macklin Welding; John Laughlin, Store Manager Zips Drive -In; Jessica Polhamus, Branch Manager of Northwest Sign Supply; Ken Parks, Assistant Manager of Ziggy's; Richard Raymond, Manager of Country Homes Power Supply; Nancy Nishimura, owner of green Thumb Nursery; Dan Pilkinton, Store Manager and Bill Assistant Manager of URM Cash & Carry. Councilmember Grafos said if you look at the traffic counts at the intersections, they are just about all the same; he said we didn't close those other intersections, that he knows it costs more money but there is more to this, and said you can't really lose the dollar for the dime and hurt all of these businesses by shutting that down for a period of three weeks, especially in this economy, and said he feels that is not the right message for this city and the staff to send to the property owners and the businesses owners trying to survive. Marion Lee, 1101 W. College: she is with the Regional Health District; she spoke about injury prevention programs and to really look at what causes unintentional injuries in our community and what kind of interventions they can employ to prevent those injuries; and said spoke about preventing injuries; and said that every fatal crash costs taxpayers and the medical community about $5.4 million; and said every injury crash causes about $20,000 not including pain and suffering; and she urged Council to look for any kind of traffic situation that Council can look at which would prevent injuries, or employ strategies for mixed use and to make communities safer for pedestrians and cyclists, and to consider those figures and data. There were no further public comments. Mayor Towey called for a recess at 7:35 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 7:45 p.m. 1. CONSENT AGENDA Consists of items considered routine which are approved as a group. Any member of Council may ask that an item be removed from the Consent Agenda to be considered separately. a. Approval of the following claim vouchers: VOUCHER LIST DATE W/VOUCHER NUMBERS: TOTAL AMOUNT 04/23/2010 420062 -20072 $76,703.14 04/30/2010 420073- 20109, 4430100002 $1,366,950.24 05/03/2010 420110 -20135 $157,454.58 05/04/2010 45011 -5022 $1,663.50 GRAND TOTAL $1,602.771.46 b. Approval of Payroll for Period Ending April 30, 2010: $362,691.66 c. Approval of Study Session Format Council Meeting Minutes of April 20 2010 Council Regular Meeting 5 -11 -2010 Page 9 of 18 Approved by Council: 1 : •VW d. Approval of Formal Format Council Meeting Minutes of April 27, 2010 It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the consent agenda. NEW BUSINESS 2. First Reading Proposed Ordinance, Comcast Franchise Update — Cary Driskell After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded to suspend the rules and adopt the ordinance extending time for acceptance of franchise by Comcast. Deputy City Attorney Driskell explained again the background of this proposal and of the misunderstanding concerning the original timeline. Mayor Towey invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 3. Proposed Resolution for Greenacres Park Grant — Mike Stone It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded to approve the resolution authorizing application for funding assistance for a Washington Wildlife and Recreation Program project for the Greenacres Neighborhood Park Development Phase 1. Parks and Recreation Director Stone explained that they have been working with the Greenacres Neighborhood for the last few months to develop a master plan to get the final design of the project; that there has been wonderful public input; and they are close to having the cost estimate developed; that they have been working with the State and have the opportunity to apply for funding through the Recreation Conservation office, and one of the requirements is to ask Council to formally authorize moving forward for that grant; that they are asking for $500,000 and that goes through the competitive process; he said this will be the second time we have gone to the State for this type of funding. Concerning the time frame, Mr. Stone said he plans to make a final presentation to Council in August, that an open house is scheduled for tomorrow night, and if all is acceptable, he plans to bring this back to Council in a few weeks concerning the $13 million for Phase 1; that this would hopefully add another $500,000 with the city making up the difference; but explained that until we sign the contract with the State, we can't use that money as a match, and said he has been cautioned not to spend the money before the contract is issued, as it won't get used as a match. Mr. Stone said the City commitment for this project is dependent upon the success of this grant application; and to- date $200,000 has been budgeted in Parks Capital Projects Fund through the annual budget process. Mayor Towey invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 4. Proposed Resolution Accepting Shoreline Master Program Report — Scott Kuhta It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded to approve the resolution accepting the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization report as presented. Senior Planner Kuhta explained that at last week's council meeting, staff presented the draft shoreline characterization report, which is the first major component of the Shoreline Management Program update, that staff is requesting Council to consider passing a resolution which would accept the report so we can move to the next step in the process, which would be the environmental designations in developing shoreline goals and policies. At that last council meeting Mr. Kuhta said there were questions raised about some of the information in the report, including the data sources and some of the analysis done, and Council directed staff to ask the consultants to come to the next meeting to address questions, and to prepare this resolution for council consideration. Mr. Kuhta said the consultants Noah Herlocker and John Patrouch from URS Corporation are in attendance tonight. Mr. Herlocker invited council questions. Councilmember McCaslin asked about the letter just received from F.J. Dullanty of Witherspoon- Kelley, asking that Council postpone this matter to allow Witherspoon- Kelley opportunity to submit the additional information to the City, and combine their analysis into the City's inventory. Mr. Patrouch said he spoke with Mr. Dullanty earlier today and asked him to provide some comment; that the letter is fine but said he doesn't see any reason to delay this and said he doesn't know what new information he would come up with; and if they do come up with new Council Regular Meeting 5 -11 -2010 Page 10 of 18 Approved by Council: 1 : •VW information, that information can be added to the inventory, and this will be considered as the process moves forward. Councilmember McCaslin asked what hann would come by the delay, and Mr. Patrouch said it delays the process; that the next process is to develop environmental designations then start the public outreach concerning developing goals and regulations for the shoreline, and said there are people interested in starting that process. Councilmember Grafos said he favors delaying the inventory. There was some discussion about making a motion to delay this process, and note that a motion is currently on the floor; and comments from Councilmember Gothmann who said we have gone to an expense to bring the consultants to the meeting tonight, and said he feels it is important that Council ask questions now. Mr. Herlocker said they have received good feedback from the Department of Ecology, which entity is ultimately responsible for approving this, and they indicate this is at a stage where the issues have been addressed through the Washington Administrative Code that this level of the update needs to address, and it makes sense therefore to approve the resolution to move this forward; and said any additional information that comes in from further analysis would be updated; that this resolution does not close the process as the process is a living document that can continue to be updated as information is provided throughout the entire Shoreline Master Program update process; so it's an efficiency he would see realized by approving this now; and said he sees no reason for a delay. Councilmember Grassel said her questions from last week, which goes along with Mr. Dullanty's letter, is when the presentation was made by the City planners, under natural environment, they gave council very specific definitions of inventory that had been taken, such as "there is narrow continuous vegetation zone 65% native vegetation provides an east /west wild life migration corridor, lack of diversity indicates environmental stress, native fishery rainbow red band trout" which she said she understands is basically one kind of fish and red band is just a secondary version of the rainbow, "is in poor condition, heavy metals, PCB contamination and aquifer interchange" and said her question in going through the shoreline inventory plan, is that it is difficult for someone who is not a biologist or an environmentalist to look at the reports and even the footnotes; and said she wondered if Council could have more layman's term type understanding of these statements; she said she is not staying the statements are not correct or not supported scientifically, but said Council is told there is documentation, and said if she is going to approve something, she prefers to know that there is sound documentation behind that, and she said that was just the request that she had last week; and she asked if they were just going off of various reports and said to Mr. Herlocker that he has obviously not gone down to the river and found PCB. Mr. Herlocker said the bulk of the effort in providing this baseline report is summarizing existing information, and in order to provide a comprehensive picture of the shoreline environment for the planning process, said they went down and did some on- the - ground surveys but the bulk of the heavy metal contamination, temperature issues, are the result of long -tern on -going efforts by local governments and Ecology to address those issues, and such things as the NPDES (National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) in setting TMDLs (total maximum daily loads), and said they are taking a summary of that data and trying to incorporate that into this plan. Mayor Towey asked about a memorandum in the program where it addresses the Avista Corporation data which was collected in 2005, which he said is five years ago; and concerning some specific references where it states "field work needed, wetlands field work needed; fish and wildlife fieldwork needed" and said in five different areas of the shoreline five years ago, it said "field work needed" and he asked if there has been work since that time. Mr. Herlocker said in terms of collecting data that will help through the planning process, extremely detailed surveys are not needed; they need the big picture of what resources need protection and the current state of the environment in terms of balancing development, restoration, and protection of existing resources, and they did a field survey to look at some of those areas and make sure they were clear on all the data they reviewed. Mayor Towey asked if there was field work done, and Mr. Herlocker said the field work they did was to go through high- resolution aerial photography throughout the entire shoreline environment, the 200 foot buffer that is part of the Council Regular Meeting 5 -11 -2010 Page 11 of 18 Approved by Council: 1 : •VW jurisdictional boundary, and identify everything they found that was relevant to the study, such as natural resources, and to verify cultural resources, and they tried to gather all those things that are important to the shoreline program update process; he said that in the shoreline environment, they did not find wetlands as if they had found them, it would have been noted. Mr. Patrouch said they conducted a week's worth of fieldwork and walked all the shorelines and documented a fair amount of that information, but did not do a lot of new scientific studies, but verified what was out there and filled in some of the gaps; and reminded Council that this is a planning level type of document and it incorporates many of the other documents; and said that the Avista work from 2003 -2005 is still much of the best work that has been done on the Spokane River; and lately with the TMDLs in the water resource inventory areas, there has been additional work which is also included; but said this is the most updated, best work available. Councilmember Grafos asked if the one week they spent updating everything, they are confident that some of these items have not degraded from 2005 and that the 2005 data is correct. Mr. Patrouch said they feel very comfortable with that; and Mr. Herlocker said what they looked for were the things that would be most relevant to the planning process, and said they feel they have a good understanding of what's out there and that is clearly documented in the report; he said they did not do snorkel surveys for fish; that they passed that data through to the Department of Fish and Wildlife and through the Department of Ecology and they gave all the new relevant data, and said as much data has been gathered as can be through that process. Councilmember Gothmann asked what will happen as the consultants move forward, and asked if they will verify some of that information in greater detail or if that is necessary. Mr. Herlocker said at this point they don't feel that is necessary as they feel they have enough information to proceed to the planning process; and stated that the whole system is set up on a twenty -year planning cycle with the idea to go back and re- assess and verify the status of the environment; and said this entire thing at the end will get accepted when they can demonstrate they have a plan in place that will protect the ecological functions and the property uses and everything else that needs to be protected through the act in the Washington Administrative Act; and when they can demonstrate that they have a realistic plan in place where all those functions can be protected and balanced for a twenty -year period, then Ecology will approve it after Council approves it; and said they have enough information to move forward with the planning process, and reiterated that all these things will be revisited in twenty years. Mayor Towey said the letter from Witherspoon - Kelley names Mayor Towey's son as one of the consultants, and he asked if that would limit him from addressing this issue. City Attorney Connelly responded that since we are not contracting with Towey Ecological Services and they are not asking us for any benefit, that it appears there is no direct conflict; but depending on their process in the future, that could change, but feels Mayor Towey's disclosure is sufficient. Mr. Patrouch added that they focused on the natural resources on the inventory, but the inventory also includes descriptions of land use, what proposed developments might be, utilities, roads, bridges, and that all that goes into the planning to try to determine what the policies will be for management of the river corridor; and that the other half is what the built environment is and how to manage what we have; and it is a balance between protecting the natural environment and providing opportunity. Mayor Towey invited public comment. In a point of order, Councilmember Gothmann said if there were to be a motion to delay, that now would be the appropriate time for such a motion and then council could discuss the motion to delay and then go back to the main motion. City Clerk Bainbridge said since the main motion is to approve the resolution, that motion should be addressed first, and other motions could be addressed afterwards depending on the outcome of that first motion. Norma Treefrey, 13222 E Nixon she asked what was in the referenced letter from Witherspoon and Kelley and why they asked for a delay, and if that is relevant to this discussion. Councilmember McCaslin offered his copy of the letter to Ms. Treefrey, and City Clerk Bainbridge handed Ms. Treefrey the copy. Ms. Treefrey stated that she helped with the bird survey and the habitat along the river as a volunteer from Spokane Audubon and said the question about not knowing what was meant by distressed habitat, she mentioned Russian knapweed, thistle, and said any non- native species that has moved in Council Regular Meeting 5 -11 -2010 Page 12 of 18 Approved by Council: 1 : • vm along the shore and limits the native plants, birds and animals will survive; and said that is just a fancy way of saying there is a lot of knapweed out there in places, and said not many things eat knapweed; and said she did part of that with several other people and walked that shore and was thrilled with how much native habitat there still is that should be preserved; that there is only one river and that is a great selling point including the Centennial Trail; and said she hopes Council can keep that in mind; that she realizes business is vital to the city but so is the river and the people who don't own houses on the river but have opportunity to use the river, and said she hopes Council will help keep it for her and her descendants. Councilmember Gothmann read the letter from Witherspoon - Kelley: "We understand that before the City Council tonight is a proposed resolution accepting the Shoreline Inventory Report prepared by URS Corporation with respect to the shorelines within the City of Spokane Valley. Centennial Properties is in the process of preparing a detailed inventory analysis as to its own properties along the Spokane river and needs additional time to not only evaluate the report proposed by URS Corporation, but to complete its own analysis and coordinate with the City and URS Corporation as well. Our consultant Towey Ecological Services has just completed its field work and intends to coordinate with John Patrouch to share the more detailed information which he has obtained. Accordingly, we would ask that this matter be postponed in order to allow us the opportunity to submit the additional information to the City and, combine our analysis into the City's inventory as well. We hope to have this process completed as soon as possible. Thank you for your help and cooperation. F.J. Dullanty, Jr." City Planner Kuhta said staff met two months ago, March 11, with Mr. Dullanty and Bob Smith from Centennial Properties, and they informed us at that time that they were thinking about hiring a biologist or someone to inventory their shorelines, and said staff encouraged them to do that and to get the information to us as soon as possible so we can keep this process moving forward, and also told them we would consider any new information that he could gather that would help with the process; and said we wanted them to assist us, and offered to have our consultants walk the shoreline with them if they desired. Mr. Kuhta said if Council feels more comfortable in delaying this, there would be no harm, that staff would enjoy moving the process along, but this is council's discretion; and reminded everyone that this is not a final adoption but is a point where we and the Department of Ecology can state that this is good for now; and put this to rest at some point and focus on the next step; and at any point until the entire shoreline management program is assembled and the subject of final public hearings, that is when the final adoption occurs. Mayor Towey asked then if there is relevant information, it can be added, and Mr. Kuhta confirmed that, and said until it is finally adopted and that relevant information becomes available, they'd like to see it. Councilmember Grassel said that seems to be a problem to her, because if new information is found and it conflicts with what was adopted tonight, what would be the procedure; she said it seems it may be easier to delay it, that the report isn't due until 2013; and that way any new additional information that might come could be a part of any public hearings, versus adopting this and finding additional information later; especially since some of those reports are from 2005 there could be some new additional information; and said it appears they request is not asking for a long delay. Mr. Kuhta said this is Council's discretion. Mr. Patrouch added that Centennial Properties has a "fair amount" of the shoreline but not a huge amount; that they touch the shoreline jurisdiction in a few places between 50 and 100 feet wide; and most of the area is open fields, and there is a small section of Ponderosa Pine that they looked at during the inventory and didn't note anything special about that area; and said although there could be new significant information, he has a hard time seeing what it may be as the area in question is a smaller area; and said once they move forward and bring in third party groups and the users of the river, that is where more information could be uncovered, and he reiterated that any new information would lead to modification of the program throughout the process. City Manager Jackson said he is hearing some concern from Council especially in consideration of this letter, and said this is Council's decision, and staff wants Council to be comfortable with any resolution Council would approve. City Clerk Bainbridge said that depending upon council's preference, a vote Council Regular Meeting 5 -11 -2010 Page 13 of 18 Approved by Council: 1 : •YW could be taken on the motion on the floor, or the maker of the motion could withdraw the motion and another motion be made. Deputy Mayor Schimmels withdrew his motion as did the seconder of the motion. It was then moved by Councilmember Grassel and seconded to postpone adopting this resolution. Councilmember Gothmann said while he is not uncomfortable with the motion, he doesn't see a need to delay. Mayor Towey invited public comments; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Mayor Towey, Deputy Mayor Schimmels, and Councilmembers McCaslin, Grassel, and Grafos. Opposed: Councilmembers Gothmann and Dempsey. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 5. Motion Consideration: Zoning Changes — Kathy McClung It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded to direct the Planning Commission to consider code amendments to the Sprague Appleway Plan that will add vehicle sales to the Mixed Use Avenue Zone and eliminate the requirement far restaurants and cafes to have access to Sprague in the Mixed Use Avenue zone; and direct that the Planning Commission shall consider an amendment to the Spokane Valley Municipal code to add administrative exceptions by the director for minor design changes in the Sprague Appleway Plan. Community Development Director McClung said that last week council discussed making some immediate changes to the Sprague / Appleway plan by considering three amendments at the Planning Commission level, to add vehicle sales to the Mixed Use Avenue, to eliminate the requirement for restaurants and cafes to have access to Sprague in the Mixed Use Avenue, and also to allow the Community Development Director to have more discretion for minor design changes within the plan. Councilmember Gothmann said since the intent is to add boats, should boats be considered as a separate category, and said that adding autos will change what happened prior to SARP. City Attorney Connelly said that vehicles are defined as including boats, so if we changed that, we would have to change other portions of the code that define vehicle sales; and that vehicle sales were allowed in this zone under the current comprehensive plan language and then removed; and staff feels this could be done without a comprehensive plan change because they were included at one time; and said this would be a fix that will be superseded and overridden by Council's review of the entire Mixed Use corridor in the near future; but we are just moving this along quickly. Councilmember Dempsey said possible unintended consequences makes her a little nervous doing this in a blanket manner without studying it, and asked if there are reservations about this process, and what could be done should this result in "some sort of a disaster." City Attorney Connelly said council has the option of not approving it when it comes back; that this matter will go before the Planning Commission, it will be vetted then come back to Council, staff will identify the consequences of any proposed action, and Council will have the final determination for any change. In response to council question about the time frame for this process, Director McClung said this also must go through the SEPA (State Environmental Protection Act) process; the Planning Commission hearing would be the second meeting in June, and by the time it went through a second ordinance reading through Council , it would be August. Mayor Towey invited public comment. Dick Behm, 9405 East Sprague said it seems to him that a designation of auto sales should not include boats as there is no comparison; and boat sales should be a separate category and said it would save changing the whole mixed use corridor; and said Council is opening a can of worms that may come back and feels we should have a separate designation of boat sales from motor vehicle sales, as it is a completely different business and has different impacts. Councilmember Grafos said he has been in the vehicle business and the boat business and said there really isn't a lot of difference; they are both licensed vehicles and handled the same way, and the only thing it would do would be to restrict business at this area and send it to AutoRow, and said if council is going to approve this, it should be approved for autos and all vehicles that are licensed, which would include automobiles and boats. Councilmember Grassel asked if this included motorcycle sales or ATV sales and it was confirmed it does. Councilmember Dempsey said she will vote for the motion because it will go to the Planning Commission and Council will have another chance to consider this. Mayor Council Regular Meeting 5 -11 -2010 Page 14 of 18 Approved by Council: 1 : •vm Towey reminded everyone that the motion is to send it to the Planning Commission. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. On another matter Director McClung said she wanted to address Mr. Allison's previous comments tonight; that last week when staff concluded their remarks they were discussing the letter that was going to go out to the public about the plan, and that she looks to Council for cues that they are finished talking, and said if she misread that cue, she apologies, and said she would never walk away from a councilmember who is still speaking, and said if she did that, she wants to apologize to Councilmember McCaslin; that she promotes respect and said anybody who knows her knows that. Councilmember McCaslin said in jest, that he laid awake all last week thinking about her marching out on her and his heart was broken, but said he survived. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Towey invited general public comments: no comments were offered. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS: 6. Interlocal for Jointly Offered Recreation Programs Parks and Recreation Director Stone explained the purpose of the draft interlocal agreement with the City of Spokane and Spokane County; and said his staff has been working on this for the last several months with representatives from the City and County; and the first scheduled program is dodge ball; he said this issue is somewhat time sensitive, and he hopes to bring this back next week for Council approval consideration. There was no objection to staff bringing this forward at the next council meeting. 7. Broadway Re- striping — Neil Kersten Public Works Director Kersten said staff has provided the same informational memo distributed to council several weeks ago detailing the history of his project; and he called council's attention to the Request for Council Action form under background, the last paragraph included mention of additional documents, one of which is off the TIB (Transportation Improvement Board) website which shows the funding for these projects; and said this was funded under the Urban Arterial Program, that there were 99 projects submitted and this project was one out of eleven selected; that regarding the need, it obviously scored very well on that state -wide scoring system; and said the complete application is also included which details the project infonnation, and mentioned one of the main scoring issues, the "Urban Accident Analysis" and said they are allowed two pages to show all the accidents over the last three current years, that staff puts in the number of accidents and TIB assigns a cost factor to the public for those accidents, which results in an annual benefit based on types of accidents for this type of project were are potentially preventable, and shows an annual benefit of $517,000. Mr. Kersten said there is a lot of information, that it has been a controversial project for several years; and has been included in the TIP (Transportation Improvement Plan) since 2007, and every year Council goes through an extensive process including a public hearing to update and review the TIP and include projects staff intends to pursue, and said this has gone through many years of approvals; that the project was postponed for a year while additional data was gathered; and said this is currently on the Amended 2009 TIP which Council approved about a month ago. Councilmember Dempsey asked for an approximate timeline between when we receive a grant and when the work is done; and Mr. Kersten said it varies and depends upon the type of project and how much right -of -way is needed and he mentioned that often right -of -way can take up to a year to accomplish; then do the design and construction, and a project could easily take three or four years; but said this project requires very minimal right -of -way; so the quickest time is a few years; and he mentioned the Pines /Mansfield project which began prior to this City's incorporation in 2003; and confinned it is not unusual for a project to take several years to complete. There was discussion concerning the accident data, and Mr. Kersten said there were 149 total collisions that were potentially avoidable by this re- design of the project; and said the biggest problem is at the intersections where there is an uncontrolled left turn, Council Regular Meeting 5 -11 -2010 Page 15 of 18 Approved bN� Council: 1 : •VW and by going to the three lane it allows you to get into a left turn controlled by a light, and said otherwise, people are in the left lane which is essentially a yield, and if people are blocked by the other side, it causes problems and said he has seen two or three such accidents where a driver gets T- boned. In follow - up to councihmember Gothmann's comments about three lanes reducing driveway collisions, Mr. Kersten said with four lanes, backing out of a driveway there is no place to go; but in the three lane section, you have the five -foot wide bike lane so another car could somewhat turn to avoid an accident, but currently if you are in the right lane and there's another car next to you and someone backs out, you get hit, so there was quite an improvement in driveway accidents. Mr. Kersten said there are very tight lanes on Broadway, and if you drive by the school when there's heavy traffic, kids are running down a narrow sidewalk, the driver is locked in the lane adjacent to the curb and there is no safety factor if a child gets pushed into the traffic lane, and a five -foot bike lane gives quite an additional buffer area, and he added that this is probably one of the worst roads in the City which is not ADA (American With Disabilities Act) compatible; no bike lanes and no dedicated left turn. Mr. Kersten said during this time period, a third lane was added on I -90 and a lot of traffic on the arterials went down when the congestion declined at the same time on I -90. Councilmember Grassel said she remembers prior data from the area of Broadway that had been converted to three lanes, and said she thought the data showed that rear -end collisions actually increased in the three lane, and that the time frame was limited. Mr. Kersten acknowledged that the timeframe was short and it is difficult to draw conclusions. Councilmember Grassel said that as Mr. Kersten mentioned in his opening statements, that was part of the justification of why the former council waited. Mr. Kersten said the total number of accidents didn't change a lot, but the severity of accidents did decline quite a bit, the left -turns and the driveway accidents, but said there were still a lot of side swipes and rear -ends, but in looking at the studies on these type of changes, accidents decline quite a bit over the long term. Councilmember Grassel said her concern in moving forward is that there hasn't been enough time to have data on the conversion; that there are a lot of irritated drivers on that road who are not paying attention or going too slow, and said there are pros and cons to both formats; but said anytime she sees a bicyclist even in areas where there are bike paths, the cyclist is on the sidewalk, and said she is considering making a motion tonight to stop the Broadway Safety project for many reasons, one of which is there is not enough data, and that the City is looking at a huge budget shortfall; and there is a possibility this money could be diverted elsewhere. City Manager Jackson said he feels this is one of those items which is very important, and this is the first discussion where Council brought up making a motion, and he suggested if council concurs, to place this on the agenda next week to consider as a motion item that way giving the public enough time to realize such motion is upcoming. Mr. Kersten said the TIP was just recently amended for 2009, which are the projects for this year and includes this project; and perhaps that should be amended again after a public hearing; which has been the process in the past; and if council wants to delete that project, the process would be to hold a public hearing, followed by a motion the following week to consider deleting the project; and said the TIP can be amended at any time at Council's prerogative. Councilmember Grassel said she would like that option as did Councilmember Grafos. Councilmember Gothmann said we could use the method proven to reduce accidents, or keep an increase of accidents and accommodate those wishing to speed; and said he would be in favor of not bringing this back. Councilmember Dempsey stated that several years ago prior to when Broadway between Pines and Sullivan was changed, she was delivering Meals on Wheels, and a client lived on Broadway in that area and said it was "like taking my life in my hands" to come back out of that driveway. Mr. Kersten said the City Clerk mentioned the public hearing could not be held next week as we need time to properly note the hearing. Councilmember McCaslin said regarding page 4 of 11, it states "bicycle lane type existing no bicycle facilities" and said there are roads and sidewalks to ride bicycles, and said each councilmember when they were a kid on a bicycle, survived it, and said when he was a kid in the 20's and 30's he rode bicycles on the streets and sidewalks and he survived; and said that statement is a little misleading to push the agenda for bike lanes. Councilmember Dempsey said she checked with Chief VanLeuven and it is Council Regular Meeting 5 -11 -2010 Page 16 of 18 Approved by Council: "It MW illegal to ride a bicycle on the sidewalk. Mayor Towey said it appears there are at least three councilmeimbers in favor of bringing this to a public hearing. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded to extend the meeting for fifteen minutes. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Mayor Towey, Deputy Mayor Schimmels, and Councilmembers Grassel, Dempsey, Gothmann and Grafos. Opposed: Councilmember McCashn. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 8. Subarea Plan (SARP /Sprague Appleway Revitalization Plan): Nonconforming Uses — Kathy McClung Community Development Director McClung reported that staff mailed letters to the property and business owners within the Gateway Center and Gateway Commercial zones, that there were over 200 letters and they used the Spokane County tax information for property owners and business registration for businesses within that area, so if someone does not have a business registration or have not kept their tax infonnation up to date, they may not get a notice. Ms. McClung said notices will also be sent to staff database of approximately 800 people who asked over the years to be on a mailing list; and said that the meeting is scheduled for May 20 from 8 a.m. to 10 a.m., and the Council presentation next week will be on the Gateway Center and Commercial Zones, that tonight, she explained, she will discuss the applicability and nonconforming issues of the Sprague /Appleway Plan so that information is available to Council as Council makes future decisions. Director McClung said she will not cover nonconforming buildings as they relate to the International Fire or Building Code as those entities have different thresholds and the business owner would have to comply with those regulations whether we had a Sprague /Appleway plan or not; and said there are several older buildings and if enough change happened, they would have to meet those requirements. Director McClung said she included pictures in tonight's presentation as a means to illustrate her point and those pictures are not all from the Sprague /Appleway area. Director McClung explained that if a citizen wanted to build a new building, they would have to apply and all the new regulations would apply to their new building; but if they were adding to or remodeling the building, the regulations would only apply if they met the definition of new constriction, which is "50% of the assessed or appraised value of the land plus the stricture." Director McClung said that is a high threshold as usually you would see one or the other and not both; and regarding the assessed or appraised value, it would be whichever is higher or would benefit the owner the most. Director McClung also discussed types of non- confonnances concerning site, building, lot, and sign, and explained common terms of "grandfathered" "illegal nonconforming" and "legal nonconforming." Director McClung gave some zoning history and discussed Spokane Valley's regulations including expansion of non - conforming uses for types of use and sites; adding that the regulations for the Sprague /Appleway area are essentially the same regulations for the entire city, with few exceptions; and said the Sprague /Appleway plan refers back to the regular code concerning nonconfonnances, and said the exceptions in the Subarea plan are more lenient then in the rest of the city; and as an example she explained that for the entire city, nonconforming uses can continue until they are discontinued for twelve months; but for those sites in the Sprague /Appleway plan the time limit is twenty -four months instead of twelve before a change has to occur; and after that twenty -four months, it cannot be replaced with another non - conforming use; but if it is within that timeframe, it can still be replaced with either a conforming or a nonconforming use provided the new use is no less nonconforming then the previous use, and the new use doesn't place a greater demand on the transportation system and doesn't adversely affect or interfere with neighboring properties. Regarding sign and landscaping, Councilmember Grassel asked if those regulations can be changed through ordinances if council desired as they are not specific to the SARP. City Attorney Connelly said Spokane Valley Code has a section for signs and a section for landscaping for the entire city; and there are also specific additional conditions or restraints imposed within the SARP; and said Council can change either the general rules or the SARP rules; and said most of those types of changes would not be inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Council Regular Meeting 5 -11 -2010 Page 17 of 18 Approved bN� Council: DRAFT MINUTES SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING STUDY SESSION FORMAT Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers Spokane Valley, Washington May 18, 2010 6:00 p.m. Attendance: Councilmembers Staff Tom Towey, Mayor Mike Jackson, Acting City Manager Gary Schimmels, Deputy Mayor Mike Connelly, City Attorney Rose Dempsey, Councilmember Ken Thompson, Finance Director Bill Gothmann, Councilmember Kathy McClung, Community Development Dir. Dean Grafos, Councilmember Neil Kersten, Public Works Director Brenda Grassel, Councilmember Absent Bob McCaslin, Councilmember John Whitehead, Human Resources Manager Mike Stone, Parks & Recreation Director Greg McCormick, Planning Manager Steve Worley, Senior Engineer Lori Barlow, Associate Planner Morgan Koudelka, Sr. Administrative Analyst Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk Mayor Towey called the meeting to order at 6 p.m. It was moved by Councilmember Grafos, seconded and unanimously agreed to excuse Councilmember McCaslin from tonight's meeting. ACTION ITEM: 1. Interlocal for Jointly Offered Recreation Programs — Mike Stone It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded to approve the recreation programming interlocal agreement and authorize the City Manager or designee to execute said agreement. Parks and Recreation Director Stone explained that this interlocal agreement allows for partnering with Spokane County and the City of Spokane to provide joint recreational programming for the next year or so, and allows us to share revenues and expenses; he explained he feels this will be revenue generating for us and will afford a wider exposure of programs, reduce overall expenses, strengthen working relationships with Spokane City and County, and provide a wider venue for programs we currently don't offer; and said the first program to be offered is dodge ball; adding that all three entities feel this is an advantageous arrangement. Mayor Towey invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. NON - ACTION ITEMS: 2. City Manager Recruitment — John Whitehead Human Resources Manager Whitehead explained that we are currently advertising for the position of City Manager through the Spokesman Review, Employment Security, and Valley News Herald, and he asked for Council's preference in advertising with AWC (Association of Washington Cities), and NLC (National League of Cities): and said there would be no charge with AWC as we are members, but there would be a charge for NLC of approximately $250 per week. Councilmember Gothmann said he prefers to advertise also with AWC, and there were no council objections. Mr. Whitehead explained that the next step would be the review process; that the first cutoff date for receiving applications is June 4, and after brief discussion, council concurred to discuss the applications at an Executive Session to be held after the study session meeting of June 15, 2010. Councilmember Dempsey said she would be on vacation in early Council Meeting Minutes: 05 -18 -2010 Page 1 of 15 Approved by Council: DRAFT June and asked if the applications could be sent to her electronically, and Mr. Whitehead said he would do so. 3. PEG (Public, Education, Government) Channels — Morgan Koudelka Via his PowerPoint presentation, Senior Administrative Analyst Koudelka gave additional information on the PEG (Public, Education, Government) channels in our area, and explained that he seeks guidance on how to proceed with the current section in the franchise agreement regarding PEG fees and contributions, and said several options include (1) leave it as is, that our legal department bought to Council an extension of the time for Comcast to return the signed copy of the franchise, extending the date to start submitting PEG fees to us by two months, and said Comcast would be passing through those PEG fees to their subscribers at .35¢ per subscriber per month; or (2) reduce that amount and ask Comcast to likewise reduce their fee over the course of the five years, and said with the current scenario, it would provide about $500,000 in capital funding; but if Council prefers to focus just on the government side and purchase equipment, equipment could be purchased for $50,000 over five years, which would amount to approximately 3.5¢ per subscriber per month, or (3) leave placcholder language in the franchise agreement but not have Comcast collect it, which he explained gives us the right to ask them to collect up to a certain amount upon notice; or (4) ask Comcast to eliminate that requirement from the franchise agreement. At Councilmember Gothmann's request, Mr. Koudelka explained that the negotiation of this franchise agreement was very time consuming and took approximately five years; he said the challenges were that the regulations at the federal and state levels were changing and with the contemplation of more changes, and that the interpretation of the existing cable act took some additional evaluation; he said proposed federal and state legislation would take away the ability for local jurisdictions to negotiate use of rights - of -way; and said that legislation did not pass. Mr. Koudelka explained that the City of Spokane had recently adopted their franchise agreement, but due to changes, Comcast took a different stance with us; he also mentioned Comcast previously had PEG access and a studio at their local office and staff and equipment to provide assistance but does not any longer and said that was a casualty of the new interpretations; and explained that the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) allowed cities in lieu of that, to collect some funding for equipment to provide those services, and he said most cities have taken advantage of that to supplement the franchise fees, which fees are not dedicated to anything but are general fund revenue, whereas PEG fees would be solely for capital equipment for PEG channels, and Councilmember Gothmann added that one sticking point in the past was they wanted us to agree to a 50c PEG fee and we negotiated that down to 35¢. Mr. Koudelka clarified that was an issue, but explained we had used the City of Spokane's franchise agreement as a benchmark and started off with those terms, that the City of Spokane had 50¢ per month per subscriber and Comcast didn't want to provide that much; so we evaluated the request and decided there was no reason to ask for that additional amount and agreed to the lesser amount, and said part of the negotiation process was the upfront payment, adding that as a new city, we had no existing equipment or funds to purchase equipment. Mayor Towey said since Council has not decided what form of broadcasting to use, he would like to have the option to use it in the future, the placeholder language option. Mr. Koudelka said that would be feasible and although he has not addressed that specifically, Comcast is aware we are considering different options and he is hopeful to work that out with them, and said should we take advantage of that at a future date, perhaps there could be some pro -rated version of that upfront if we wanted equipment immediately. Councilmember Dempsey said that government is in a position to provide services to the community; and feels it is essential to give them access to what's going on with this city and that council can do that through broadcasting council and other city meetings, and said this 35¢ per month would be paid by 71% of the households in the city, that it is a relatively painless way to provide the service; and she'd like to approve the contract as is and collect that 35¢ and use that money for the benefit of the Spokane Valley citizens. Councilmember Grafos said he favors the placeholder option and not to collect Council Meeting Minutes: 05 -18 -2010 Page 2 of 15 Approved by Council: DRAFT the fee but keep the opportunity to have that service at some later date in order to give Council time to sort through what kind of broadcasting to have based on budgets. Councilmember Grassel said she agreed with Councilmember Grafos and she asked about the Community- Minded Television (CMTV) in the agreement. Mr. Koudelka said there is nothing in the contract as that is up to us; and said it is Council's preference to use CMTV or other broadcasting options. Councilmember Gothmann mentioned the importance of providing educational opportunities via cable, that he favors collecting the 35¢ so citizens can benefit from classes and programs provided by PEG. Deputy Mayor Schimmels suggested amending the cable franchise and removing that 35¢ per month and said this has been going on for months and he still feels the matter is "as clear as mud." City Attorney Connelly said he wanted to make sure Council is aware that if we choose to amend the contract, there is always the chance Comcast would want something else reconsidered. Mayor Towey said he is concerned about impacting the citizens now when we may or may not do something in the future, and since we don't know if will have broadcasting in the future; he suggests shelving the PEG 35¢ until council determines its direction. Councilmember Dempsey said she is concerned about the negative impact on the appearance of Council's inability to make a decision, and said to shelve it and put it off and not decide is not a positive way of viewing things. City Manager Jackson asked council if they would like, in the near future, to discuss if Council wants to support cable or Community Minded TV or any other entity that would provide service; and said if Council is going to support some or all of those services, then this is a fee that is generated by the users of that service, so there is a nexus between the fee and those who would enjoy the service, and if said if Council anticipates offering it, that perhaps this is the best way to fund it, and added that opening the contract for re- negotiation is a major step; and said if Council is considering approving this in a few months, we wouldn't have a direct way to pay far the service, whereas this is an opportunity for users of the service to pay for the services. Councilmember Gothmann said it bothers him to open a contract which was already agreed to, and which agreement came after five years of difficult negotiations, and said to throw everything on the table now is a huge gamble; that council agreed to do something, and then after five years to turn around and change is not good public policy. Councilmember Grafos said we negotiate a contract and get a franchise fee and Comcast gets a service, and said to look at this as if we are afraid we're going to be blackmailed by Comcast he feels is not an issue. Councilmember Dempsey said it has happened, and she mentioned the cable company that was going to cut off New York City during the super bowl. Deputy Mayor Schimmels said that IT Specialist Bingaiman had previously given a figure of approximately $25,000 needed as capital to furnish equipment, and he asked if we would keep that or pass it to CMTV. Mr. Koudelka said that it would be a Council decision on how to distribute funds; and suggested council solidifying the plans with the governmental side (of the PEG Channel) prior to deciding the other components; and said there is equipment that would be necessary for meeting broadcasting, and we could purchase that with the approximate $25,000; but if council wanted live broadcasting, we would have to connect to Comcast and initial estimates on that are $15,000; he said we could use the PEG funding for that as well with the remainder distributed per Council's direction to the agencies associated with the education and public channels. Deputy Mayor Schimmels said he would be happy to support this if Comcast "took the 35¢ out of their back pocket; and 35¢ here and 35¢ there, and anything you might want to call it, it might be construed as a service, but it's still a tax." Mr. Koudelka said he spoke with the government liaison with Comcast and asked if the amount were smaller if that would change the way it was passed through and Comcast said it is a corporate policy to pass that fee through to their customers, regardless of the amount as away to keep customers appraised of the cost of doing business. In response to Council question, Mr. Koudelka said the term of the contract is for ten years. Councilmember Gothmann said this is a difficult situation and feels the scale tilts toward keep your word. City Manager Jackson asked if Council would like staff to prepare a motion for a future meeting, to negotiate with Comcast to suspend the fees but provide language in the contract that would allow the City the future Council Meeting Minutes: 05 -18 -2010 Page 3 of 15 Approved by Council: DRAFT ability to enact those fees; and said in the meantime staff can have some discussion to make sure that is a viable option. Council concurred. 4. Collaborative Planning Agreement — Mike Basinger Standing in for Mr. Basinger, Community Development McClung said included in Council's packet is a Scope for Services and an agreement for Spokane Valley's determination, which agreement includes a $10,000 donation for the next phase of this process; it would be to examine the County's revenue and examine which services should be local, which should be regional, and how efficiencies might be served by making changes in those areas; and she said that Susan Winchell is in attendance tonight should council have additional questions, and that this will come back to Council later for the actual motion consideration to consider donating $10,000. City Attorney Connelly asked if Spokane County contributes to this effort as they appear not to be included in the agreement; and Susan Winchell explained that through the last three years the State of Washington through grants and Spokane County have paid for the first year's work; and in 2009 Spokane County paid about $33,000 for their share, and the unwritten agreement was the County would pay for the $33,000 for 2009, and the City said they would pay for the funds for 2010; and explained that the County paid for the business study and this is the follow -up. Mayor Towey said he is concerned that since 2006, they have accumulated about $307,000 through different grants. Ms. Winchell said it might be about $200,000. Mayor Towey said he is concerned that the project be finished and Ms. Winchell said this is the last phase, and this is the part where the city might benefit; she explained that the County's line of business study showed what was regional and what was local, and this would be to make sure that the revenues that the County collects from the City of Spokane Valley pay for regional services and not subsidize the services that are provided in unincorporated areas. Community Development Director McClung said she would recommend that should Council agree to this, that Mayor Towey's concern be included in a cover letter. There were no further questions and no objections to Ms. McClung's suggestion. 5. Street Maintenance Site — Neil Kersten Public Works Director Kersten explained that at the April 6 meeting, he gave Council an overview of the changes needed for street maintenance, such as buying a snow plow and loader and adding a staff position, and staff is working on an RFP (request for proposal) to submit for a contractor, and said one of the main items was the site of the street maintenance operation, and interest was expressed that we look at other possible sites; and said he has delineated a program to confirm the size and scope of the site needed. Mr. Kersten said they need a site from 1.5 to 3 acres and would look at sites containing the facilities needed as well as vacant sites; and he brought Council's attention to the council packet material of the aerial view of the existing site, which contains three parcels; and said a question came up at the last meeting concerning the zoning of the current site as there was the thought it was zoned residential, community boulevard. Mr. Kersten said the site is zoned mixed use; he said half of the lumberyard to the south of the area is commercial mixed use and the other half which is along the Appleway or the old railroad right -of -way is community boulevard; and said it still doesn't meet the zoning so the current zoning is grandfathered. Regarding facilities, Mr. Kersten said the existing shop is three bays and five bays would be ideal; the dispatch office at the site meets the needs well, is about 1200 square feet and he said there are generally only two to three people in that area, and said there are currently only two staff members but said we would hire one more; and said there are times during a heavy snow when the contractors would be in that area to get assignments; and said they could use some of the areas for de -icer and sand storage, and said those are minor and could be easily built. He said preferably the zone would be light to heavy industrial or a similar nonconforming site, and would prefer to have the site in a city center location, but said at least it needs to be very accessible to major arterials so trucks can be easily and quickly dispatched. Mr. Kersten said he seeks council confirmation prior to issuing the RFP; and said options are to continue the lease, or explore possibilities including cost. Mayor Towey said location would be a big part of the purchase decision, and Mr. Kersten said from working with the County in previous years through their shop around Sullivan north of the River, it takes quite a while to dispatch a Council Meeting Minutes: 05 -18 -2010 Page 4 of 15 Approved by Council: DRAFT truck to the south end of town, and after using the current site for a year, it has proven very efficient, but added that the shop is in poor conditionand would need to be replacedeventually; and added that “we don’t have a lotof funds so we can’t go out and spend too much money” and said upgrading could occur as funding is available. Mr. Kersten said fortunately this year was a very low snow year so there are some funds availablefrom the snow reserve. Councilmember Grasselsaid for futureuse for the current facility, she realizes we are looking at housing the snow plow equipment, and asked if there are other facilities that we are currently renting to house other equipment, or anything in the future that we would potentially need a facility for future expansion for other work trucks. Mr. Kersten said this site could handle both stormwater equipment in the future, and said the loader/backhoe would be used by stormwater and in the winter for snow removal; and said the truckscould be used somewhat in the summer; and said the site has a lot of additional storage for equipmentstorage in other areas; and said one of the big things we need in the future is a “de-camp” facility; and he explained that we do a lot of vactoring or cleaning of drywells and do a lot of sweeping, and that material comes back and we like to have an area for that to drain and dry out, and said this site has the potential to be used for that; but said theremight be a separate site we could use in a more remote location. Councilmember Grassel asked about the cost for future upgrading, and Mr. Kersten replied that he has not done a cost estimate, but that we could use the current site for several years, but at some point it would need to be torn down and rebuilt, and said it is just a metal building with a concrete floor, so it is not a high intensity building that would be expensive, and we may be able to build up some revenue over the next few years for that purpose; and said he doesn’t see that occurring in the next two or three years. Councilmember Grafos said he would not be in favor of purchasing the site but we should continue to rent; and said he would not be in favor of this site as it is a nonconforming site and is the minimum size needed, and it limits what we can do. Mr. Kersten said with an acre anda half andincreasing the bays as he mentioned, this site would handle this just fine, and said he thinks it is a great idea to see what other properties may be available; that we are not in a big hurry and said what he plans to do is to send this out to realtors and once we getother suggested areas, he would share that information with counciland try to determine which route to take; and said that the current site is for sale. Mr. Kersten said at one time we had athree month lease, but we were able to get the lease for a year so we are covered through at least this next winter, although the owner could sell it and then we would be back in crisis mode next summer; and said it would be good to move ahead and at least look, and mail this out to all the realtorsfor their assistance. There were no objections. 6.Sullivan and Sprague Construction Project –Neil Kerstenand Steve Worley Public Works Director Kersten said this is one of those projects which could move in various directions with various difficulties and impacts. Senior Engineer Worley explained that he noted therewere a lot of comments at last week’s councilmeetingregarding this project and the decision to completely close the intersection during the construction; and that Council had asked for additional information concerning how that decision was made. Mr. Worley explained that this project originally came about as a result of a call for projects in 2006 through SRTC (Spokane Regional Transportation Council), which is a federally funded project; the original project estimate was $861,000 and of that 13.5% would be the local match provided by the City. Mr. Worley said in the original application, staff identified 2009 as the construction date for this project, which is quite a time span from the application date of 2006; he said the project was actually delayed because of other grant funded projects we had received, so the design on this began in the fall of last year; he said there was a public open house in January 2010 which was attended by thirty to thirty-five people; and he said he wished that some of the people who testified last week had been at the open house. Further, Mr. Worley said staff contacted representatives of twenty of the most affected businesses in that area when staff started to look at how to approach the projectdesign; andhe noted that it was representatives of those businessesand he did not contact all twenty of those businessesin and around each quadrantof the intersection. Earlier this year, he explained, SRTC approved the request for an additional $330,000 to cover some cost increases that staff identified as we started to look at the Council Meeting Minutes:05-18-2010Page 5of 15 Approved by Council: DRAFT projectdetails; andsaidmost of those cost increases were related to the increase in material cost since 2006, plus they identified that the signal system in that intersection needed to be replaced as it is very old and staff also identified some stormwater upgrades that needed to be done. When staff started looking at the project, Mr. Worley said they wanted to minimize impacts to as many businesses as possible, which he said, is the approach staff takes withevery projectthey do; they wanted to provide a safe construction site for all the workers, inspectors, and utility companies; and said they try as best as they can to minimize driver frustration, and he said they are aware that projects impact the travelling public. Mr. Worley said they had anextensive public outreach on this project and the other two projects onthe Sullivan corridor, the Broadway/Sullivan project which is finishing up today, and the one to be bid out soon, the Broadway Avenue Improvementsfrom Moore to Flora; and he explained that over a course of two to three mailings, there were 11,000 brochures mailed to give notice to businesses and residents in the area that these three projectswere going on, and gavethem details about those projects. One of the things staff also evaluated, Mr. Worley said, was back in 2007 the WSDOT (Washington State Department of Transportation) closed the ramps at Sullivan Road off I-90 because they concreted that area over the interstate and the area up to the Mission intersection, and staff learned how WSDOT did it and approached this in a similar manner. Mr. Worley said there were other issues which were considered specific to this project; and said one of the biggest issue is that this is the second highest volume intersection in the city; that there are between 19,000 and 31,000 average daily traffic on all approaches, and he said that is not normal, but this particular intersection has very high volume on all sides; he said this is an older intersection and is part of the original Highway 10 that went to Coeur d’Alene, and said the significance of that is, they tend to find things buried in older intersectionsthat they don’t expect, and said such was the case when the Pines/Sprague intersection was done. Mr. Worley added that because this intersectionis so old, there are numerous underground utilities; and manytimes they are not in the location the utility company saysthey are making it necessary to shift and move things around on the spur of the moment. The signal conduit system, Mr. Worley said, is over twenty-five years old so the entire conduit and wiringsystem for that signal has to be replaced; he said they also identifiedsome drywells in that intersection that are not draining as they should, so they are going to upgrade those drywells and will provide pre-treatment prior to runoff going into those drywells so that the aquifer will be protected. Mr. Worley said they also needed to determine early in the design of the project, what the traffic control option was going to be because the design of the concrete panels is dependent upon which traffic control is used; and depending on how much width is needed to shift traffic from one side to the other, it tells them how wide they need to make it, where the construction joints will be, and how wide the panels will be; and said that is a large impact on the intersection design. Further, because of all the other projects in the Sullivan corridor, staff had to determine how to get this project constructed this year and fit in with the other two projects within that corridor as they did not want two projects going at the same time in this corridor; and said staff worked very hard to schedule the projects so one was completedbefore the next one started. Regarding the partial closure option, Mr. Worley explained that if staff did the partial closure option, it would take six phases of construction just like was done on Broadway and Sullivan; to complete that would be eight weeks or forty working days. He explained that the six phases include removing the concrete median separating the traffic going in different directions, which has to be done because traffic has to be shifted from one side of the road while one side of the road is being torn up, which restricts the current number of lanes of three in each direction, down to two; and barrels and cones are used for that purpose. The second phase, he said, would be to close one quadrant of the intersection and tear that out and re-construct it, and said by doing that, no southbound right turns can be made as there won’t be enough room to get trucks and other traffic around that corner. He said there would be a similar situation when we move to the next quadrant, that the westbound right turn movement willnot be allowed during that phase, so it will greatly restrict the movements through the intersection, and the number of lanes would be reducedas well. The next phase would be to shut off completely the south half of the intersection to build the whole thing, which means that there would be no north/south movement on the Council Meeting Minutes:05-18-2010Page 6of 15 Approved by Council: DRAFT south half of the intersection; then the center islands would get installed again, forcing traffic to the outside edges and restrict the numberof lanes, then the signal work would be finished at each of the sidewalks on the north half. The issues we run into, Mr. Worley said, is that the traffic controlchanges frequently under this option; so every two to three days to begin with and then every two to three weeks as the construction moves through the different phases, the traffic controlchanges which increases driver confusion and driver frustration. Mr. Worley also explained that during each phase, not all turning movements will be available. Mr. Worley said the south leg of this project will take two to three weeks to close, and when staff looked at that, thought the full closure could be done in that same time frame. The other related issue is that by putting all this traffic control in there and restricting some of the movements, there will be long lines of traffic backed up in alldirections of the intersection which means it will be difficult to access the businesseswithin a quarter mile of the project because there will be cars stacked up waiting for their turn to get through the intersection; and said during the shutdown of the signal for re- wiring, flaggers will be working to determinewhich cars move and which wait, based on number of cars in any one direction. Mr. Worley said to do the project in phases will be about $100,000 more just to phase it with the building of the concrete panels, and an additional $20,000 in additional traffic control work and signal work; and he said we try to operate the intersection with traffic with the existing system, but because the conduit system is so close to the surface of the road, when the contractor goes to tear out the old road, he may tear up the conduit and break the loops which would then have to be spliced, requiring a new system to be built parallel or underneath the old system, which makes it more difficult for the contractor. Mr. Worley showed a diagram of thescenario depicting traffic going quite a ways back from the construction area, and said it is very difficult with two lanes of traffic for people to find gaps in that line of traffic to be able to access the business, and also very difficult for them to get out of the businesses with a left turn movement; and said if they try to stop and find a gap, then they are holding up traffic behind them and which creates potential for creating gridlock. Regarding the full closure option, Mr. Worley said the projectcould be completed in three weeks, and is currently scheduled for July and August this year; he said detour routes exist for the intersection, and said th they would use Adams, Conklin, Broadway and 4Avenue; and said becauseBroadway Avenue does not have a signal at Adams and Conklin, they would have flaggers at all times during construction, so traffic can keep moving as efficiently as possible. If this approach were taken, he said, there would be no changes to the traffic control during the entire length of construction; and said it would be the same way for three weeks therefore no confusingthe drivers; and said staff felt this wouldbe a lot less confusing and a lot less frustrating; and said by doing the full closure, there would be access to all of the businesses, even between the detour route and the construction site; he said the roads would be closed to through traffic, but access to those businesseswould be available at all times during construction, even all of the businesses in and around each quadrantof the intersectionwill have access them to at all times during the full closure option. Mr. Worley said the underground work of utility and signal system, and any surprises they might find, are much easier to deal with when the contractor has full access to the site, and the issues can be addressed quickly and not delay the project as much as with the partial closure option; and said based on their current estimate, the project can be completed within budget. Mr. Worley showed a diagramof what the detours would be; that there would be detour signs at all intersections indicating the road closed and if they want to continue, the signs will tell them which direction to go; and said the areas in-between where the detour routes are and the construction site and all the businesses along those routes will still be open; and said staff felt that was critical and important. Yesterday, based on comments they received last week, Mr. Worley said staff contacted the businesses in and around the intersection and there were three business that opted for the full closure to get it done and get it over; there were three businesses that preferred the eight-week partial closure; and two businesses that had no preference. Mr. Worley said he realizes that the Sullivan square consists of about twelve businesses. Mr. Worley explainedthat we are 99% completewith the project design and are ready to go to bid based on the full closure option, and if we can do that the project can be completed this year. However, if a Council Meeting Minutes:05-18-2010Page 7of 15 Approved by Council: DRAFT partial closure were opted for, the intersection would have to be re-designed based on the new traffic control and re-do the layout of the concrete panels; they would have to revise the drawings and develop detailed phased construction plans for each phase of the project; which means the project would be delayed until next year as there is no way to get all that done andtry to fit it in the schedule with the other Broadway Avenue project scheduled for later this year; and said the cost increase would be about $120,000to take into account additional traffic control, the work around the signal system, and the cost to build the intersection under traffic; plus any cost increases due to delaying the project to next year, and said it is difficult to estimate what the cost of materials might be next year; and said because we are so close on the budget now, if those costs increased we might exceed the budget and the city would have to cover the difference. Mr. Kersten said this project is ready to bid and fit into the next window; and as soon as this one is done the Broadway Moore to Flora project is ready to go; and said they did not want two major projects occurring at the same time; and said we know now we are getting very good bids and the bids are coming in under budget and havebeen very competitive, and that might continue next year or it might not; and said that is probably the biggest risk, if we delay the project, we need to be willing to accept that risk of additional cost; and said staff is interested to hear Council’sinput; and he added that WSDOT did this on the Sullivan Bridge over I-90 and we were concerned at the time, but we weighed that three to four work week versus two or three months, and it worked well and people adapted to it quickly. Mayor Towey asked about the idea of doing the project at nightand Mr. Kersten said that they have already extended the hours; that a normal DOT job is a ten-hour day and we have extended to that a 16-hour day so they can work two shifts; and said staff is talking to some of the contractors about extending it so they could do three shifts a day, but said the problem in working with multipleshifts, is one shift will start to work overtime which will increase the labor costs about 50%; and said once you get to a certain point, you will likely only save two or three days and won’t save a week as efficiencies start to drop off; and said staff will explore that and if it can be done, staff would pursue that. Councilmember Grafos said even tearing that up with a full closure, you’ll probably have some surprises, and said the three-week closure might be a four or five week closure; and said when the DOT closed the ramps on the freeway, they didn’t have a couple hundred businesses around there and the busiest intersectionin the valley, and it wasn’t impacting all these business.Councilmember Grafos said that last week there were about nine property owners who came in and asked the city not to close that intersection as it would be a detriment to their business; and said he turned in about another eleven names, and said tonight he has 47 more names of those not in favor of closing that intersection; and he read the following names: Fairway Company; Walnut Street,Industrial Communication, CV Barber Shop, CV Beauty Salon, Veradale Self-Storage, Sun Rental, The Bargain Hunter, Walgreens, Dollar Tree, Hancock Fabrics, Granit and Cabinets, Petco, Banner Bank, Yokes, Jennifer’s Auto Sales, Berreth Thomas Printing, Spokane’s Compu-Doc, Wayne’s Shoe Repair, Walker Tax Services, Inland Family Chiropractic, Leesa Gust LPM, Barker’s Boutique, Liberty Tire, Harbor Freight Tools, Mongolian BBQ, Star Nails, Round Table Pizza, ArmalfiRestaurant, Bronz Beauty, Scollard’s Cleaners, Blue Sky Distributors, OsmunProperties, LaBrosse Automotive, Fleet Focused, Edward Jones, Kentucky Fried Chicken, Ciena Corporation, who he said is not retail but agree the impact would be devastating to local businesses; Sullivan Scoreboard, Wendy’s, Einstein’s Carwash, Pizza Hut on Sullivan, Beacon Cleaners, Columbia Paint,Shari’s, Woodcraft,and FedEx Office; and he said he knows there are probably a lot more out there and said 100% of the people he talked to said that they do not want that closed. Councilmember Gothmann asked what he provided as an alternative, and Mr. Grafos said he asked them if they when the city came around, he said he was told when the city came around and we just want to let you know thatwe’re going to close that intersection. Councilmember Gothmann asked Mr. Grafos if he received specific notice since he has a parcel over there, that there was to be a meeting, and he asked if Mr. Grafos attended that meeting. Councilmember Grafos said those people did receive a notice, and he also received a notice, and said he also did not agree with it. Councilmember Gothmann asked what the alternative is, and said it seems if Council Meeting Minutes:05-18-2010Page 8of 15 Approved by Council: DRAFT the alternative is down for three weeks or down for eight or ten weeks, that might make a decision then to say we’re down for three weeks and you’ll have fantasticaccess for the remaining, which is not true since you said you’d have cars stacked up in front of your businesses. Councilmember Grafos said the experience that the property owners hadwith Broadway wasvery favorable and that it was worked very well, and it has not impacted those businesses to the extent that a full closure would. Councilmember Dempsey said the times that she has tried to use Broadway and Sullivan, she decided it wasn’t worth it and that she would not fight that battle; and said at one point Sullivan at Broadway was backed up beyond the freeway; there was traffic everywhere and no way to get into a businessmuch less travel through, and she said people were short-tempered and angry and it was a difficult situation; and said that access will be provided at all times to the businesses which makes this a very viable way to do that; and said she had the impression last week that access would be cut off, but if everyonehas access, she said she thinks the obvious thing to do is to take the lesser time and get it done. Mr. Worley said regarding the open house they held in January, the intent of that meeting was to invite as many businesses and residents to come see the reasons why staff was proposing at that time, to do the full closureoption; andsaid when staff presented this same type of information to compare the partial to the full closure, most, although notall who attended, agreed that taking the full closure approach would be better. Mr. Worley said it would have been great to have had all these other people there so they could have seen this same information and they could decide for themselves whether the full or the partial closure would be better, with this additional information; and he said after that public meeting, staff was moving ahead with the idea of going with the full closure option, then staff starting contacting those in and around the intersection to let them know the direction we were going, and asking them how staff could make it work best for them, and he said businesses were told staff wants to provide as much access to their businesses as possible, knowing that the intersection was going to be rebuilt. Additionally, Mr. Worley said, part of the reason that BroadwaySullivan worked so well is that that they closed off the eastbound portion of BroadwayAvenue completelyfor the entire length of the project, which allowed the signal to be re-timed so there would be no east/bound movement at all, which gave more green time to the other three legs of the intersection, so cars could move in those directions for longer periods which allowed those to clear quicker; and he said this is not the same situation; and he said the amount of traffic on Broadway is half of what the lowest amount of traffic on any leg of Sprague Sullivan will be. Councilmember Gothmann said he has notes of a conversation he had with his daughter who manages McDonald’s at Broadway and Sullivan, as he asked hisdaughter for first hand reaction; and Councilmember Gothmann said his daughter said the following: “several timesprior to that meeting, city staff went from business to business telling them what was going to happen; she received notices in the mail about what would be done and when; at the meeting, she indicated that Gary Schimmels was there, her area supervisor was there; after talking to the businesses, this is what’s occurring at the meeting, the businesses requested two things (a) that the Sprague intersection project be moved to after Memorial day, and (b) that they would rather have it closed down three weeks than stretch it out. I asked her if anybody objected and she said no; the only objection they had was residential neighbors were concerned about traffic through their residences. She went on to say ‘I was shocked when I read about it, what happened at last Tuesday’s council meeting in the newspaper. I noticed no one cared about Broadway and Sullivan businesseslast Tuesday. They, that is the contractors, were so good to work with. They would come in and tell us this is going to happen this day and thisis going to happen the next day. I was really impressed.’ She went on to say that during the first week business was down 40%, even though you had access, the next week it went upand business was down 26% and last Saturdaywas normal.’” Councilmember Gothmann complimented the staff on the tremendous professionalismshown and he said this particular decision is really a staff decision and not a policy decision; that this is an administrative decision as far as how they get things done, and he complimented staff for the way they have done this. Council Meeting Minutes:05-18-2010Page 9of 15 Approved by Council: DRAFT Councilmember Dempsey said that Mr. Grafos apparently has some petition from where he got the signatures, and she asked the Mayor if CouncilmemberGrafos could read the petition so we could hear what it was the people were signing. Councilmember Grafos read the petition: “To SpokaneValley City Council. The closure by the City of Spokane Valley of the Spragueand Sullivan intersection for a period st of three weeks beginning June 21, 2010 will be very detrimental to our employees and our business.It is our hope that the council can reverse the decision of the Public Works Director and his decision to close this intersection for this road project. We believe the complete closure of this intersection (one of the busiest in the City) will have a huge economic impact on our business and our employees. We believe a project lasting between6 and 8 weeks without completelyclosingthe intersection would have a much smaller impacton our business. We are all struggling to survive and keep our people employed in these tough economic times. We assumed, that this projectwould be completedin a similar manner to the Evergreen Rd project, Broadway and Sullivan project, or the Sprague and Pines project, which were completed without a complete shutdown of the intersection.” Councilmember Grafos said at that meeting, there were probably not a lot of people at the firstinitial meeting of January 21 andMr. Kersten said there were 31 people at that meeting. Councilmember Dempsey asked Mr. Grafos if he composed this petition and sought the signatureson it, and CouncilmemberGrafos said yes he did, he wrote this. Mr. Kersten said staff is interested in what the majority of council wants to do; that staff will take that into consideration; and said he would like a clear understanding of who is in favor and who is not; and said if council is in favor of changing this, he asked if they would also be in favor of taking the financial risk; and said it is difficult to predict the bidding climatenext year. Mayor Towey thanked staff for the information and re-stated that this is the staff’s decision; and he asked if Mr. Kersten knows of any business on Sprague and Sullivan intersection that would not be fully accessed; and Mr. Kersten said all of the businesses will have very good access; and the only one that will have some restricted access is Petco, but they will still have pretty good access, and said staff can come in and bring in signs to make it clear there is access; and businesses on the corner of Sprague and Sullivan will have access to both roads all the way around, with the exception of the hardware store which will be limitedto direct access on Sprague, as you can’t go through the Ceina Parking lot as they barthat off. Councilmember Gothmann said he suspects there is an assumption that partial closure would not impact their businesses, and he said with the previously mentioned project,McDonald’s businesswas down 40% the first week even though they had partial access.Councilmember Grassel said McDonald’s is obviouslyable to sustain 40%, but she wondered how many businesses on that survey could sustain 40% over a three week period; and said that is 40% partial; and she said what if is it 80% and you’re going month to month; she said that could kill a business. CouncilmemberGothmann said he feels the partial wouldn’t solve the problem any better. Engineer Worley said that when staff was sending out the public information, they had identified that this would be a full closure to try to get as much advance notice to as many businesses as possible; and even at the open house, staff offered to provide any of the businesseswith maps that they could give to their customers identifying where the detourroutes would be so they could start passing those out prior to the construction as a way to try to keep those customers coming back to those businesses during construction. Councilmember Grafos asked if they were offered an option, and said those businesses were told it would beclosed and the option was when it would be closed. Mr. Worley said at the open house, staff presented their similar information to what was presented here tonight, and the majority of the people who attended the meeting agreed with the logic that the full closure would be better thanthe partial closure; and he said not everyone agreed but the majority agreed; and from that point, staff moved on with the design. Deputy Mayor Schimmels said he is not in favor of amending the work plan; he saidhe has been around this work all his life and anytime there is a project like this it’s “like taking a poison pill, do you want to take that poison pill for three weeks or do you want to take it for eight; and I think that if the average business person would really analyze that, he would say get in there and get out.” Mr. Kersten said if we move ahead, staff will keep doing the mailers to let businesses know exactlywhat is occurring, and if problems arise, we will keep businessesappraised. CouncilmemberDempsey said she is in favor of continuing the Council Meeting Minutes:05-18-2010Page 10of 15 Approved by Council: DRAFT projectas planned; and Mayor Towey said it looks like council is in favor of continuing. Mr. Worley said he also wanted to take the opportunity to recognize the work staff has contributed to this project, such as Craig Aldworth Project Manager, and Traffic Engineers Inga Note and Ryan Kipp, and Pete Fisch who is out there daily meeting with the businesses, who is a designer and on-site inspector; and said a lot of the credit council hears about goes to those staff members. Mayor Towey called for a recess at 7:57p.m.and the meeting reconvenedat 8:10p.m. Councilmember Grafos, as a point of order, said that it was insinuated at the last agenda item that it was about Dean Grafos and his property interest at that location; and he said to Mr. Gothmann that the properties he [Mr. Grafos] has are on an intersection, Conklin and Sprague, and said they are not really affected by this project but all of the traffic that would be going up that road on those 25 mph single lane roads, will be affected through those residential neighborhoods, and said he just wanted to clarify that it was not about his property interest, it was about those businesses that would be affected by that closure. 7.Subarea Plan (SARP: Sprague/Appleway Revitalization Plan) Gateway Commercial and Gateway Avenue Zone –Lori Barlow Associate Planner Barlow said tonight is the first of a series of discussions on zoning issues as part of the Sprague and Appleway Corridor Subarea Plan Review. In explaining the process, Ms. Barlow said the process for a review of a zoning districts begins with an administrative report to Council, which is what we are doing tonight, to provide Councilopportunity to get more familiar with the zoning district under review; followingtonight’s administrativereport, staff has scheduleda meeting with the property owners for May 20 at 8 a.m.; following that meeting staff willcompile all the commentsreceived and will bring that to Council on June 8 at which time staff will report to Council on the identified concerns and issues and how those issues can be addressed, whether through a code text amendment or if a comprehensive plan amendment would be necessary; and at the June 8 meeting after staff’s report, staff will seek council’s direction on how to move forward; and she explained that process is the process which staff will generally follow for each zoning district. Concerning the Gateway Commercial Avenue and Gateway Commercial Center zones, Ms. Barlow went through her PowerPoint presentation showing the general area of those two zoning districts; she explained the areas are on the west end of the Subarea plan and extend from Argonne west to the I-90 Sprague ramp; she said this area is characterized by auto sales and other auto-oriented services and sales, and other uses such as restaurants, retail, adult entertainment, home repair; she described the zones as an “auto themed specialtydistrict” and said the area is evolving into a destination auto-retail area which is what the plan envisions for the area; she said the development regulations and uses strengthen and support that so it can continue to develop as a destinationauto area. Ms. Barlow explained that the difference between the Gateway CommercialAvenue and the Gateway Commercial Center is the Avenue has some different standards which allow the form to be more auto-oriented and is set back further from the road and caters to people who will drive up, while the Center’s focus is for clusters of development where peoplemight drive, park, and have numerous visits; and she saidthese two zoning districtsare exemplaryof the entire pattern of development in the Subarea plan, which is segments and centers, with the Gateway Commercial Avenue as the segment that links the two centers geared toward more pedestrian-type development. Regarding allowed uses, Ms. Barlow explained that Gateway Avenue uses include auto-oriented development, gas stations, and complimentaryretailing services generally categorizedas medium box sales and services, and fast food restaurants, (not full service), and a limited range of light industrial uses. She said the Gateway Center allowed uses include all those included in the Gateway Avenue area, with the addition of full service restaurants, bars, nightclubs, entertainment and recreation uses such as theatres, bowling, financial institutionsand outdoor recreation uses; and lodging; and a range of civic, Council Meeting Minutes:05-18-2010Page 11of 15 Approved by Council: DRAFT institutionaluses such as schools, governmental offices and churches. Planner Barlow also showed the zone district comparisons from 2003 to 2010, including the current SARP zone, pre-SARP zone, and the interim zone, which was the county’s zoning at the time this city incorporated; and she showed map excerpts of where those zones were and are located and she reviewed and summarized the comparisons and changes. Councilmember Grassel asked how the determinations were made on what to consider in the Gateway Commercial and Avenue zones, and how were grocery shops, butcher shops, clothing or drug stores not included. Ms. Barlowsaid those are examples of small scale retail and unless included in a large department store, the clothing is generally small scale retailor specialtystore; and said those particular uses under this plan are regulated to theCity Center and to Neighborhood Centers. City Attorney Connelly offered that perhaps the gist of the question is why those are not allowed in the Gateway zone. Ms. Barlow explained that they are not allowed in the Gateway zone as the whole plan is premised on delegating certain uses to certain areas based on the thought that when you start to consolidate certain uses, you create a more successful environment for those uses; and when you start to develop the zoning districts for the auto-themed district, then there is really not a connection between an auto-themed district and those types of uses, and reminded everyone that an auto-themed district is intendedto be a destination, so persons interested in going to that area are not going to go to that area to go to a butcher shop or a drug store; and said those uses are allowed along the Sprague/Appleway corridor but in different segments or different centers. Councilmember Grafos said in speaking to the auto-themed area in the SARP, he said you get to that auto-themed destination by restricting property values or property uses by these zone changes, because you are restricting those uses, automobile-themed uses to that area, and designating that as an area and are trying to move those uses to that area. Ms. Barlow said while that is the case, it is no different from any other category in place, and explained thatzoning is used as a tool to dictate what uses are allowed in any zoningdistrict; and in this particular case, automobilerelated uses are allowed in the Gateway Commercial and Gateway Center. Councilmember Grafos said in looking at the zoning matrix, a lot of uses are restricted that were previously allowed under the interim zoning, such as ambulance service, applicants sales, and others; and Planner Barlow said that those types of uses in the past where generally allowed in all the commercial zoning districts, where now these particular zoning districts are limiting the types of commercial uses; and she said by conducting the analysis based on a field inventory that staff did earlier this year where staff actually drove the entire area to identify what uses are in place, and compared them with allowed uses under the Subarea plan, she said what staff found was in these two districts, 94% of the uses are conforming; and said the conclusion that can be drawn from that is that the area is already naturally transitioning to the very concept that is being envisioned; and she acknowledged that may not be the case with all the zoning districts within the Subarea plan, but in coming up with that 94% figure, it is making the change on its own. Councilmember Grafos said probably half of the building structures and signs in that location are nonconforming; and said the uses are high but the existing buildings probably don’t meet any of the regulations or the standards if those buildings were expanded in those zones. Mr. Barlow said staff did not do an inventory of the buildings, and she acknowledgedthat Mr. Grafosis correct in that the inventory staff conducted was just to identify the uses. Councilmember Gothmannsuggested that one of the questions for Councilto consider is, what would compliment such businessesas Appleway Toyota and encourage them to expand, and suggesteda butcher shop, clothing shop or adult entertainment establishment might not; butsaid if such is already in place it would be grandfathered. Planner Barlow explained that the site development standards for this subarea plan are unique as this is in part, a form-based plan; which means we use the site development standards not only for safety, but to ensure we are getting a specific form, and said some of the items regulated under the site development standards include setbacks, heights, buildingorientation, public and private frontage, andmaximum building length, which all lend to assuring that we get a human scale environment; and she said some of Council Meeting Minutes:05-18-2010Page 12of 15 Approved by Council: DRAFT the things listed are typical of the current development regulations, but what is not typical, is that within the site developmentstandards inthe subarea plan there are minimums and maximums, and she discussed minimum and maximum setbacks in the Gateway zones. Concerning signs, Councilmember Grafos gave a scenario if someone wanted to open a car dealership in the gateway area and purchased ten vacant acres that bordered on Sprague and Appleway,he asked what would be allowed for signage and could a sign be erected on Sprague and Appleway, and what kind of sign would be allowed; and asked if he could place a buildingon Appleway and on Spragueif the dealership went through to both areas, and asked what would the orientation have to be for that building, where would the cars be displayed; and said these are some of the thoughts that the car dealers have and are very important to them and their business. Ms. Barlow said in terms of signs, all the signs he mentioned would be appropriate and she will address signs a little further into her presentation, and regarding frontage requirement, she explained there are a lot of “ifs” but if you bought a ten-acre site, the requirement for frontage in the zoning districts is 30 or 50% depending on which zoning district; and vehicle display would be allowed in both zoning districts and she said there are specific provisions within the Subarea plan regarding vehicle display, and said depending on the site proposed, staff might have to look at how that might be developed in termsof which frontage which take precedence, because if there is a piece of property extending from Sprague to Appleway, she said there are building orientation requirements and staff would have to look at how hierarchy would play out, and would probably want to discuss if you wanted to develop the entire site or how it would be impacted if the area were divided into smaller lots for lease,which might be more amenable, and said staff could work through thatand staff would have to have more detail for any scenario. Mr. Grafos said he could end up with one row of cars on Appleway and then a building oriented east and west; and said since hewould have a maximum setback, he’d be stuck with that; and further speculated that if he wanted to build a building on Appleway and one on Sprague, he’d be stuck with thesesetback; and said he is trying to visualize what an investor or a new dealer coming into the area who istrying to determine what that dealership would look like; and added if he was an existing dealership like Toyota, maybe there is a small building with a lot of cars, what happens if that building burns to the ground; and asked if there is a 3,000 square foot building with cars in front of that building, and has a total loss, then because the zone has changed to the Gateway commercial, now he’s stuck with the new regulations, and said what could happen is that the existing dealership would now have to conform to the new regulations which say that the maximum setback would be 35’ and it would have a certain front requirement, and it would be completely changed and perhaps he would need to move the signage. CouncilmemberDempsey said councilhas discussed this scenario of Appleway and Spragueand the businessesin between, and asked if there was some way to dig in the archives and find out what solution was arrived at the time it was discussed; and Mr. Jackson said staff can research that; and Mr. Connelly said most of the discussions dealt with mixed use zones and the residential requirements; and Councilmember Dempsey said she recalled a discussionabout the auto zone an what happens if you have property that touches both Appleway and Sprague. Ms. Barlow said there is also a different issue of the split parcels, but said that is not the case in these zoning districts, and said none of the parcels in the Gateway CommercialAvenue or Gateway Commercial Center are affected by the split-zoningdistrict, and she said that was a unique situation for the Community Boulevard zone. Ms. Barlow, to answer Mr. Grafos'scenario about a structure being burnt down 100%, explained that the current regulations allow the owner to rebuildbut it would need to be re-built to the current regulations. CouncilmemberGothmann added that is true throughout the entire city; and said when this was previously discussed, Council asked the auto dealers for their input, and said many of the things referred to, such as the 30’ setback, came from the auto dealers. Ms. Barlow said tonight’s meeting is to give council information and help council become more familiar with the zoning district; and said she is aware there are those with concerns who will be at the Thursdaymeeting, and after that meeting, staff will see what they can do to address those concerns. Council Meeting Minutes:05-18-2010Page 13of 15 Approved by Council: DRAFT Ms. Barlow then explained about the public and private frontage development regulations; explained that the purpose of the architectural standards is to make sure we are getting the human scale of the buildings, and explained that the section contains standards and guidelines, and said that standards are mandatory, and guidelines are optional; she said there are two categories of standards, the facade and the roof category; and discussed some of the required architectural standards. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded, and unanimously agreed to extend the meeting for thirty minutes. Mayor Towey said he was absolutely amazed at the details that a normal person couldn’t understand; and he read the top element: “a substantial, horizontal articulation of the street wall applied at the top of the upper-most floor of the façade to result in termination of the façade that provides an attractivefaçade skyline and the completion of the upper façade composition” and he asked what does that mean. Ms. Barlow said that means you need to cap your wall; and Mayor Towey asked why it wasn’t written as such, and Ms. Barlow said they are architects, that it is a requirement, but it doesn’t state exactlyhow that has to be provided which leaves it open for the developer to decide, and she said there is a whole range of ways to meet that requirement, from the simple to the ornate; and said her experiencesso far with builders is the requirements are met simply. Regarding signs, Ms. Barlow said this subarea plan regulates a large range of signs, and what attracts the most attention are wall signs, free-standing signs, and monument signs; she said temporary signs are regulated under the Municipal Code and the Subarea plan merely refers to the code so the subarea plan does not change how we currently regulate temporary signs. Ms. Barlow said her focus tonight is on wall signs, and she said in comparing what was regulated to what is now regulated, the wall sign area was reduced from 25% under the pre-subarea plan down to 15% of the total wall area under the subarea plan; and said the subarea plan regulates where walls signs are permitted and it requires it be below the second floor. Regarding freestandingsign regulations, Ms. Barlow said the subarea plan allows for one freestandingsign per parcel compared with two freestandingsigns in the past. Councilmember Grafos said in his previous scenario of the car dealer, he could not put a sign on Appleway as it is only required on one frontage now; and Ms. Barlow said the car dealer would be limited to Sprague, and she explained that only properties fronting on Sprague are permitted free-standing signs. Ms. Barlow said for monument signs, you are permitted one sign per arterial street frontage whereas the previous regulations allowed two monument signs per arterial frontage; and the height limit was reduced from seven to six feet, but the area is essentially the same. Councilmember Grassel asked about landscaping standards, and Ms. Barlow said all the setback areas within the plan are requiredto be landscaped, but unless it is a parking lot, this subarea plan doesn’t state specificallywhat the landscaping will look like; but merely states it will be landscaped with minimum ground cover and vegetation. For parking lots, she said there are specific regulationssimilarto parking lot landscaping regulations contained in the municipal code. CouncilmemberGrassel said she was travelling to Lowe’s a few days ago, but couldn’t see the sign from a distance because the trees blocked the sign; and she inquiredabout any changes that might need to be made to address that. Ms. Barlow said that has not been brought up in the past; and said she is sure there are times when landscaping and signs conflict, but has also seen when signage and landscape works, and saidstaff can solicit feedback if that could be an issue; but said she hasn’t heard that to-date; and said she can check with code enforcement and others to see if there have been such complaints in the past; and in response to Ms. Grassel’s question about who owns trees, Ms. Barlow said she will check. Councilmember Gothmann said he is aware of one person who complained. Mayor Towey thanked staff for the information and presentation. Mr. Jackson clarified that this Thursday’s meeting is for the general public and the propertyowners, so everyoneis invitedand encouraged to attend. 8.Advance Agenda –Mayor ToweyThere were no suggested additions to the advance agenda. Council Meeting Minutes:05-18-2010Page 14of 15 Approved by Council: DRAFT 9.Council Check-in –Mayor ToweyMayor Towey and Councilmembers had no comments. 10.City Manager Comments –Mike Jackson City Manager Jackson said last week Council discussed the Broadway safety project and asked staff to prepare a motion for a future council meeting to consider taking that off the TransportationImprovement Plan (TIP); and said we have until the end of next year’s constructionseason to complete that project, and an alternative to immediately taking it off the TIP would be to have a motion to suspend the project; and said in the meantimestaff is working on a bike and pedestrian plan and could have other information in making that determination; and said council could make such a decision sometimenext year. Mayor Towey said now that there are two sections, Pines to Sullivan and Pines to Park that are completely different, in that one is three-lane and the other four-lane, he asked if there is any data that could be compiled regarding safety within that delay time. PublicWorks Director Kersten said staff continues to examine data and could do that, but cautions that a year or two of data is not statistically valid, and said perhaps seven or eight years would provide valid data; but said staff can examine that at council’s direction; and there would be no harm in postponing it and reviewing additional data. Councilmember Dempsey said she feels this has been lengthyexamination, studyingand planning of this and she questionedwhy we woulddelay this any further. Councilmember Grassel said since we will be spending $250,000 and the former council said in their statements about the Broadway plan that they only wanted to do down to Sullivan because they weren’t sure if it made a difference regarding safety; and said to perhaps take seven or eight years to get the data; and said Council was previously told of the need for $4 million for street preservation and maintenance, and said now we’re going to do a projectand it is still tax dollars. Councilmember Dempsey said this is not the same money; and comes out of different pockets and CouncilmemberGothmann said this is money based on taxesalready paid, and asked do we want to get it back here or let it go someplace else. Councilmember Grassel questioned if this is the project to spend those funds on; especially when council will be holding a budget retreat in July and we are facing a deficit in the next three or four years; she said those are the questions Council needs to answer for the constituents.Councilmember Gothmann mentioned several studies done in other states show that going from four lanes to three provides added safety. CouncilmemberDempsey gave an example of the problems in driving and backing up and said she favors moving to the tree lanes; Deputy Mayor Schimmels suggestedmoving this forward; and Mr. Jackson said if we were to wait and bring a motion forward to approve the contract, we would have spent the design money and he asked if Councilprefers a future motion to suspend the projector to remove it permanentlyfrom the TIP thus ending the project. CouncilmemberGrassel said she prefers to suspend this issue until we have full council present; Councilmember Grafos said he also would like to have it suspended; and Mayor Towey said hewould like to have it suspended and gather more data. Mr. Jackson said staff will bring that motion forward for council deliberation and vote. 11.Executive Session: Pending Litigation [RCW 42.30.110(i) It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreedto adjourn into Executive Session for approximatelythirty minutes to discuss pending litigation, and that no action is anticipated thereafter. Council adjourned into executive Session at 9:24 p.m. At approximately 9:39 p.m., Mayor Towey declared Council out of Executive Session. It was then moved by Councilmember Dempsey, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn.The meeting adjourned at 9:40 p.m. ATTEST: ________________________________________ Thomas E. Towey, Mayor _____________________________ Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Council Meeting Minutes:05-18-2010Page 15of 15 Approved by Council: DRAFT MINUTES City of Spokane Valley City Council Regular Meeting Formal Meeting Format Tuesday,May 25, 2010 Mayor Toweycalled the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Attendance: City Staff:______________________________ Tom Towey, MayorMike Jackson,ActingCity Manager Gary Schimmels, Deputy MayorMike Connelly, City Attorney Rose Dempsey, CouncilmemberKen Thompson, Finance Director Bill Gothmann, CouncilmemberNeil Kersten, Public Works Director Dean Grafos, CouncilmemberGreg McCormick, Planning Manager Brenda Grassel, CouncilmemberSteve Worley, Senior Engineer Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer Absent: Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk Bob McCaslin, Councilmember INVOCATION: Pastor David Thorin, retired Chaplain,gave the invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: A member of Boy Scout Troop 400 led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll; all councilmemberswere present except CouncilmemberMcCaslin. It was moved byCouncilmemberGrafos, seconded and unanimously agreed to excuse CouncilmemberMcCaslin. APPROVAL OF AMENDED AGENDA: It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the amendedagenda. INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS: COMMITTEE, BOARD, LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS: Councilmember Gothmann:reported that he attended “Navy Week” where a Navy admiral spoke about the Navy’s helping role in Iraq; went to the Greenacres Park Open House, which he said was well attended; attended the Discovery Park Open House and said it was a tremendous event with people from all over; met with the Housing and Community Development Advisory Committee where projects for low income housing were discussed; attended the leadership prayer breakfast with the former President of Whitworth University; attended the “2163” meeting concerning funds for the homeless; attended the Board of Health executive meeting and said within the next month or so the Health Department will have an emphasis on helmets, and said perhaps this is an opportunity for this council to consider helmet regulations and he suggested inviting Health Department Director Dr. Joe McCullough to visit our council meeting and give a presentation on the Board’s future plans; he attended the Chamber of Commerce breakfast; also attended a 911 Board meeting where they discussed penalties for making harassing phone calls to 911,and the release of phone numbers of people who ask that they be notified in case of a catastrophe. Councilmember Dempsey:reported that she attended the SVBA (Spokane Valley BusinessAssociation) meeting; the Discovery Park open house; the Leadership Breakfast where the speaker discussed the need to work together instead of against each other, attended last week’s discussionhere on the zoning of the Council Regular Meeting5-25-2010Page 1of 8 Approved by Council: DRAFT GatewayAvenue and Gateway Commercial areas and said staff gave a good presentation and there were lots of questions and discussion. Councilmember Grafos:said he attended the DiscoveryPlayground grand opening; the Greenacres Park events; and the STA (Spokane Transit Authority) monthly meeting where they discussed sales tax revenues, and that the first four months of the year Spokane County’s revenues are down about 3.5%, Spokane city’s revenues are down about 1%;and Spokane Valley’s are down about 5%; and said this is an issue to be addressed by the council at the July budget retreat as 53% of the City’s revenues come from sales tax. Deputy Mayor Schimmels: said he attended the DiscoveryPark opening; the SRTC (Spokane Regional Transportation Council) meeting and committee meeting along with the STA Board, and said there was a Sprague/Appleway meeting here last Thursday but he was unable to attend as he was attending a Solid Wastemeeting where they discussed the burn plant and the bonds getting paid off the end of next year. Councilmember Grassel:said she also attended the Chamber of Commerce sponsored Navy breakfast; went to the Discovery Park opening and gave congratulations to Mike Stone for a wonderful park; attended the prayer leadership breakfast and said they hada good turnout; and went to the Spokane Valley meeting for citizens last week concerning the Gateway zones, and said there was a great turnout and lots of good input. MAYOR’S REPORT: Mayor Towey said he went to the Discovery Playground opening; he ran the Windermere half-marathon which started at the playground and he noticed there were lots of children using the playground; attended the Spokane Valley Gateway zoning meeting; attended the CampFire WoHeLo Awards where two of our Valley teams were awarded the WoHeLo badge, which is the highest badge obtainable. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Towey invited general public comments. Jack Riley,of Plantation Restaurant on Vista andSprague;said thereare a lot of businesses on the one- way coupletthat havefor-sale or for-lease signs; he said propertyvalues are going down, sales tax is going downand he mentioned First Choice Auto Sales relocated to the north side; he said jobs are being lost and allvery concerned and property values are depreciating; he said the people who live here will move out and go to where they can find employment; he suggestedthe revitalizationplan doesn’t seem to be working; and said Sprague needs to be turned back to a two-way street; he said if it continues, there will only be a few big businesses and the rest vacant land; and said when wecan’t collect taxes from businesses, it will revert back to the homeownersand said saving on the one-way street doesn’t seem to be worth it. Joseph Edwards, 16104 East Rich Ave:regarding traffic at Trent and Lillian, he said he can’t do anything withthe state and he’d appreciateCouncil trying to get a leftturn going east to turn lefton Lillian; said there have been several wrecks and rear-end collisions and he was almost involved in one himself; he said the City of Spokane Valley should be divided into districts for the council members and said on his street, Rich Avenue, there is no representation from Council members inthat area and suggested the city be divided into districts so people have a choice. Dr. Hinkle,11916 East SpragueAvenue:read his prepared written comments: “To Spokane Valley Police Department. Please, answer the following questions. Police Officer: B. Hert. Answer 1. In what year did bicycle helmets become mandatory?: In the city of Spokane Valley, bicycle helmets are NOT REQUIRED. 2. In the year 2009 how many bicyclists were given a citation for not Answer wearing a helmet? *: ZERO, NONE. 3. In 2009 how many bicyclists were given a traffic Council Regular Meeting5-25-2010Page 2of 8 Approved by Council: DRAFT Answer: citation for riding on the sidewalk?*None. It is NOT against the law to ride a bicycle on the sidewalk. 4. In 2009 how many bicyclists were given a traffic citation for riding at night with NO Answer lights on their bicycle?*: He doesn’t know. He referred me to the window of the Spokane County court that handled citations for the Spokane Valley city. They did not know & referred me to the county court clerk downtown. He called me back the next day & said he could not find any RCW’s on this because the legislature does not group all bicycle codes together. He did say he found an RCW where you are not SUPPOSE TO RIDE YOUR BICYCLE ON THE SIDEWALK. So I asked him how He could not give me an answer. many citations were written forthis infraction in 2009. *So on the city council meeting of meeting of 11 May 2010, council woman Dempsey said, it is against the law to ride your bike on the sidewalk? End of discussion, do the Pines to Park Street Project. Whoa, not so fast council woman Dempsey. I challenge you to tell us who told you that it was against the law to ride a bike on the sidewalk? ALSO, tell us how many citations were given in 2009 for this infraction?” Councilmember Dempsey responded andsaid that Spokane Valley Police Chief Rick VanLeuven told her it was illegal to ride a bike on the sidewalk. IT IS AN ARCANE LAW which IS NOT ENFORCED Dr. Hinkle continued: “. I have lived inthe Spokane Valley over 40years and I have asked citizens who have livedhere over 70 years. NO ONE knows of anyone being cited for riding a bike on the sidewalk! So I stand by my statement that it is safer to bike ride on the sidewalk or on the CENTENNIAL TRAIL than in bike lanes. Also, I have given the councilthe REAL WORLD DATA from the WSDOT SHOWING for the last five yearsabout 104 bicyclists are injured every year from car/bicycle collisions. Also, there is about one bicycle fatality each *IN CONCLUSION year in the county, which includes the Spokane Valley. FROM PINES ROAD TO PARK ROAD on Broadway according to my odometer the distance is 2.95 miles. I have driven the complete distance four times in the last week to inspect what the project is about. I met with Mr. Ken Knudsen today & I ask him what the city is getting for nearly a million dollars? He could not answer all my questions & he promised to get back to me with the information. The exact project cost is State grant $746,400.00 = 80%. Spokane Valley’s $186,600.00 = 20%. $933,000.00. I said that is a lot of money to restripe the street. Mr. Knudsen said it is included. Some sidewalk work to be ADA compliant. He also said if there is any traffic signal work that it would be expensive. He said that he thought one traffic signal did not respond toPEDESTRIANS PUSHING the button to CROSS the street From my inspections & measuring the sidewalks: they are 95% in good to excellent shape, some are new. They are 4 feet or wider & some are new. Four feet is the width of the sidewalks on Broadway from Evergreen to Sullivan, so I assumed they must be compliant because there is the latest 4 lane to two lane project. Now Mr. Knudsen did say, if there are any utility poles & the sidewalk is not wide enough, that the poles would have to be relocatedbut the utility companies would be responsible to do this and it was very few utility not an expense to the nearlymillion dollars project. Again from my inspection, there are poles on the North side of Broadwayavenue between Park and Pines which are in the sidewalk. On the South side of Broadway avenue there are a number of poles in some stretches, but the sidewalks are in good to excellent condition, and so are most of the utility poles. This would mean perfectly good Foottraffic & bicycles can negotiate the sidewalks just as sidewalks would be dug up & replaced. they are. For wheelchairs, the North side of Broadway will allow safe travel. During the six months of million dollars to redo the South side, the yearthat a wheel chair might use the sidewalk is this worth a sidewalks on Broadway avenue?opinion In my humble , there are a lot more urgentways to spend the money. There are some minor repairsthat need to be correctlydone. HOT ASPHALT patching at the intersections onBroadway at Argonne & Mullen. This was not included in the road project. I also suggested to Mr. Knudsen that in years to come a concrete intersection would be useful & give longevity. He agreed & said it is in the future plans.” JeanRepp, South 3120 Raymond Circle:said she has propertyon Sprague and Appleway and that she wasn’t aware until way too late to come to the morning meeting; and said she was disappointed at missing Council Regular Meeting5-25-2010Page 3of 8 Approved by Council: DRAFT that; said it seems a lot of decisions were made about her property; said the last time she was here she was fighting to get a zoning change on her property andfinally got B2 and said the rest has been B3 for years; that they have owned it for 62 yearsand all of a sudden she is hearing she haslimited access to her property, and she asked why would she be limited on what she can do on her property; and she asked how does she get those answers.City ManagerJackson said a member of staff will contact her. Ms. Repp also said she wanted to know why her zoning was changed without her knowledge. Councilmember Grassel mentioned that we are still taking further comment for that particularzoneand the meeting wasn’t to make a decision but to gather input, and said no decision has been made yet; and City Attorney Connelly added that there will be a series of public meetings and people will have opportunity to address council, and there is plentyof time and opportunity to be heard. DickBehm9405 E Sprague:Mr. Behm read the following preparedwritten statement: “Broadway. At the last Council Meeting 4 people testified, 3 against and 1 for the improvementsto Broadway, none of these folkslive on Broadway. I have lived and worked 60 years in Dishman. For over 20 years I worked as a home delivery MILK MAN. The very worst area I had to deliver to was Broadway Ave.You can not pull into a driveway to deliver because then you would have to back out onto a very busy arterial. Illegal and also very scary because of the limited visibility when driving a truck. The safety problems that have existed on Broadway for over 60 years. (1) sidewalk right up to the curb. (2) utility poles right at the curb. (3) street drains (drywells) along curb create hazard to cars travelingin outside lanes. (4) residents on Broadway backing onto an arterial. (5) delivery to residents along Broadway. Home delivery of any type, including UPS, FedX, Mailman must park in the street, creating a hazard to themselves and traffic. There was some question about spending tax payer money on this safety project? Where do these funds come from? The Council should realize that the grant funds come from the gas tax. This money goes in a big, big pot in Olympia where it is allocated out to approved deserving projects throughout the State. To receive a grant for a project means we are getting our tax money back To make improvements to our City. To not receive or turn down a grant means our tax dollars are still going to be spent, only someone else will spend them, Seattle or King County. Etc., etc. The point being that as most of these funds already go to the west side of the State we should never miss the opportunity to get our tax dollarsback for the improvementsto our City. Staffshould be congratulated in their success in receiving these grants. The money for the matching funds does not come from the City General Fund it comes from the Real Estate Excise Tax and is earmarked for this purpose. It does not have any relationship to a possible deficit in the General Fund. Forthe safety of our citizens, pedestrians, bicyclists and auto drivers I ask that you move forward with the Broadway Project.” Mr. Behm added that in response to Mr. Hinkle, when Mr. Behm was pulling out of his driveway a kid rode by on the sidewalk and hit Dick’s car, and the kid was thrown off the bike and it was learned the bike didn’t have any brakes; and the kid didn’t get a ticket as a police officer is not going to ticket a twelve-year old riding a bike on the sidewalk; he said riding a bike on the sidewalk is illegal and it should be noted in the newspaper; adding that when thereis a bike lane, there is no excuse for riding a bike on the sidewalk. Diane Munger, 3409 N Wellington Place, Spokane, 99205:said she resides on the northwest side of town and is here representing some propertyon East Sprague and Appleway; said that there were several meetings last week regarding zoning studies and the recent newspaper articles were confusing regarding those studies; she said she called City Hall and searched the Internet and found nothing about the scheduling of those meetings, nor the results of the meetings nor an agenda; and she asked how the results were determined and said she can’t find any answers; she said the newspaper articles have been inconclusive and not very complimentary regarding council; and said the point is that notices may be very inadequate and said that perhaps there is a better way to let citizens know what’s happening. With Mayor Towey’s permission, City Clerk Bainbridge read the following two additional public comments, which she explained she received via emailwith the request that she read them at tonight’s meeting: Council Regular Meeting5-25-2010Page 4of 8 Approved by Council: DRAFT (1) “To City of Spokane Valley Council, from Bob Glaza, 16321 E Valleyway, 99037, Regarding Broadway-Pines to Park safety Project. Please read during open comment period of May 25, 2010 City Council session, if possible. I am unable to attend. A few years back, the City decided to restripe Broadway from Sullivan to Pines. Broadway changed from a frantic four lanes to a much quieter –and safer –two lanes with a turning lane in the middle. At thesame time, bike lanes were striped in each direction. While I drive an automobile for most trips greater than 20 miles, I use a bicycle and am a daily “neighborhood” walker. I noticed the traffic slow down almost overnight. Admittedly, I am sensitive to speeders as I live on the current alternate route for improvements at Sullivan/Broadway and Sullivan/Sprague. Any slowing of traffic speeds is a good thing in my opinion. Earlier this spring, I read in my Hot Topics newsletter (thanks for sending to citizens, by the way) that Broadway from Pines to Park was scheduled to receive the same treatment. I was thrilled. Particularly exciting was the grant that will pay for 80% of the project. That means my 20% in taxes goes four times as far? Where else do you find somebody kicking in 75 cents for every quarter you spend? Next I read the Council was about to cancel the Broadway –Pines to Park Safety project. Now I read the Council wants to delay the project. I’m having a difficult time understanding the reasoningand the hesitation. The project enhances safety around four schools –N Pines Jr. High, Broadway Elementary, Ness Elementary and Centennial Middle School –by slowing traffic and easing congestion. The project will make it easier for homeowners to enter and exit their driveways. The project will extend the route of cyclists and pedestrians nearly to the I- 90 exchange. Following this summer’s project on the Broadway –Conklin to Flora Improvement, that means the City of Spokane Valley will have a near complete bikeway from Flora to Park. The project signals to our surrounding communities –Spokane and Liberty Lake –that the City of Spokane Valley is a partner in working toward a more environmentally aware region. The project is essentially paid for with a grant covering 80% of the cost. It’s time to ask the Council if it wants to be known as the group that helped the City of Spokane Valley toward a more sustainable future. Or do we continue to postpone and delay? I’m asking for no delay on this project. Sincerely –Bob Glaza, Spokane Valley, WA 99037” (2) “Chris could you please read this during the public testimony portion of the City Council meeting: The American flag represents many things to many people and its treatmentand presentationcan evoke many forms of passion. Yesterday when Mike Jackson learned that the flag in front of the police station was weather worn to a disgraceful state, he took immediate action. Literally within minutes, Mike had the weather worn flag retired and replaced. Mike is to be commended for his respect and his response. Signed an American Veteranliving in the Spokane Valley.” Councilmember Gothmann explained that some timeagohe was making a turn and a young man traveling extremely fast on his bicycle hitMr. Gothmann’s car as Mr. Gothmann was pulling out to make his turn, and the bicyclist hit the car hood upon impact; and said when Mr. Gothmann got out to help the bicyclist, the bicyclist ranoff; that Mr. Gothmann reported this incident to the State Patrol, and said one doesn’t expect a bicyclists going 25 mph on a sidewalk, but had that individual been in the traffic/bike, lane, he would have been more visible. 1.PUBLIC HEARING: Six Year 2011 –2016 Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) –Steve Worley Mayor Towey openedthe public hearing at 6:50 p.m.Engineer Worley explained that Council had a briefing May 4 on projects listed in the TIP, and said he is glad to answer questions and to open the floor for public comment relative to this hearing; and noted the error in the packet where the TIP indicates it is draft “adopted” but said this is the TIP, and Deputy Mayor Schimmels emphasized that, adding that this is a work in progress, and not something to take lightly. Mr. Worley said the projects are those to consider in the next six years anddoes not mean we will receivefunding for all those projects; and said sometimes a grant opportunity becomes known and a differentproject meets the criteria better thanthe current project, and said the document is flexible and is a guide to identify the needed transportation draft projects, and once adopted, can be amended; and noted there are copies of this TIP on the council Council Regular Meeting5-25-2010Page 5of 8 Approved by Council: DRAFT chambers ledge for members of the public. Mayor Towey invited public comment; no comments were offered and Mayor Towey closed the public hearing at 6:55 p.m. Mr. Worley said if Council has any questions or suggestions on other projects to consider, staff is willing to lookat those and bring that back when this comes back before for formal adoption.CouncilmemberGothmann said that in previously speaking with Mr. Worley, there are actually one and a half staff who work on getting most of these grants, that the millions of dollars we receive is amazing, and he thanked staff for their diligence. 2.CONSENT AGENDA: Consists of items considered routine which are approved as a group. Any member of Council may ask that an item be removed from the Consent Agenda to be considered separately. a. Approval of the following claim vouchers: VOUCHER LIST DATEW/VOUCHER NUMBERS: TOTAL AMOUNT 5/07/20103150-3152, 3160, 20136-20140$210,654.64 5/07/201020141-20151$18,030.97 5/10/201020152-20183, 51010002, 505100005$507,251.15 5/12/201020184-20199$23,043.38 5/14/201020200-20204$35,195.20 5/14/201020205-20238, 513100047$257,577.67 5/17/201020239$100.00 5/18/20103162-3164$54,407.37 GRAND TOTAL$1,106,260.38 b. Approval of Payroll for Period Ending May 15, 2010: $240,651.17 c. Approval of Study Session Format Council Meeting Minutes of May 4,2010 It was moved byDeputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreedto approve the consent agenda. NEW BUSINESS: 3.Proposed Resolution Supporting “ChangePoint Spokane”–Cary Driskell Itwas moved byCouncilmemberGothmann and seconded to adopt the Resolution declaring support to ChangePoint Spokane to provide community education regarding effective ways to donate money to achieve broader benefits for individuals in need of assistance.As discussed previously, Deputy City Attorney Driskell explainedthat this isn’t so much a panhandling issue but more of a support issue as noted in section 1 of the resolution which declares Spokane Valley Council’s support for the educational outreach program conducted by ChangePoint, which seeks to inform the general public about more effective ways to assist the homeless instead of givingmoney to panhandlers; and said we are not adopting or paying for anything, simply expressing support as stated. Mayor Towey invited public comment. Joseph Edwards, 16104East Rich Avenue: 991216: said he runs a taxi service in Spokane Valley and he gets around places where panhandlers stay, said some are homeless but a lot are not; that he seesthe same ones daily on the street corners, and they’re not homeless and wear better shoesthen he does;he said panhandlersare a menaceto the public and he gave an example of a person giving food to a panhandlers and said the panhandlercussed out the person donating;and reiterated that they aren’t homeless, they choose to live that way. Councilmember Gothmann thanked Mr. Edwards for participating in this process and of his volunteeringto assist; and said national statistics show that only 15% of those professing to be homeless, actually are homeless, and that homeless and panhandlersare two separate groups; and an ineffective way to use the charitable dollar would be to give to panhandlers as 80% of funds they collect are used for drugs and alcohol.Vote by Acclamation to approve the resolution: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. Council Regular Meeting5-25-2010Page 6of 8 Approved by Council: DRAFT 3a Motion Consideration: 2010 Calls for Projects –Steve Worley It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded to approve the list of projects as presented for the Freight Mobility Strategic Investment Board 2010 Call for Projects and authorize the Mayor to sign the Project Application certificationsfor each application.Engineer Worley apologized for bringing this issue tonight on shortnotice and explained that staff failed to recognize that this grantapplication requires the Mayor’s signature, and that the deadline to submit is this Friday; that they have two projects identified that staff feels meet the criteria for this; e.g. the Sullivan Road West Bridge reconstruction; and the Barker Road Overpassat Trent Avenue,SR 290. Mr. Worley described the projects as noted on the May 25, 2010 Request for Council Action form. Mr. Worley said the cost of the bridge project is enormous. Mayor Towey invited public comment. Joseph Edwards, 16104East Rich Avenue: 991216asked if there would be enough funding to build an overpass over the railroad, and Mr. Worley said that this is the reason for the project, and this would be similar to the current interchange on Sullivan. Councilmember Grassel said she doesn’t want to get into another situationwhere they have to consider whether to accept a grant or not, and she asked if tonnage data will be provided. Mr. Worley said since both roads exist, there is already truck and tonnagedata on both projects; he added that this project is large and staff will try to get our cost down as low as possible, and said that Burlington Northern Railroad will also be required to contribute up to 5%; and he said as grants become available, staff will determine how much city funds would be needed, but that is not a requirement at this point on how much city funds would go into the project. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Mayor Towey, Deputy Mayor Schimmels, and Councilmembers Gothmann, Dempsey and Grafos. Opposed: CouncilmemberGrassel. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Towey invited general public comments. Dick Behm, Spokane Valley Business Association:Mr. Behm read the following prepared written th statement: “TV Council meetings. On Tuesday June 29the Spokane Valley Business Association Sponsorship of the television of City CouncilMeetings will end. This has been a very successful program and the SVBA committed to a 6 month trial of televising the City Council and can not afford to continue after that time. We had hoped that the city would assume that responsibility and perhaps the City will yet decide to continue the program. I would hope everyone would thank CMTV for recording and showing the Council Meetings every Monday night. It is a public service that we should all appreciated. As I understand it the 35cent peg fee is a joint responsibility of the City of Spokane Valley, City of Spokaneand Spokane County to help fund public access and educational cable channels. We believe it is very important to the citizensof Spokane Valley to have access to thesechannels. Many students rely on the local collages programs that weretelevisedon channels 15 to 19. In addition the programming shown on public access channel 14 (CMTV) has a large following. We would hope that the Council would seriously consider the consequences of reopening the cable contract which took 5 years to negotiate. If you shoulddecide not to collect the 35 cent fee, it is not too far a stretch to believe that Comcast would or could remove access to Public Access and Educational Channels to citizens in the Spokane Valley. That would be a hugedisservice to our citizens. Dick Behm, Spokane Valley Business Association.”Mr. Behm added that he discovered that 30,000 studentsin our area rely on these public accesschannels, and said he feels council should seriously consider the consequences for whatever action might occur as a result of opening that contract. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS : thth 4. Street Vacation STV 01-10 (part of 16Ave., west of 16and Kahuna) –Karen Kendall Prior to explaining the proposal, Assistant Planner Kendall gave an overview of state law regarding street vacations, and discussed Spokane Valley City Resolution 07-009 concerning evaluation compensation required to move forward for a street vacation; then she gave the background of this proposal which is as a result of applicant Alan Gay, USHK on behalf of abutting propertyowners with two-thirdsownership, Council Regular Meeting5-25-2010Page 7of 8 Approved by Council: DRAFT thth to request a vacationof a portion of 16Avenue; she said the right-of-way is unimproved; 16Avenue th was originally dedicated in 1907 through the Woodland Terrace Plat and was named 14Avenue, later thth changed to 16Avenue, and is locatedeast of the proposed vacation, approximately 362 feet of 16 Avenue was vacated in 1996 by Spokane County. She explained that a public hearingwas held before the Planning Commission May 13, 2010, and the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend approval subject to conditions; and she noted that no public comments have been received.There was council consensusto bring this forward for a first reading at the June 8 council meeting. 5. Code Text Amendments CTA 02-10–Lori Barlow Via the PowerPoint presentation, Planning Manager McCormick standing in for Planner Barlow, explained the proposed code textamendments; said that the Planning Commission held a public hearing May 13, 2010; that the original proposal included an amendment to the “kennel” definition, and the Planning Commission continued the public hearing on that definition, and passed a motion to move the remaining three proposed amendments on to the Council for review, and said the kennel issue will come before council at a later date. There was council consensusto bring this forward for a first reading at the June 8 council meeting. 6. Advance Agenda Councilmember Gothmann re-stated his desire to invite the Health BoardDirectorto an upcoming council meeting. Concerning the SARP schedule, City Manager Jackson said staff will post the schedule on the website so people can plan ahead; and there was brief discussion concerning the need to contact those who make comments at council meetingsso that their concerns can be addressed; and Councilmember Grafos suggested having commentcards at thepublic zoning meetings. Mr. Jacksonsaid staff will also make a CD for those interested in the meeting but wereunable to attend. INFORMATION ONLY: The department reports and ADA Self-Evaluation and Transition Plan were for information only and werenotreportedor discussed. It was moved byDeputyMayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m. ___________________________________ ATTEST: Thomas E. Towey, Mayor ____________________________________ Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Council Regular Meeting5-25-2010Page 8of 8 Approved by Council: DRAFT MINUTES SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING STUDY SESSION FORMAT Spokane Valley City HallCouncil Chambers Spokane Valley, Washington June 1, 2010 6:00 p.m. Attendance: CouncilmembersStaff _________ Tom Towey, Mayor Mike Jackson, ActingCity Manager Gary Schimmels, Deputy MayorMike Connelly, City Attorney Rose Dempsey, CouncilmemberNeil Kersten, Public Works Director Dean Grafos, Councilmember Kathy McClung, Community Development Dir. Brenda Grassel, CouncilmemberMike Stone, Parks & Recreation Director Greg Bingaman, IT Specialist Absent: Rick VanLeuven, Police Chief Bob McCaslin, CouncilmemberCarolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer Bill Gothmann, CouncilmemberChris Bainbridge, City Clerk _____________________________________________________________________________________ Mayor Towey called the meeting to order at 6 p.m. It was moved by Councilmember Grafos, seconded and unanimously agreed to excuse CouncilmembersMcCaslin and Gothmann from tonight’s meeting. 1.Greenacres Park Design Presentation–Mike Stone Parks and Recreation Director Stone explained that staff and the consultanthave been working with the neighborhood citizens for some time in developing the masterplan,and Mr. Stone introduced Mike Terrell,Design Consultant.Mr. Terrellwent through the PowerPoint presentation explainingthe GreenacresNeighborhood Park Master Planning process; he said over 500 surveys were mailed out and about 109 returned; and as noted the wall charts, which wereas a result of the public meeting, were used as a way to determine what citizens and neighborsperceivedas priorities for the park,and the dots on each section indicate the prioritizingof the elementsof the conceptual plan; and he addedthat there are 8.3 acres of park land and the phase 1 cost is an estimated 1.5 to 1.6 million dollars, which includes a contingencyof about $216,000. Mr. Stone mentioned that staff is in the process of applying for a development grant through the Recreation Conservation Office, which has steep competition but staff felt it important to go through the process; he said they are working on potential funding options and hope to present more to Council after the July finance meeting. There was also brief discussion about the previously granted $500,000 state grant, that the land was purchased and paidfor in 2007; what is included in the play areas, and that the skate park is included in phase 2; adding that additional phases could be implemented based on available funding options. Mr. Stone said we won’t know aboutthe grant until September and if successful, we won’t be allowed to break ground until the following July. Mr. Jackson added that the legislature is considering retractingsome of their capital projects they had funded so there could be a possibilityof having to re-examinefunding, and said that funding is always at risk until it is received. Mr. Terrell mentioned some of the aspects of the park, and said that the community garden is a placeholder, and that and other areas add flexibility to the uses of the park. The question of security cameras came up and Mr. Stone said it has been discussed, but none ofthe city’s parks have cameras, although the Discovery Playground would be the most logical place to have such; and acknowledged that sometimes just having the camera in place can be a deterrent. The numberof parking spaces was also discussed and Mr. Terrell said the park has 30 spaces, but there is ample parking around the perimeter of the park for over200 parking spaces. Mayor Towey thanked Mr. Stone and Mr. Terrell for the information, and for including the neighborhood at the onset. 2.SRTC (Spokane Regional Transportation Council) Update –Mike Connelly City Attorney Connelly said there has been ongoing negotiations concerning the interlocal agreement and went over the proposed changes; he said this agreement will be presented to the SRTC board this month, and once finalized, will go through the communities for eventual passage. After briefing Council on the Council Meeting Minutes:06-01-2010Page 1of 2 Approved by Council: DRAFT document changes, he said he also received a memo from Attorney Stanley Schwartz indicating these items have been sent to his client for discussion; and said in closing, that he would report back to council in about a month after SRTC reviews the document further. 3.Advance Agenda –Mayor ToweyThere were no advance agenda additions or changes. 4.Broadcasting Option –Greg Bingaman IT Specialist Bingaman said the agreement between Spokane Valley Business Association (SVBA) and Community Minded Television (CMTV) expires the end of June, and options for council consideration include continue as we have been, enter into an agreement with CMTV on a month-to-month basis until after the retreat when Council has more budget information, or not move forward, or any other option Council would like to pursue.Mr. Bingaham said the annual cost on a month-to-month basis with CMTV would be the $36,000he mentioned previously; and if council desires the monthly contract, staff would bring such agreement back for council approval. After discussion on having DVDs available, having the meetings available for replay on internet, and separating PEG fees from broadcasting therefore having the City purchase the equipment and use staff to run the cameras; it was determinedthat Mr. Bingaman will do some additional research concerning hosting this on the internet, including staff costs, and that staff will move forward with the month-to-month agreement while other options are being considered;it was mentioned that this issue is set for a motion for next week’s council meeting. 5.Computer “Notebook” Training –Greg Bingaman IT Specialist Bingaman said in response to Council’s request, tonight’s training is an overview on the use of the computer “notebook” or “tablet” that council has the option of using during Council meetings. Mr. Bingaman gave a brief overview of the functions of the tablet, and assisted councilmembersin working with the computer as a flat tablet or as a computer with the screen up as usual; and mentioned there is even a feature that he can set up on individual computers whereby councilmembers could “log on” by use of a fingertip touch, thereby eliminating the need to remember passwords. After moving through the tutorials, Mr. Bingaham said council has the option of going “paperless” for their council agenda packets, or could keep the hard copies, or some of each, completely at individual councilmember’s discretion; and said should any councilmember desire furthertraining, he is available for one-on-one training. 6.Information Only:The 2011 Budget, Paperless Council Agendas, and Bicycles on Sidewalks were for information only and were not reported on or discussed. 7.Council Check in –Mayor Towey.There were no council comments. 8.City Manager Comments –Mike Jackson Mr. Jacksonmentioned the upcoming Comcast agenda items for the June 8 meetingand the suspension of PEG fees and the motion considerationfor CMTV which was discussedtonight. 9.Executive Session: Pending Litigation [RCW 42.30.110(i)] Theexecutive session wasnot held. It was moved by CouncilmemberDempsey, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 7:32 p.m. ATTEST: ________________________________________ Thomas E. Towey, Mayor _____________________________ Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Council Meeting Minutes:06-01-2010Page 2of 2 Approved by Council: ßÎÛß ÌÑ ÞÛ ÊßÝßÌÛÜ ÌØ øÐÑÎÌ×ÑÒ ÑÚ ïê ßÊÛ÷ ßÎÛß ÌÑ ÞÛ ÊßÝßÌÛÜ ÌØ øÐÑÎÌ×ÑÒ ÑÚ ïê ßÊÛ÷ CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date:City Manager Sign-off June 8, 2010: ________ Item: Check all that apply :consent old business new business public hearing informationadmin. report pending legislation st AGENDA ITEM TITLE: reading proposed ordinance –Amendments to Spokane Valley Municipal 1 Code (SVMC) Chapters 17.20, 21.30 and 21.40.. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: SVMC 19.30.040 development regulation text amendments. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Administrative report to council on May 25, 2010. BACKGROUND: The City initiated text amendment is proposing amendments to Chapters 17.20, 21.30,and21.40 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code,to address developer’s responsibilities, recognize the 2010 Flood Insurance Study as the basis for establishing areas of special flood hazard, and provide a reasonable use exception for properties impacted by critical areas. Amendments to SVMC Chapters 17.20 and 21.40are proposedas a result of the WA Cities Insurance Authority2009 Annual Review and Auditcomments. During the review the Auditor recommended that the critical areas ordinance be amended to include a reasonable use provision to limit the cities land use liability exposure. The review also recommended that thecode contain language granting immunity to employees performing discretionary functions. Language has been drafted to address both situations asadditions to the code. The purpose of the amendment to Section 21.30.020 is to recognizethe July 6, 2010 Flood Insurance Study for Spokane County, Washington and Incorporated Areas, as the basis for identifying the flood hazard areas. Revised Flood Insurance Rate Maps are a part of the report. The revised Maps will become effective July6,2010.The 2010 maps correct the identification of certain flood hazard areas within the city. Staff presented the proposed amendments to the Planning Commission at a study session on April 22. The Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposal on May 13, 2010. The Commission passed a motionto move threeproposed amendmentson to the City Council for review. The kennel issue will come before you at a later date. APPROVAL CRITERIA: Section 17.80.150(6) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Codeprovides approval criteria for text amendments to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code. The criterion stipulates that the proposed amendment(s) must beconsistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and bear a substantial relation to the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment. OPTIONS: Advance the Ordinance to second reading as recommended by the Planning Commission, modify the proposal, or provide direction to staff. RECOMMENDED ACTION :Move to advance proposed code amendments to second reading of the ordinance at the June 15, 2010Council meeting. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS : None. STAFF CONTACT: Lori Barlow, AICP,Associate Planner st RCA Ordinance 1Reading for CTA-02-101of 2 ATTACHMENTS: (1)Exhibit 1: Draft Ordinance (2) Planning Commissions Findings and Recommendations st RCA Ordinance 1Reading for CTA-02-102of 2 DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON AMENDING ORDINANCE 07-015 SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE SECTIONS 21.30.020,AND ADDING SECTIONS 21.40.070 AND 17.20.020 BY UPDATING THE FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAPS THAT IDENTIFY SPECIAL FLOOD HAZARD AREAS TO REFLECT THE JULY 6, 2010 REPORTAND MAPS, ADDING DEVELOPER LIABILITY LANGUAGEAS IT RELATES TO DEVELOPMENT, AND ADDING A REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION TO THE CRITICAL AREAS ORDINANCE AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley (City) adopted the Uniform Development Code of the Spokane Valley MunicipalCode (SVMC) pursuant to Ordinance 07-015, on the 25th day of September, 2007; and WHEREAS, the SVMCbecame effective on 28th day of October, 2007; and WHEREAS, the amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of the City’s Comprehensive Plan, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, after reviewing the Environmental Checklists, the city issued anOptional Determination of Non-significance (DNS) for the proposal, published the DNS in the Valley News Herald, posted the DNS at City Hall,and at the main branch of the library, and mailed the DNS to all affected public agencies; and WHEREAS, the City provided a copy of the proposed amendment to Community Trade and Economic Development (CTED) initiating a 60 day comment period pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106; and WHEREAS, the amendedordinance as set forth bearsa substantial relation to the public health, safety and welfare and protection of the environment; and WHEREAS, onMay 13, 2010, the Commission reviewed the proposed amendments; and WHEREAS, the Commission received evidence, information, public testimony and a staff report and recommendation at a public hearing on May 13, 2010; and WHEREAS, the Commission deliberated on May 13, 2010; the Commission provided arecommendation; and WHEREAS, onMay 25, 2010, Council reviewed the proposed amendments; and WHEREAS, onJune 8, 2010, Council considered a first ordinance reading to adopt the proposed amendment; and NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL SPECIFICALLY ORDAINS AS SET FORTH BELOW: Section One: Pursuant to 19.30 of the SVMC, theCity adopts this ordinanceamending Chapter 17.20 PURPOSEby adding section 17.20.020 Liability as set forth below. Ordinance 10-Page 1of 4 DRAFT Chapter 17.20 PURPOSE Sections: 17.20.010General 17.20.020 Liability 17.20.010 General. These regulations have been established in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan for the purpose of promoting the health, safety, general welfare and protection of the environment of the City. They have been designed to reduce traffic congestion; to reduce the threat of fire, panic and other dangers; to provide adequate light and air; to prevent the overcrowding of land; to avoid undue concentration of population; to facilitate the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks and other public requirements; to safeguard community character; to encourage land uses in areas suitable for particular uses; to conserve the value of property; and to encourage the most appropriate use of land throughout the City. (Ord. 07-015 §4, 2007). 17.20.020 Liability This title shall not be construed to relieve or lessen the responsibility of a person owning, building, altering, constructing, or moving a building or structure, or developing a parcel or parcels of property as defined in the Uniform Development Code, nor shall the city or an agent thereof be held as assuming such liability by reason of inspection authorized in this title or a certificateof inspection issued by the city or any of its agencies. Section Two: Pursuant to 19.30 of the SVMC, the City adopts this ordinance amending section 21.30.020 Basis forestablishing areas of special flood hazardof Chapter 21.30,as set forth below. Chapter 21.30 FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS Sections: 21.30.010Purpose and applicability. 21.30.020Basis for establishing areas of special flood hazard. 21.30.030Compliance and enforcement. 21.30.040Abrogation and greater restrictions. 21.30.050Interpretation. 21.30.060Warning and disclaimer of liability. 21.30.070Administration. 21.30.080Variances. 21.30.090Provisions for flood hazard reduction. 21.30.100Additional requirements. 21.30.110Critical facilities. 21.30.020 Basis for establishing areas of special flood hazard. The areas of special flood hazard identified by the Federal Insurance Administration in a scientific and engineering report entitled "The Flood Insurance Study Spokane County, Washington and Incorporated Areas" dated May 17, 1988July 06, 2010, and any revisions thereto, with an accompanying Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), and any revisions thereto, are hereby adopted by reference and declared to be a part of this chapter. The Flood Insurance Study and the FIRM are on file at the office of the Spokane Valley floodplain administrator. (Ord. 07-015 §4, 2007). Section Three: Pursuant to 19.30 of the SVMC, the City adopts this ordinance amending chapter 21.40 by adding section 21.40.070 Reasonable Use Determination as set forth below. Ordinance 10-Page 2of 4 DRAFT Chapter 21.40 CRITICAL AREAS Sections: 21.40.010Purpose. 21.40.020Wetlands. 21.40.030Fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. 21.40.040Adjustment of habitat buffer areas. 21.40.050Geologically hazardous areas. 21.40.060Critical aquifer recharge areas. 21.40.070 Reasonable use determination 21.40.070 Reasonable usedetermination. A.The standards and regulations of this section are not intended, and shall not be construed or applied in a manner, to deny all reasonable economic use of private property. If an applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the City of Spokane Valley thatstrict application of the standards of the ordinancewoulddeny all reasonable use of theirproperty, development may be permitted subject to appropriate conditions, derived from this chapter, as determined bythe Community Development Director. B.Anapplicant for relief from strict application of these standards shall demonstrate the following: 1.That no reasonable use with less impact on the critical area and buffer or setback isfeasible and reasonable; and 2.That there is no feasible and reasonable on-site alternative to the activitiesproposed, considering possible changes in site layout, reductions in density and similar factors; and 3.That the proposed activities, as conditioned, will result in the minimum possible impacts to critical area and buffer or setback; and 4.That all reasonable mitigation measures have been implemented or assured; and 5.That the inability to derive reasonable economic use is not the result of the applicant’s actions. C.Decision. The Director shall include findings on each of the evaluation criteria listed above ina written decision. The written decision shall be mailed to the applicant and adjacent property owners, including property owners across public rights of way or private easements. The written decision shall include conditions necessary to serve the purposes of the ordinance. D.Process. A reasonable use determination is classified as a Type I permit and shall be processed pursuant to SVMC 17.80.070. Section Four: All other provisions of SVMC Title 17and Title 21 not specifically referenced hereto shall remain in full force and effect. Section Five: Severability.If any section, sentence, clause or phrases of this Ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, clause,or phrase of this Ordinance. Section Six: Effective Date. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect five (5) days after the publication of the Ordinance, or a summary thereof, occurs in the official newspaper of the City as provided by law. Ordinance 10-Page 3of 4 DRAFT Passed by the City Council thisday of_____, 2010. __________________________________ Mayor, Thomas E. Towey ATTEST : ___________________________ City Clerk, Christine Bainbridge Approved as to Form: ____________________________ Office of the City Attorney Date of Publication: _____________________ Effective Date: Expiration Date: Ordinance 10-Page 4of 4 Ý×ÌÇ ÑÚ ÍÐÑÕßÒÛ ÊßÔÔÛÇ Î»¯«»¬ º±® ݱ«²½·´ ß½¬·±² Ó»»¬·²¹ Ü¿¬»æ Ö«²» èô îðïð Ý·¬§ Ó¿²¿¹»® Í·¹²ó±ººæ ÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁÁ ׬»³æ ݸ»½µ ¿´´ ¬¸¿¬ ¿°°´§æ ½±²»²¬ ±´¼ ¾«·²» ²»© ¾«·²» °«¾´·½ ¸»¿®·²¹ ·²º±®³¿¬·±² ¿¼³·²ò ®»°±®¬ °»²¼·²¹ ´»¹·´¿¬·±² ßÙÛÒÜß ×ÌÛÓ Ì×ÌÔÛæ Ó±¬·±² ݱ²·¼»®¿¬·±²æ ݱ´´¿¾±®¿¬·ª» д¿²²·²¹ Ú·²¿´ и¿» ÙÑÊÛÎÒ×ÒÙ ÔÛÙ×ÍÔßÌ×ÑÒæ ÎÝÉ íêòéðß øÙ®±©¬¸ Ó¿²¿¹»³»²¬ ß½¬÷ ÐÎÛÊ×ÑËÍ ÝÑËÒÝ×Ô ßÝÌ×ÑÒ ÌßÕÛÒæ Ò±²» ÞßÝÕÙÎÑËÒÜæ Ѳ Ó¿§ ìô îðïðô ¬¿ºº °®±ª·¼»¼ ¿ °®»»²¬¿¬·±² ¬± Ý·¬§ ݱ«²½·´ ±² ¬¸» ½±´´¿¾±®¿¬·ª» °´¿²²·²¹ °®±½» ¾»¬©»»² Í°±µ¿²» ݱ«²¬§ ¿²¼ ¬¸» ³»¬®±°±´·¬¿² ½·¬·»ò Ô¿¬ §»¿®ô ¬¸» ݱ«²¬§ º«²¼»¼ ¿ ¬«¼§ ¬± ¿¼¼®» ´±²¹ó¬»®³ º·½¿´ «¬¿·²¿¾·´·¬§ò ̸· ¬«¼§ »ª¿´«¿¬»¼ ®»¹·±²¿´ ®»ª»²«» ¿²¼ ¬¸» ®»¹·±²¿´ »®ª·½» ¬¸» ݱ«²¬§ · ®»¯«·®»¼ ¬± °®±ª·¼»ò ײ ¿¼¼·¬·±²ô ·¬ ¿²¿´§¦»¼ ´±½¿´ ®»ª»²«» ¿²¼ ´±½¿´ »®ª·½» ¬¸¿¬ ¬¸» ݱ«²¬§ °®±ª·¼» ¬± «²·²½±®°±®¿¬»¼ ¿®»¿ò ߬ ¬¸· °±·²¬ô ¬¸» ݱ´´¿¾±®¿¬·ª» д¿²²·²¹ ½±³³·¬¬»» · ®»¯«»¬·²¹ ¬¸¿¬ ¬¸» ³»¬®±°±´·¬¿² ½·¬·» ³¿µ» ¿ º·²¿²½·¿´ ½±³³·¬³»²¬ ¾¿»¼ ±² °±°«´¿¬·±² ¬± ·¼»²¬·º§ ¿ º·½¿´´§ «¬¿·²¿¾´» ®»ª»²«» ¿²¼ »®ª·½» ¼»´·ª»®§ ¬®«½¬«®» º±® Í°±µ¿²» ݱ«²¬§ò ̸· ´¿¬ °¸¿» ±º ¬¸» ½±´´¿¾±®¿¬·ª» »ºº±®¬ ©·´´ ·¼»²¬·º§ ±°°±®¬«²·¬·» º±® ´±½¿´ ¿²¼ ®»¹·±²¿´ »®ª·½» »ºº·½·»²½·» ¬¸¿¬ ©·´´ ¾»²»º·¬ Í°±µ¿²» ݱ«²¬§ ¿²¼ ¬¸» ³»¬®±°±´·¬¿² ½·¬·»ò ײ ±®¼»® ¬± ½±²¬·²«» ¬¸· »ºº±®¬ô ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ±º Í°±µ¿²» Ê¿´´»§ ½±²¬®·¾«¬·±² ©±«´¼ ¾» üïðôðððô Ý·¬§ ±º Í°±µ¿²» ©±«´¼ ¾» üîðôðððô Ý·¬§ ±º Ô·¾»®¬§ Ô¿µ»ô Ý·¬§ ±º ݸ»²»§ô Ý·¬§ ±º ß·®©¿§ Ø»·¹¸¬ ©±«´¼ ½±²¬®·¾«¬» üëôðððô ¿²¼ ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ±º Ó·´´©±±¼ ©±«´¼ ½±²¬®·¾«¬» üîôëððò ̸· ¿²¿´§· ¸±«´¼ ¾»²»º·¬ ¬¸» Ý·¬§ ±º Í°±µ¿²» Ê¿´´»§ ¾§ °®±ª·¼·²¹ ¿ ¾»¬¬»® «²¼»®¬¿²¼·²¹ ±º ¬¸» »®ª·½» ¼»´·ª»®§ ·² Í°±µ¿²» ݱ«²¬§ò Í°±µ¿²» ݱ«²¬§ ½±²¬®·¾«¬»¼ üííôðð𠿬 ¬¸» ®»¯«»¬ ±º ¬¸» ½·¬·» ¬± ·¼»²¬·º§ ®»¹·±²¿´ ¿²¼ ´±½¿´ ®»ª»²«» ¿²¼ »¨°»²»ò ̸» º±´´±©·²¹ ½·¬·» ¸¿ª» ·¹²»¼ ¬¸» ¿¹®»»³»²¬ º±® »®ª·½»æ Ý·¬§ ±º Ô·¾»®¬§ Ô¿µ» ¿²¼ Ý·¬§ ±º Ó·´´©±±¼ ÑÐÌ×ÑÒÍæ ß«¬¸±®·¦» ¬¸» Ý·¬§ Ó¿²¿¹»® ¬± ·¹² ¬¸» ¿¹®»»³»²¬ º±® »®ª·½» ¿ °®»»²¬»¼ô ±® «¹¹»¬ ½¸¿²¹» ¬± ¬¸» ¿¹®»»³»²¬ º±® »®ª·½» ÎÛÝÑÓÓÛÒÜÛÜ ÓÑÌ×ÑÒÍæ Ó±ª» ¬± ¿«¬¸±®·¦» ¬¸» Ý·¬§ Ó¿²¿¹»® ±® ¼»·¹²»» ¬± ·¹² ¿¹®»»³»²¬ º±® »®ª·½» ®»´¿¬»¼ ¬± ½±³°´»¬» ¬¸» ½±´´¿¾±®¿¬·ª» °´¿²²·²¹ »ºº±®¬ ÞËÜÙÛÌñÚ×ÒßÒÝ×ßÔ ×ÓÐßÝÌÍæ üïðôððð ÍÌßÚÚ ÝÑÒÌßÝÌ æ Ó·µ» Þ¿·²¹»®ô ß×ÝÐô Í»²·±® д¿²²»® ßÌÌßÝØÓÛÒÌæ ß¹®»»³»²¬ º±® Í»®ª·½» ï ±º ï AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into by and among Spokane County, a political subdivision of the state of Washington (“County”), and the City of Spokane, the City of Spokane Valley, the City of Cheney, the City of Liberty Lake, the City of Airway Heights, and the City of Millwood, municipal corporations of the state of Washington ("Cities"), jointly referred to as “Parties”. R E C I T A L S: WHEREAS , pursuant to the provisions of the RCW 36.32.120(6), the Board of County Commissioners has the care of county property and the management of County funds and business; and WHEREAS , pursuant to chapter 36.70A RCW, the Parties are engaged in collaborative planning for urban growth areas; and WHEREAS , the Parties agree that a regional fiscal strategy will benefit all jurisdictions in Spokane County; and WHEREAS , Spokane County funded a preliminary study of its revenues and costs of regional and local services; and WHEREAS , the Cities agree to contribute funds to Spokane County to complete the fiscal strategies for the region; and NOW, THEREFORE , for in consideration of the mutual promises and conditions set forth herein, the Parties mutually agree as follows: 1. Services. Spokane County will contract with Brett Sheckler ("Consultant") to provide all labor, services, and material to satisfactorily complete the Scope of Work as outlined in Attachment A - Scope of Work, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The Consultant will complete the Scope of Work on or before December 31, 2010. The Consultant will provide a copy of any products produced under the Scope of Work to all Parties. 2. Administration. Susan Winchell, Boundary Review Board Director, is designated as Project Manager for this Agreement. The Project Manager shall act as the County’s representative in conjunction with contracting with the Consultant and administering the Consultant’s agreement.. 3. Term of Agreement. The Agreement shall begin upon signature of all Parties and run through December 31, 2010. Once executed, the Agreement may not be terminated by any party. 4. Compensation. The Cities agree to submit a check/warrant to the attention of the Project Manager at Spokane County Boundary Review Board, 1026 West Broadway Avenue, Spokane, WA 99260 in the following amounts within 30 days of the effective date of this representing its share of the Consultant’s fee: City of Spokane $20,000 City of Spokane Valley $10,000 City of Cheney $ 5,000 City of Liberty Lake $ 5,000 City of Airway Heights $ 5,000 City of Millwood $ 2,500 Page 1 of 4 In the event the Consultant’s fee for providing the Services under the Scope of Work referenced in Paragraph 1 (Services) is less than the total amount collected from the Parties, the County agrees to refund each Party a proportionate share of the excess amount based upon its initial contribution. The County agrees that it will not use the money from the Parties except for payment of fees of the Consultant. 5. Collaboration. The Parties agree to designate staff and provide their names to the Project Manager to work with the Consultant in developing regional strategies for fiscal sustainability; and 6. General Terms. This Agreement contains terms and conditions agreed upon by the Parties. Parties agree that there are no other understandings, oral or otherwise, regarding the subject matter of this Agreement. No changes or additions to this Agreement shall be valid or binding upon Parties unless such change or addition is in writing, executed by Parties. This Agreement shall be binding upon the Parties hereto, their successors and assigns. In the event any portion of this Agreement should become invalid or unenforceable, the rest of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. The Parties shall observe all federal, state and local laws, ordinances and regulations, to the extent that they may be applicable to the terms of this Agreement. This Agreement shall be construed under the laws of the state of Washington. Any action at law, suit in equity or judicial proceeding regarding this Agreement or any provision hereto shall be instituted only in courts of competent jurisdiction within Spokane County, Washington. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which, when so executed and delivered, shall be an original, but such counterparts shall together constitute but one and the same. 7. Chapter 39.34 RCW Required Clauses. A. Purpose. See Paragraph 1 above. B. Duration. See Paragraph 3 above. C. Organization of Separate Entity and Its Powers. No new or separate legal or administrative entity is created to administer the provisions of this Agreement. D. Responsibilities of the Parties. See provisions above. E. Agreement to be Filed. The Parties, except the County shall file this Agreement with their City Clerks. The County shall place this Agreement on its web site. F. Financing. Each party shall be responsible for the financing of its contractual obligations under its normal budgetary process. G. Termination. See Paragraph 3 above. H. Property upon Termination. Any property acquired by the Consultant in providing the Services set forth under the Scope of Work shall remain those of the Consultant. Page 2 of 4 IN WITNESS WHEREOF , the Parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed on the day and year set opposite their respective signature block. DATED:_____________________ ____________________________________ CITY OF SPOKANE ATTEST: _______________________________ ____________________________________ City Clerk City Attorney DATED:_____________________ ____________________________________ CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY ATTEST: _______________________________ ____________________________________ City Clerk City Attorney DATED:_____________________ ____________________________________ CITY OF CHENEY ATTEST: _______________________________ ____________________________________ City Clerk City Attorney DATED:_____________________ ____________________________________ CITY OF LIBERTY LAKE ATTEST: _______________________________ ____________________________________ City Clerk City Attorney DATED:_____________________ ____________________________________ CITY OF AIRWAY HEIGHTS ATTEST: _______________________________ ____________________________________ City Clerk City Attorney DATED:_____________________ ____________________________________ CITY OF MILLWOOD ATTEST: _______________________________ ___________________________________ City Clerk City Attorney Page 3 of 4 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DATED:_____________________ OF SPOKANE, COUNTY, WASHINGTON ____________________________________ Mark Richard , Chair ATTEST: ____________________________________ Bonnie Mager, Vice-Chair BY: ____________________________ ____________________________________ Daniela Erickson, Todd Mielke, Commissioner Clerk of the Board Page 4 of 4 ÜßÌÛæß°®·´ïíôîðïð ÌÑæÍ«¿²É·²½¸»´´ôÍ°±µ¿²»Ý±«²¬§Þ±«²¼¿®§Î»ª·»©Þ±¿®¼ ÚÎÑÓæÞ®»¬¬Í¸»½µ´»® ÎÛæЮ±°±»¼Í½±°»¿²¼Þ«¼¹»¬º±®Ý±²¬·²«»¼Í«°°±®¬±ºÝ±´´¿¾±®¿¬·ª»Ð´¿²²·²¹ ÞßÝÕÙÎÑËÒÜ Ú®±³Ú»¾®«¿®§îðð謸®±«¹¸ß«¹«¬±ºîððçô¬¸»½±²«´¬¿²¬¬»¿³¸¿«°°±®¬»¼Í°±µ¿²»£kªYÅ ½±´´¿¾±®¿¬·ª»°´¿²²·²¹°®±½»¿²¼©»¾»´·»ª»¬¸»½±´´¿¾±®¿¬·²¹°¿®¬²»®¸¿ª»³¿¼»®»³¿®µ¿¾´» °®±¹®»¬±©¿®¼¿½¸·»ª·²¹¬¸»·®«´¬·³¿¬»¹±¿´ò ײ¬»®³±º´¿²¼«»ô¬¸»°¿®¬²»®¸¿ª»¿¼¼®»»¼·«»±º·²¬»®¶«®·¼·½¬·±²¿´½±²·¬»²½§·²°±´·½·»¿²¼ ·²¼»·¹²¬¿²¼¿®¼ò ß²¼·²¬»®³±º¿¼¼®»·²¹Í°±µ¿²»Ý£kªYŲ»»¼º±®¿«¬¿·²¿¾´»º·½¿´°±·¬·±²ô¬¸»°®±½»ø¿´±²¹ ©·¬¸¿½¬·±²¾§¬¸»½±´´¿¾±®¿¬·²¹°¿®¬²»®÷¸¿°«¬¬¸»½±´´¿¾±®¿¬·²¹¶«®·¼·½¬·±²·²¿°±·¬·±²©¸»®» ¬¸»§½¿²²±©³»¿²·²¹º«´´§¿¼¼®»Í°±µ¿²»£kªYź·½¿´½¸¿´´»²¹»æ ͬ¿µ»¸±´¼»®·²¬¸»¼·½«·±²¸¿ª»¿³±®»®±¾«¬«²¼»®¬¿²¼·²¹±º_Æ Í°±µ¿²»Ý±«²¬§¼±» ¿²¼Æ£_·¬¼±»·¬òײ°¿®¬·½«´¿®ô¬¿µ»¸±´¼»®¸¿ª»¿½´»¿®»®»²»±º¬¸»¼·¬·²½¬·±²¾»¬©»»² ¬¸»£kªYÅ®»¹·±²¿´ô´±½¿´ô¿²¼½±²¬®¿½¬º«²½¬·±²ò ݱ´´¿¾±®¿¬·²¹½·¬·»®»½±¹²·¦»¬¸»·³°±®¬¿²½»±º¬¸»£kªYÅ®±´»¿¿®»¹·±²¿´»®ª·½»°®±ª·¼»® ¿²¼¸¿ª»ª±·½»¼«°°±®¬º±®»²«®·²¹¬¸¿¬¬¸»£kªYÅ®»¹·±²¿´´·²»±º¾«·²»·º·½¿´´§ «¬¿·²¿¾´»ò ݱ´´¿¾±®¿¬·²¹°¿®¬²»®¸¿ª»¿½µ²±©´»¼¹»¼¬¸¿¬Í°±µ¿²»Ý±«²¬§©·´´¾»³«½¸³±®»´·µ»´§¬± «½½»»¼·º·¬½¿²°«®«»«¬¿·²¿¾·´·¬§©·¬¸¬¸»«°°±®¬±º½·¬·»òÓ±¬±º¬¸»´±²¹¬»®³±´«¬·±² ¬±Í°±µ¿²»£kªYÅÆ ±±ªÐª_ÆƬ¸»±´«¬·±²´·»·²Ñ´§³°·¿±®·²Í°±µ¿²»£kªYª ©·´´¾»»¿·»®¬±¿½¸·»ª»©·¬¸ïððû½·¬§«°°±®¬ò ̸»Ý±«²¬§ôÍ°±µ¿²»ô¿²¼ß·®©¿§Ø»·¹¸¬¸¿ª»¬»²¬¿¬·ª»´§®»¿½¸»¼¿½±´´¿¾±®¿¬·ª»±´«¬·±²¬± ³·¬·¹¿¬»¬¸»º·½¿´·³°¿½¬º®±³¬¸»É»¬Ð´¿·²¿²²»¨¿¬·±²ø±®¿¬´»¿¬¬±¹·ª»Í°±µ¿²»Ý±«²¬§ ±³»¾®»¿¬¸·²¹®±±³¬±°®»°¿®»º±®¬¸»¬·³»©¸»²¿²²»¨¿¬·±²¸¿°°»²÷åß²¼ôº·²¿´´§ ߺ¬»®½±³°´»¬·²¹¬¸»®»½»²¬Â±Ãª±ºkêÁ¿²¿´§·ôÍ°±µ¿²»Ý±«²¬§¿²¼·¬½±´´¿¾±®¿¬·²¹ °¿®¬²»®²±©¸¿ª»¿±´·¼º±«²¼¿¬·±²±º·²º±®³¿¬·±²¬±©±®µº®±³¿¬¸»§³±ª»º±®©¿®¼òÉ·¬¸¿ ½±³³±²«²¼»®¬¿²¼·²¹±º¬¸»£kªYŽ«®®»²¬°±·¬·±²ô¬¸»½±´´¿¾±®¿¬·²¹¶«®·¼·½¬·±²¿®»·² ³«½¸¾»¬¬»®°±·¬·±²¬±·¼»²¬·º§®±«¬»¬¸¿¬±ºº»®±°°±®¬«²·¬·»º±®«½½»ò É·¬¸±³«½¸º±«²¼¿¬·±²¿´©±®µ½±³°´»¬»¼ô±²»½±«´¼¿§¬¸¿¬¬¸»½±´´¿¾±®¿¬·²¹°¿®¬²»®¸¿ª»²±© »¬¿¾´·¸»¼¾¿»½¿³°ò̸»¹®±«²¼©±®µ··²± Ç_Æ ·²»»¼»¼²±©·¬¸»º·²¿´¿½»²¬¬±¬¸» «³³·¬òÚ±®¬¸»½±´´¿¾±®¿¬·²¹°¿®¬²»®ô¬¸¿¬³»¿²´¿§·²¹±«¬¬¸»± ªª¢Ã ±±Y¡¹»¬¬·²¹¬±¿½±²»²« ±²¬±°«¬Í°±µ¿²»Ý±«²¬§±²¿³±®» ¿³±²¹¬¸»°¿®¬²»®±²¸±©¬¸»§½¿²¿´´°«´´·²¬¸»¿³»¼·®»½¬· ¬¿¾´»º·½¿´º±±¬·²¹ò Ю±°±»¼Ò»¨¬Í¬»°¬Ù»¬¬·²¹º®±³¸»®»¬±«¬¿·²¿¾·´·¬§á Ô±±µ·²¹º±®©¿®¼ô¬¸»®»¿®»¿¬´»¿¬¬©±µ»§°·»½»¬¸¿¬²»»¼¬±³±ª»º±®©¿®¼·³«´¬¿²»±«´§æ ïòݱ«²¬§°±´·½§³¿µ»®²»»¼¬±©»·¹¸¬¸»¸±®¬¿²¼´±²¹¬»®³¿½¬·±²¬¸»§¾»´·»ª»©·´´ ¬®»²¹¬¸»²¬¸»£kªYź«¬«®»°®±°»½¬å¿²¼ îòÝ·¬·»¸¿ª»¼»½··±²¬±³¿µ»¿¾±«¬¸±©ø¿²¼«²¼»®©¸¿¬½·®½«³¬¿²½»÷¬¸»§©·´´°´¿§¿®±´»·² ¸»´°·²¹¬¸»Ý±«²¬§³±ª»¬±¿¬®±²¹»®º·½¿´º±±¬·²¹ò ײ±®¼»®º±®¬¸»°®±½»¬±¾»«½½»º«´ô¾±¬¸±º¬¸»»°®±½»»¸±«´¼º¿´´©·¬¸·²¬¸»¬®«½¬«®»±º¿ ½±´´¿¾±®¿¬·±²¬¸¿¬»²«®»¬¸¿¬¿´´°¿®¬·»¿®»°«´´·²¹·²¬¸»¿³»¼·®»½¬·±²ò ¬¸·½±´´¿¾±®¿¬·ª»°´¿²· ̸»½±´´¿¾±®¿¬·ª»°´¿²²·²¹¬»¿³¾»´·»ª»¬¸¿¬¬¸»¾»¬©¿§¬±³±ª»¬±©¿®¼ º±®¬¸»Ì»¿³¬±°«¬°»²¬±°¿°»®¿²¼¾»¹·²¬±º´»¸±«¬°±¬»²¬·¿´°¿¬¸¬¸¿¬©±«´¼³±ª»¬¸»°¿®¬²»® ¬±©¿®¼¬¸»¹±¿´±º»¬¬·²¹Í°±µ¿²»Ý±«²¬§«°º±®´±²¹¬»®³«½½»ò̸»Ì»¿³¸¿¿µ»¼Þ®»¬¬ ͸»½µ´»®¬±¬¿µ»¿´»¿¼®±´»·²·¼»²¬·º§·²¹±°¬·±²¿²¼¼®¿º¬·²¹¿¼±½«³»²¬¬¸¿¬«³³¿®·¦»¬¸»¿ª¿·´¿¾´» °¿¬¸ò ̸»¼±½«³»²¬©±«´¼¾»°®»°¿®»¼º±®½±²·¼»®¿¬·±²¾§°±´·½§³¿µ»®©·¬¸·²¬¸»½±´´¿¾±®¿¬·²¹ ¶«®·¼·½¬·±²ø¿²¼¾§¬¿µ»¸±´¼»®¾»§±²¼÷òß²¼½´»¿®´§ôµ»§°´¿§»®º®±³¬¸»½±´´¿¾±®¿¬·²¹¶«®·¼·½¬·±² ©±«´¼²»»¼¬±¾»»²¹¿¹»¼¬¸®±«¹¸±«¬¬¸»°®±½»±º¼»ª»´±°·²¹«½¸¿¼±½«³»²¬ò ̸»¬»¿³°®±°±»°«®«·²¹¬¸·±°¬·±²¼»ª»´±°³»²¬°®±½»¬¸®±«¹¸º±«®°®·²½·°¿´¬¿µæ ïòÛ¨°´±®»ñ¼»ª»´±°±°¬·±²º±®Ý±«²¬§º·½¿´«¬¿·²¿¾·´·¬§ò̸·¬¿µ©·´´·²½´«¼»¸·¹¸´»ª»´¬»½¸²·½¿´ ·²ª»¬·¹¿¬·±²ñ¼»ª»´±°³»²¬±º°±¬»²¬·¿´®»ª»²«»¬®»¿³¿²¼ñ±®½±¬¿ª·²¹³»½¸¿²·³¿²¼ô °»®¸¿°³±®»·³°±®¬¿²¬ô·¹²·º·½¿²¬²«³¾»®±º³»»¬·²¹©·¬¸»¿½¸±º¬¸»ª¿®·±«¬¿µ»¸±´¼»® ·²¬¸»°®±½»ò îòѲ¹±·²¹¬®¿¬»¹§¼»ª»´±°³»²¬ñ®»º·²»³»²¬©·¬¸·²¬¸»Ý±´´¿¾±®¿¬·ª»Ð´¿²²·²¹Ì»¿³ò íòÜ®¿º¬·²¹±º©¸·¬»°¿°»®±®±¬¸»®¼±½«³»²¬´¿§·²¹±«¬·«»¿²¼¿´¬»®²¿¬·ª»°¿¬¸¬± «¬¿·²¿¾·´·¬§òÉ»»²ª··±²¬¸¿¬¬¸»¼®¿º¬·²¹±º¬¸·¼±½«³»²¬ø´¿§·²¹±«¬°±¬»²¬·¿´½±³°±²»²¬ ±ºÆ± ª÷©·´´¾»¿²·³°±®¬¿²¬¼®·ª·²¹ø£ªÆ®»¿±²©¸§¬¸»½±²ª»®¿¬·±²©·¬¸ ¬¿µ»¸±´¼»®©·´´¬¿µ»°´¿½»ò ìòÚ·²¿´°®»»²¬¿¬·±²±º¿´¬»®²¿¬·ª»ò Ю±°±»¼Ì¿µ¿²¼Þ«¼¹»¬ Total Hours Project Roleand Senior Estimated PrincipalManagerAssociate AssoiciateCost Hourly Rate$240$195$115$95by Task Task 1: Explore/Develop Options for County Fiscal Sustainability Technical Analysis of Options40168 Stakeholder Discussions - Days in Spokane (11)77 Task 2: Support Strategy Development within Collaborative Planning Team Participate in Collaborative Planning Team Meetings (Included in Daytrips)15 Technical Analysis to Support Conversations with Stakeholders30 Task 3: Articulation of Options (Whitepaper and/or Presentation Materials) Develop Draft and Final Presentation of Options40 Task 3: Presentation of Findings Presentations - Additional Day Trip to Spokane (1)8 Subtotal0210168234 $43,550 Total Estimated Hours0210168 Cost (Hours*Rate)$0$40,950$1,840$760 Subtotal Consultant Cost$43,550 Project Expenses Travel Expenses (12 days in Spokane)$2,450 Presentation Expenses (2 Luncheons)$3,000 Printing Expenses$1,000 Estimated Project Total$50,000 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date:City Manager Sign-off June 8, 2010 : ________ Item: Check all that apply : consent old business new business public hearing informationadmin. reportpending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Motion Consideration: Broadcasting Option GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN : BACKGROUND: Since January, 2010, Spokane Valley Business Association (SVBA) has been paying Community Minded Television (CMTV) for the broadcast of council meetings, and our original understanding was that support ends the endof June. Upon further discussions with CMTV, it appears SVBA arranged for up to but not including taping June;but due to two meetings that st were not scheduled earlier in the year, they will record the 1two meetings in June. In order to continue the service temporarily until Council makes a final decision on the broadcast of council meetings, the option has been presented to continue broadcasting through CMTV on a temporary, month-to-month basis, at an approximate monthly cost of $3,000.00. OPTIONS: Council discretion. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to authorize the City Manageror designee to enter into and execute a month-to-month agreement with Community Minded Television for the broadcastingof city council meetings. BUDGET/FINANCIALIMPACTS :Approximately $3,000 a month STAFF CONTACT :Greg Bingaman ___________________________________________________________________________ ATTACHMENTS : CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting DateCity Manager Sign-off :June 8, 2010: ________ Item: Check all that apply : consent old business new business public hearing informationadmin. reportpending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE :PEG fundingissues GOVERNING LEGISLATION :Ordinance 09-034 and SVMC 3.65 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTIONTAKEN : BACKGROUND :This RCA is to provide the Council with an updateonissues and potential consequences of a proposed motion directingstaff to negotiate cessationof collection of public, educational and governmental (PEG) funds through the Comcast franchise.The franchise was originally negotiated, written, and adopted in contemplation of collecting the PEG fees, and a number of issues have arisen as staff investigates this matter. These issues willrequire additional analysis, which takes additional time. 1. The motion would directstaff to negotiate with Comcast on suspending collection of PEG fees. We don’t know Comcast’s willingness to engage in such negotiations. Similarly, we do not know if Comcast would seek to negotiate other items in addition to the PEG issue. Staff anticipates bringing that motion before the Council on June 15, 2010. 2. In addition to adopting the .35 cent per month per subscriber requirement in Section 13.8 of the franchise(See Attachment 1),the City also adopted a similar requirement for payment of .35 cents per subscriber per month in the City Code, SVMC 3.65.120H.(See Attachment 2)If the City seeks to suspend collection of the PEG fees through the franchise, it must also amend the Code to be consistent with the new franchise language. 3. The franchise (Section 13.2) and the Code (SVMC 3.65.120B) also require that the City enter into contracts with any entities that would be providingPEG channelprogrammingthrough the franchise. This would be CMTV (channel 14), and Spokane District 81, Gonzaga, University of Washington, Washington State University, Eastern Washington University, and the Community Colleges of Spokane(on channels 15-19). The existing franchise requires the City to enter into agreements with each of these entities individually, and provide a copy of each agreement to Comcast within 30 days of execution. The City of Spokane has executed contracts with CMTV, CCS and District 81 to date. The contract with CCS isattached to this RCA for your reviewas an example.Spokane’s contracts include payment of PEG fees to each entity.(See Attachment 4)When Spokane Valley negotiates with these entities, the entitiesmay requirefunds to sign an agreement. In the event the City cannot agree on contract terms with each entity, Comcastmayrely ontheterms of the franchise and the City Code, andrefuse to provide those channelsbecause there are no contracts. That result could be very problematic for residents who rely on those channels to take college classes. As an alternative, the City could seek to renegotiate Section 13.2 of the franchisewith Comcast in a way that removes the mandatory nature of the contracts with the PEG channel providers. If that is successful, the City would also need to amend SVMC3.65.120B, to mirror the franchise language. and 4. A question was asked recently whether Comcast is required to provide channel capacity fund educational/public channels in the event the City elected not to fund thosechannels. This question is controlled by the Federal Cable Act,47 USC 531, Section 611. This Section identifies that “a franchising authority may in its request for proposals require as part of a franchise, and may require as part of a cable operator’s proposal for a franchise renewal, subject to section 626, that channel capacitybe designated for public, educational, or governmental use….”(Emphasis added) The word “capacity”is not defined in the Act.Its usage indicates that sufficient amount of bandwidth will be reserved for usage for PEG purposes. There is not any similar requirement that a local cable operator provide financial supportor equipment for actual operational needs.An interpretation of the Cable Act by the FCC in 2007 states that local jurisdictions cannot require additional funds from cable operators for PEG purposes, and that they can only be obtained by negotiation in the franchises. Based on these factors, we believe that a cable operator cannot be required to fundPEG needs if a city elects not to provide a PEGchannel with money. Similarly, the City negotiated for a governmental channel for our use at a future time. The funds for equipment would either have to be paid by the general fund, or through PEG funds paid through the franchise. There is no ability for the City to require a cable provider to pay for the City’sbroadcasting equipment, other than what is negotiated in a franchise. OPTIONS :NA RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION :NA BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS : STAFF CONTACT :Cary Driskell, Dep. City Attorney; Morgan Koudelka, Sen. Admin. Analyst ATTACHMENTS : 1.Copy of Comcast franchise 2. Copy of SVMC 3.65.120 3. Copy of PEG contract between Spokane and Community Colleges of Spokane 4. Copy of letter from Spokane detailing public and educational funding from 2007-10 3.65.120 PEG and local programming. A. Any grantee shall make available one full-time noncommercial multi-jurisdictional PEG channel (the “government channel”) for future activation and joint use by the City, the city of Spokane and/or Spokane County for governmental access programming. The City shall provide grantee with a minimum of 45 days’ prior written notice of an initial meeting to develop an implementation plan for activation of the government channel. B.Commencing on the effective date of a franchise granted under this chapter, and throughout the term of the franchise, grantee shall deliver those PEG channels with whom the City has contracted for service, up to a maximum of six channels. Grantee shall continue to deliver those PEG channels so longas the City’s contracts are valid and the PEG channels have content to distribute. The City shall provide copies of all PEG channel contracts, and contract renewals, to grantee within 30 days of execution. C.The grantee will endeavor to provide the subscribers in the franchise area with the other regional PEG channels so long as the PEG programmers offer them for use on the cable system. D.All PEG channels provided to subscribers under a franchise made pursuant to this chapter shall be included by grantee subject to applicable law. For all PEG channels not under grantee’s control, grantee shall ensure that there is no material degradation in the signal that is received by grantee for distribution by grantee over the cable system. E.The City shall be responsible for all programming requirements for the government channel, including but not limited to scheduling, playback, training, staffing, copyright clearances, and equipment, maintenance and repair, unless responsibility for administering the government channel has been designated to a third party, which shall then become responsible for all programming requirements under this section. F.The grantee shall provide the PEG channels as part of the cable service provided to any subscriber, at no additional charge. If channels are selected through a menu system, the PEG channels shall be displayed as prominently as commercial programming choices offered by grantee. A grantee will use reasonable efforts to minimize the movement of City-designated PEG channel assignments and maintain common channel assignments for compatible PEG programming. G.At such time as a grantee converts its basic cable service tier from an analog to a digital format, the City’s PEG channels will be carried on the digital platform and grantee shall install, at its sole cost, such headend equipment to accommodate such channels. Such PEG channels shall be accessed by subscribers through use of standard digital equipment compatible with grantee’s cable system. H.Grantee will remit to the City as a capital contribution in support of PEG capital requirements an amount equal to $0.35 per subscriber per month to be paid to the City on a quarterly basis for the life of the franchise. The City shall allocate all amounts under this subsection to PEGcapital uses exclusively. Grantee shall not be responsible for paying the PEG capital contribution with respect to gratis or bad debt accounts. Consistent with 47 CFR 76.922, grantee may, in its sole discretion, add the cost of the PEG capital contribution to the price of cable services and collect the PEG capital contribution from subscribers. In addition, consistent with 47 CFR 76.985, all amounts paid as the PEG capital contribution may be separately stated on subscribers’ bills as a City of Spokane Valley PEG capital contribution. Upon grantee’s written request and due as agreed upon by both parties, the City shall provide the grantee with documentation showing expenditures for PEG capital use of the previous fiscal years’ PEG capital contribution and showing the budgeted use of the current year’s PEG funding. In the event the City cannot demonstrate that PEG capital funding was used or budgeted for PEG capital needs, grantee’s PEG funding obligations going forward shall be reduced by an equivalent amount. I.Within 90 days of request, the grantee shall provide an estimate of costs associated with the construction and activation of one return path capable of transmitting video programming to enable the distribution of the City’s specific government access programming to subscribers on the multi-jurisdictional PEG channel. The return line shall run from a location to be determined by the City to the grantee’s facilities. Within 270 days of the City’s directive, the grantee shall construct and activate a return line in accordance with the cost estimate previously provided. The City agrees to pay the costs of the return line within 60 days of construction/activation and receipt of an invoice from the grantee. (Ord. 09-030 §14, 2009). Ý·¬§ ±º Í°±µ¿²» ݱ²¬®·¾«¬·±² ¬± Ы¾´·½ ú Û¼«½¿¬·±² ݸ¿²²»´ øîððéóîðïð÷ ̸» ½«®®»²¬ Ý·¬§ ±º Í°±µ¿²» ½±²¬®¿½¬ ©·¬¸ ݱ³½¿¬ ©¿ ¿¼±°¬»¼ ¾§ ¬¸» Í°±µ¿²» Ý·¬§ ݱ«²½·´ ·² Ò±ª»³¾»® îððëô ©·¬¸ ¿² »ºº»½¬·ª» ¼¿¬» ±º Ö¿²«¿®§ îððêò É» °»²¬ ±²» §»¿® ¼»ª»´±°·²¹ ¬¸» ®»°´¿½»³»²¬ º±® ¬¸» ݱ³½¿¬ó®«² ½±³³«²·¬§ °®±¼«½¬·±² §¬»³ô ¿²¼ ©» ¾«·´¬ «° ¬¸» ³±²»§ º±® ¬¸» »¼«½¿¬·±² ¿½½» ½¸¿²²»´ ± ©» ½±«´¼ ¼± ¿ ®»·³¾«®»³»²¬ ³±¼»´ º±® ¬¸»³ò ͱô ¼·¬®·¾«¬·±² º®±³ ¬¸» ÐÛÙ ½¿°·¬¿´ º«²¼ ¾»¹¿² ·² îððéò Ø»®» ©¸¿¬ ©»ª» ¼±²» ± º¿®æ ÝÓÌÊ øݱ³³«²·¬§ñЫ¾´·½ ß½½» ݸ¿²²»´ ݸ¿²²»´ ïì÷ ïò îððé ó üîððôððð ·²·¬·¿´ ¬¿®¬«° ½±²¬®·¾«¬·±²ò îòîððè ó üèðôððð íòîððç ó üèèôððð ìòîðïð ó üèèôððð ̱¬¿´æ üììèôðððö öÉ» ¿´± ¿°°®±ª»¼ ¿ üëðôððð ±°»®¿¬·±² ¹®¿²¬ ·² îððé ¿²¼ ¿ üîëôððð ±°»®¿¬·±² ¹®¿²¬ ·² îððèò ̸»» ½¿³» º®±³ Ù»²»®¿´ Ú«²¼ ®»±«®½»ò ÝòßòÞòÔòÛò øÛ¼«½¿¬·±² ß½½» ݸ¿²²»´ ݸ¿²²»´ ïë ïç÷ ïòîððé ó üîððôððð ·²·¬·¿´ ½±²¬®·¾«¬·±² îòîððè üèðôððð íòîððç ó üèèôððð ìòîðïð ó üèèôðððö ̱¬¿´æ üììèôððð øöîðïð ¿³±«²¬ ¸¿ª» ²±¬ ¾»»² ¼·¬®·¾«¬»¼ §»¬÷ ÝòßòÞòÔòÛò Þ®»¿µ¼±©² ¾§ Ë»®æ Í°±µ¿²» Ы¾´·½ ͽ¸±±´ ïò îððé ó üïëçôèéî îòîððè üéëôððð íòîððç ó üîçôììë ìòîðïð ó üïîôððð ø¿²¬·½·°¿¬»¼å ¬¸· ®»¯«»¬ ¸¿²¬ ¾»»² º·²¿´·¦»¼÷ ݱ³³«²·¬§ ݱ´´»¹» ±º Í°±µ¿²» ïòîððé ó üìðôïîè îòîððè üëôððð íòîððç ó üìèôìëð Û¿¬»®² É¿¸·²¹¬±² ˲·ª»®·¬§ ïòîðïð ó üêêôððð ø°»²¼·²¹å »°¿®¿¬» ½±²¬®¿½¬ ¾»¬©»»² ÛÉËñÝ·¬§ ¸»¿¼»¼ º±® Ý·¬§ ݱ«²½·´ ¿°°®±ª¿´ ·² Ö«²»÷ λªò ðêñîðïð CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date:City Manager Sign-off June 8, 2010 : ________ Item: Check all that apply : consent old business new business public hearing information admin. report pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE : Administrative report discussing the comments received from the th public meeting regarding Gateway Commercial Avenue and Gateway Commercial May 20 Center Zoning Districts withintheSprague and Appleway Subarea Plan. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: SVMC Chapter 19.30 Changes and Amendments and RCW 36.70A.130(2)(a) PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN:N/A BACKGROUND: The Council has requested that the Sprague/Appleway Subarea Plan be revisited zone by zone with property owners affected by the zoning districts. A report discussing th the two zoning districts was provided to the Council at the May 18meeting. A public meeting th was held on May 20at 8:00 a.m. in the Council Chambers to discuss the zoning districts and receive comments. The meeting was attended by approximately 40 persons. The attached report discusses the comments received and identifies what process would be applicable to implement a changeshould the Council choose to do so. At this time staff is requesting direction from Council on howto proceed with the identified issues. Options: The Council should consider the comments received asa result of the public outreach effort and direct staff on how to proceed. The Council may consider the following options: 1. Identify which issues and specific language to forward to Planning Commission for Code Amendments; 2.Identify specific issues to be addressed by Comprehensive Plan Amendment. 3.Take No Action 4.Direct staff otherwise BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS : Not Applicable STAFF CONTACT :Lori Barlow, AICP, Associate Planner, Community Development Dept. ___________________________________________________________________________ ATTACHMENTS Reportand PowerPoint Presentation – Issues and Concerns Summary Written Public Comments th May 20, 2010 Meeting Sign In Sheetand Meeting Transcript ׫» ¿²¼ ݱ²½»®² Í«³³¿®§ Purpose: The purpose of this report is to provide the Council with a summary of the comments received th from the May 20Gateway Commercial Avenue and Gateway Commercial Center public meeting,and to receive direction from Council on how to proceed now that specific issues have been identified. Background: Notice of the meeting was mailed to property owners and business operators located within the two Gateway Commercial Zoning Districts as identified by the Spokane County Assessor’s Office and current Business License information. Additionally, the notice was distributed by email to approximately 800 recipients utilizing the city’s standard list of persons or entities that have requested notification of city activities, published in the newspaper and posted on the city website. The meeting was attended primarily by business and property owners. The sign in sheet is attached for your information. At that meeting attendees were presented with an overview of the regulations applicable to both Gateway Commercial Zoning Districts. Following the presentation staff answered questions and took comments from the audience. Comments from the audience were captured on a flip chart by staff during the meeting. The meeting was recorded and a transcript was prepared. The purpose of the meeting was two-fold: Provide information to the public to further their understanding of the regulations and solicit comments regarding issues and concerns for council consideration. Meeting Summary: The information below is a summary of the comments received at the meeting, followed by staff comments and the process necessary to consider a change. Two process categories are identified: Code Text Amendment or Comprehensive Plan Amendment. Code Text Amendments may be processed throughout the year, while Comprehensive Plan Amendments are limited by state lawto an annual review process. Each process begins with public notice and Environmental Review, followed by Planning Commission Review and public hearing, and concludes with Council review and decision. Code Text Amendments take 3-4 months, while Comprehensive Plan Amendments are considered annually. The comments recorded on the flip chart during the meeting are provided in the following table: ݱ³³»²¬ º®±³ ¬¸» Ù¿¬»©¿§ ß®»¿ Ó»»¬·²¹ Ó¿§ îðô îðïð Ú´·° ݸ¿®¬ λ°´·½¿¬·±² ïòλ°´¿½·²¹ ¬®«½¬«®» ¿º¬»® ¼·¿¬»® èðû ¬¿²¼¿®¼ îòÍ»¬¾¿½µ íòÍ·¹²¿¹» ±² »¿½¸ ¿®¬»®·¿´ ìòË» ²±¬ ¿ ³¿²§ ¿ °»®³·¬¬»¼ ¾»º±®» ëòÝ´¿®·º§ ®»°´¿½»³»²¬ ±º «» ©¸»² ¼·¿¬»® êòß½½»±®§ ¬®«½¬«®» ¬±®¿¹» ¾«·´¼·²¹ éòÓ¿¨ º®±²¬¿¹» ½±ª»®¿¹» èòÌ®»» ªò Í·¹²¿¹» çòß«¬± ¼»¿´»® ±®·»²¬ ¬± ¾±¬¸ ¬®»»¬ ïðòÍ·¹²¿¹» ®»´¿¬»¼ ¬± ¾®¿²¼ ®»¯«·®»³»²¬ ïïòÒ±®¬¸ ·¼» ±º ¬®»»¬ ñ±²»ó©¿§ ¸«®¬ ¾«·²» ïîò× ¬¸» °´¿² ½±²·¬»²¬ ©·¬¸ °«¾´·½´§ ¬¿¬»¼ ¹±¿´ ·ò»ò º·´´·²¹ ª¿½¿²¬ ¾«·´¼·²¹ ø¹»²»®¿´ ½±³³»²¬ ®»½»·ª»¼ ¿º¬»® ¬¸» ³»»¬·²¹÷ ïíòß´´±© °®±º»·±²¿´ ±ºº·½» ¬¸¿¬ «°°±®¬ ¿«¬± ®±© ·ò»ò ¿½½±«²¬·²¹ô ´»¹¿´ ±ºº·½» ²±¬ ³»¼·½¿´ò 1.Issue/Concern: Minimum and Maximum front setbacks ݱ«²½·´ Ó»»¬·²¹ ó Ö«²» èô îðïð п¹» ï Ù¿¬»©¿§ ݱ³³»®½·¿´ ߪ»²«» ¿²¼ Ù¿¬»©¿§ ݱ³³»®½·¿´ Ý»²¬»® Ʊ²·²¹ Ü·¬®·½¬ λª·»© Staff Comment: The issue of front setback standards is predominantly related to new construction. As noted in the previous comment, setbacks would not typically be applicable for existing non- conforming structures unless the damage exceeded 80%, and would only affect remodel, rehabilitation or expansion of a building costing more than 50% of the assessed or appraised value. With that said, theSubarea plan contains minimum and maximum setback requirementfor both the gateway commercial zones. Minimum setbacks are applicable regardless of the adjacent street. However, maximum front setbacks are only applicable to property with Sprague frontage; Appleway and other streets within the gateway zoning districts do not have maximum setback requirements. One property owner expressed concern that if her property were redeveloped consistent with the new codes, that a future tenantmight find the layout too limiting. Code Text Amendment Process Required: 2.Issue/Concern:Free Standing SignLimits on double frontage lots Staff Comment:Property owners with double frontage lots expressed concern about the limit of one free standing sign(pole sign) per parcel. The Subarea plan sign regulations are designed to minimize visual clutter up and down the corridor. The SVMC regulations previously allowed one pole sign per arterial frontage. The Subarea plan limits the number of pole signs to one per property and does not allow for pole signs on property without Sprague Avenue Frontage. The amount of sign area and height is generally the same. Property owners also have the option of wall signs, up to 15% of the wall area, and one monument sign per arterial frontage, as well as a range of other signage noted within the Subarea plan. Code Text Amendment Process Required 3.Issue/Concern:Uses– Not as many uses allowed under the previous zoning district, and certain office uses, such as accounting, insurance, and legal offices, are complementary to automobile dealerships, should be allowed. Staff Comment:The Subarea plan recognized that the cityhas a greater amount of commercial zoned property than the forecasted need, and through the design of segments (avenues) and centers, clusters similar and complementary uses together to create a physical environment that supports the uses allowed within the district. The mix of uses along the corridor were designed to make the properties more valuable by limiting the areas where uses are allowed, rather than allowing the whole range of commercial uses along the 12 miles of corridor. Comprehensive Plan Policy LUP-5.2 states, “Identify other appropriate automobile related uses within the Auto Row Overlay designation that are complementary to automobile dealerships.” Consideration must be given to this statement since this provides the parameter as to whether or not a change to the uses requires a comprehensive plan amendment or a code text amendment. For example, uses considered complementary could be considered through a code text amendment; uses not considered complementary, may require a comprehensive plan amendment to this policy. Code Text Amendment is required to adduses consistent with the Process Required Comprehensive Plan or Comprehensive Plan Amendmentfor other uses ݱ«²½·´ Ó»»¬·²¹ Ö«²» èô îðïð п¹» î ׫» ¿²¼ ݱ²½»®² Í«³³¿®§ 4.Issue/Concern: How do the regulations apply to Accessory Structures and/or Storage Buildings (Is the structure required to be placed near the street and meet a minimum frontage coverage requirement?) Staff Comment: The Subarea plan has regulations that require that the primary building be designed so that it meets maximumfrontage coverage, minimum height limits, and is set back within the minimum and maximum areas along Sprague Avenue. These requirements do not apply to secondary structures on the same parcel since they would have been met by the primary structure. However, side yardand rear yard setbacks would apply, and in some cases depending on the location proposed of the accessory structure, architectural standards may apply. Code Text Amendmentfor clarification Process Required 5.Issue/Concern: Minimumfrontage coveragerequirement applicable to a structure destroyed by more than 80% and applicable to auto dealers. Staff Comments:The maximum frontage coverage requirement was designed to achieve a specific physical form at the street front. In pedestrian oriented areas structures are built closer to the streets to create a human scale environment comfortable for walking. Buildings predominantly form the streetscape. In auto oriented areas, buildings are generally set back further from the street, the developed lots are larger, and the physical form appears to be more spread out with about half the area dedicated to structures, and the other half dedicated to automobiles, whether it be parking, access or travel ways. The Gateway Commercial Center requires that the minimum building frontage be equal to 50% of the lot width (less the side yard setbacks), and the Gateway Commercial Avenue requires that the minimum building frontage be equal to 30% of the lot width. Hence the difference of the districts intended development pattern which is auto versus pedestrian oriented. New development can achieve the minimum lot width by utilizing land division processes such as binding site plans, or boundary line adjustments, to reduce or increase the lot size appropriately. This wasintentional to guide development to achieve a denser form at the street front. However, an issue may arise if a non-conforming structure were to be destroyed beyond 80% and the existing lot size was so wide that designing the building to meet the minimum frontage coverage requirement may be unreasonable. Dividing the property or utilizing a BLA in this instance may be creating an unfair burden on the existing property owner and an exception could be considered to the minimum frontage requirements. The other issue relevant to minimumfrontage coverage is use specific. For example auto dealers are allowed in both the Gateway Commercial Avenue and Gateway Commercial Center Zoning District but, as noted above, the minimum frontage coverage requirement increases from 30% in the GCA zone up to 50% in the GCC zone. Automobile dealerships have unique requirements for display,and prefer to locate inventory (vehicles) in the most visible location for passing motorists. Additionally, due to the large amount of inventory, lot sizes are intentionally quite large with awide frontageto display inventory. Based on the minimum frontage requirement, the greater the lot width, the building length is increased. A maximum building length is not regulated along Sprague Avenue or other streets in either zone, but a maximum building length of 180’ is identified along Appleway Avenue, again in both districts. Automobile sales were added to the GCC zone as an allowed use through the final review of the Subarea plan, without consideration given to the increased minimum frontage coverage requirement. Allowing ݱ«²½·´ Ó»»¬·²¹ ó Ö«²» èô îðïð п¹» í Ù¿¬»©¿§ ݱ³³»®½·¿´ ߪ»²«» ¿²¼ Ù¿¬»©¿§ ݱ³³»®½·¿´ Ý»²¬»® Ʊ²·²¹ Ü·¬®·½¬ λª·»© the use without acknowledging the specific display requirements creates a conflicting situation between the use and regulations. Code Text Amendment Process Required 6.Issue/Concern: Trees versus Signage (In some cases trees block the signage) Staff Comments: The Spokane Valley Municipal Code requires that new development place street trees in or within 10’ of the public right of way. The Subareaplan requires that trees be placed within the public frontage area as noted within each zoning districtas part of the public frontage improvements. The Gateway Commercial Avenue and Gateway Commercial Center District public frontage improvements do not require additional street trees since the public improvements currently in place are considered adequate. Code Text Amendment (Note: This is a city wide issue not specific the Process Required Subarea Plan,and it is recommended that any changes be considered separately.) 7.Issue/Concern: How would the Subarea plan address auto dealers with double frontage lots that wish to orient to Sprague and Appleway streets? Staff Comments: The code does not preclude auto dealers from orienting toward both streets. The regulations applicable to Applewayor other streets within the two zoning districts are less restrictive than for properties that front on Sprague Avenue. For example, the maximum setback requirement is only applicable to Sprague, therefore a structure may be placed a considerable distance from the street, so long as the building is oriented toward the street with its main entrance. Other entrances are allowed, but may not be as prominent as the main entrance. Additionally, the frontage coverage requirement only applies to Sprague Avenue. Therefore car dealers could utilize both frontages so long as development adjacent to each frontage met the minimum requirements, which would include architectural standards, height limits, etc.. Front parking lots areallowed adjacent to Appleway and other streets within the two Gateway Commercial zones, but not along Sprague Avenue. The result of the regulations on double frontage lots, is that a building could be centrally located, so long as it is oriented toward a street that does not have maximum setback requirements and no parking is located between Sprague and the building. Code Text Amendment Process Required 8.Issue/Concern: Signage Related to Brand Requirements Staff Comments: Representatives of Auto Row indicated that auto dealerships have signage requirements that are dictated by the manufacturer, rather than dealership owner. Staff requested that specific information detailing signage requirements be provided for review. Information will be provided to the council as it is received, or alternatively the issue could be considered by the planning commission. Note: An email was received from Sean Lumsden on June 3, 2010 that requested specific changes to the signage regulations, but did not identify specific signage requirements. The email is attached. Code Text Amendment Process Required ݱ«²½·´ Ó»»¬·²¹ Ö«²» èô îðïð п¹» ì ׫» ¿²¼ ݱ²½»®² Í«³³¿®§ 9.Issue/Concern: Replacing Nonconforming structures and/or nonconforming use after disaster if damage exceeds the 80% threshold Staff Comment:Generally property owners are concerned with the requirement that prevents them from rebuilding a structure or continuing operation of a non-conforming use in the event that the structure or uses were destroyed by more than 80%. This regulation is not unique to the Subarea plan since the regulation stems from the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Section 19.20.060, Non-conforming use and structures. The regulations apply to properties city wide. The regulation addresses uses and structures uniformly. If a structure were destroyed more than 80%, the replacement structure must meet the current regulations. If a non-conforming use were to be destroyed by more than 80%, then it would not be allowed to be continued. To be discussed at the Meeting Process Required: Written Comment Summary: In addition to the comments received at the public meeting, fiveemails and letters were received. The main concerns expressed within the correspondence related to uses, architectural standards, setbacks, building frontage coverage, freestanding, wall and monument signage, and regulation of non-conforming uses and structures in the event that more than 80% is destroyed. One last email was received from Sean Lumsden, Representing Auto Row, on June 3 that requested that full service restaurants and specialty retail uses be allowed, Sprague building setbacks be increased to 100’, block size be increased to 16 acres, and numerous changes be made to the signage requirements. The letters and emails are attached for your information. Council Options: The Council should consider the comments received as a result of the public outreach effort and direct staff on how to proceed. The Council may consider the following actions: 1.Identify which issues and specific language to forward to Planning Commission for Code Amendments; 2.Identify specific issues to be addressed by Comprehensive Plan Amendment. 3.Take No Action 4.Direct staff otherwise ݱ«²½·´ Ó»»¬·²¹ ó Ö«²» èô îðïð п¹» ë Questions Comments from the Gateway Areas Meeting May 20, 2010 Flip Chart 1.Replacing structures after disaster 80% standard 2.Setbacks 3.Signage on each arterial 4.Uses – not as many as permitted before 5.Clarify replacement of uses when disaster 6.Accessory structures – storage buildings 7.Max frontage coverage 8.Trees vs. Signage 9.Auto dealers orient to both streets 10.Signage related to brand requirements 11.North side of street /one-way hurt business 12.Is the plan consistent with publicly stated goals i.e. filling vacant buildings 13.Allow professional offices that support auto row i.e. accounting, legal office – not medical. From the recording notes: 1.Jack Riley – concern over non-conforming replacement of building 2.Dennis Rundlfson –concern over being able to sell non-conforming business, business is conforming 3.Tom Powers – concern over non-conforming standards and property value 4.Barry Curry –concern over less allowed uses, setbacks, generally unhappy 5.Bob Ellis – signage for different brands, continuing a non-conforming use 6.Evelyn Halseth –concern over non-conforming building if destroyed 7.Sean Lumsden – concern brand signage requirements, building setbacks 8.Shelley Rundlfson – concern one-way traffic 9. May 20 Gateway Commercial, Gateway Center Zoning Districts, meeting transcript [Note: For the first part of the meeting, almost everyone who spoke at the meeting could not be heard on the recording. Lori Barlow generally repeated their questions or concernsand then she and/or others responded to it.] KathyMcClung: following this meeting, staff will put togethercomments for a staff report; and will put in a recommendation to council; we will follow one of two paths or will go into twodirections: if a change can be made immediately then it goes to the Planning Commission then follow the process back to council for immediate change; or ifit is a change that requires a change to the comprehensive plan, then that will be another list which will be held until we go through all the zoning districts; and the comp plan process will be the same process in 2011; and the reason is, state law only lets us change the comp plan th once a year and we already did that for 2010. A staff presentation will be before Council June 8 and if you signed in and gave an e-mail address, then we can send you a copy of that staff report that will be going to council; if you have specific questions about aparticular property, we can probably answergen questions, but if you want follow-up to go over details, then signup at on front table and put in contact information and staff will follow up. LoriBarlow: we will try to give agood description of the rules in placeregardingtwo zoning district: Gateway Commercialand Gateway Center, which are twoof the zoning districtswithinthe SARP plan. My report includeslocation of the districts, uses allowed, comparison of districts in place prior to SARP starting with 2003date of incorporation, and how they may or may not have changed; site development regulations; architectregulations;and end with signage, and I hope to giveagood understanding of the zoning districts in understanding how it may or may not affect property. Lori introduced, Kathy, Scott, Greg, Deanna Kathy: opens the floor for questions comments, suggestions Jack Riley: owns Plantation Restaurantwithin the subarea plan, is concerned about how this zoning districtmay affect his propertyvalues and if there is an effect whether he should be compensated for it. Lori :our limited research indicates this is not an impact based on zoning; but we can’t answer that for eachindividual property owner so staff encourages citizens to contact county offices for assessment,any mortgagersinvolved and your insurance company; there are people who have had historicallybeen nonconforming all along and experienced no changes from that; nonconforming statute is not limitedin terms of continuing to operate, because it’s not limited in terms of continuing to operate, we perceiveit not having an impact to business;if he is in the GatewayCenter,he is a permitted use so there would be noimpactto him but if nonconforming, he would allowed to operateas long as we wanted to without an impact from the city. Concern from citizen [maybe same person] (Lori re-phrasing): that if there were a nonconforming use and were some event on his property then he wouldn’t be able to re-build; Lori: if it is nonconforming or a nonconforming structure and there is an event like a fire, and if the building were destroyed less than 80% he could rebuild exactly as it was and use exactly as did; if the loss is greater than 80% then subsequent construction or use would have to be consistent with the current regulations in place; that doesn’t mean you couldn’t re-build the building, that’s an easy answer: if it didn’t meet setback requirements then when you re-built, you re-build so it meets the setback regulations. Concern: he could replace the building but it may not be consistent with lot size Lori: some are site development regulationswhich are minimum frontage requirements that apply to propertyalong Sprague but not Appleway or other frontage; if it is along Sprague in the gateway then the building must be a certain percentage of the lot width. If there were a disaster on the site, staff would Page 1 of 11 May 20 Gateway Commercial, Gateway Center Zoning Districts, meeting transcript figure out how to work through that; it is not anybody’s goal to ensure that no development ever occurs; this is one of those unique situations we hope we won’t have to address. Another person: If he owns a specialty retailbusinesswhich would be nonconforming;asksif he could sell his businessand if that right to operate would be transferred to the new owner. Lori said –yes – that right to operate runs with land. More questions: if he’s not able to sell the business could he lease his structure to another nonconforming business. Lori: nonconforming uses are regulated under current zone,there is languagethat address if exact nonconforming can come in or if similar nonconforming uses can come in; he could lease it to another nonconforming so long as it met criteria outlined in the code; it has to be similar in nature and no additional impactsin terms of traffic or to adjacentproperty owners Kathy : we addressed that all over the city with other types of nonconforming and said they all come across her desk; she can’t remember ever turning down a request for replacing a nonconforming with a different nonconforming, but to illustrate, if there was a specialty retail and they wanted to set up a salmon processing plant –is an extreme example but said that might be looked on differently; as long as in the same range and not more nonconformances or problems for neighbors, then yes you could continue that nonconforming use. More follow-up: do we perceive a change in value trying to sell a nonconforming use Lori : based on staff’s limited discussion with appraisers and bankers, we don’t believeitwill be an impactbut is a question a property owner needs to research and identifyif any impact. She said if they do researchandthey find out, and that is what this process is about we’re trying to find information, if you find out and have some tangible informationor discussions that we can relay to council andsay that you identifiedsome situations where propertyvalue may be decreased, we would relay that to council; she’s th trying to prepare a report to Council for the June 8. She said is a tricky situationas hearsayis tough to deal with;we are looking for information thatis evidence based. We have done our research as best we canandencourage citizens to contact insurance agentsand lenders and others who might have an impact on property. Kathy : she has done a little in that area; we can put together examples all over town not just here but other towns where nonconforming uses have sold to other nonconforming uses; and in some cases, she asked one appraiser, he said every situation is absolutely unique and depends on what you are and what you want to sell it to but in some cases you might even increase value to property because you have a right that no one else has; you can do something on that property that no one else. It could – is what appraisers have told her – every situationis unique. Lori: (to paraphrase the question)if he leasing building to a tenant and ten-years into the twenty-year lease and the building collapsesdue to snow and is destroyed greater than 80%,can he re-build and continue to lease to his nonconforming tenant - and she said –yes. Somebody else said that man would have to re-do the whole building on a whole new footprint, Lori: said that is true, but the first person was asking specifically about the use so the answer about the tenant is he could continue with his tenant. Tom Powers : asked how that’s any different than if a businessoperator were conducting his business and experiencessome sort of an event where his business andthe building were destroyed greater than 80%. Page 2 of 11 May 20 Gateway Commercial, Gateway Center Zoning Districts, meeting transcript Lori: said the code reads under nonconforming uses –the code not under the SARP per se but under the municipal code, and it c alls out that not only buildings but uses are regulated; but based on Kathy’s response, we are looking at uses differently, maybe we need to add that to our list to clarify in our code to call that very specifically, because the code reads that nonconforming buildings, nonconforming structures and nonconforming uses are both related under this 80% rule, from a staff perspective it is kind of difficult to understand how a business may be destroyed separate from a structure, so I think this is something we need to clarify in the code; as Kathy just stressed, the use would be allowed to continue, the structure would be required to be re-built to be consistent with our current regulations. Someone asks Kathy: What is the difference between him leasing to somebody that has a use in the building and having your own business Kathy –says no difference. Him: so I feel like we got different answers and Kathy says we need to probably clarify that in the code, and said she is hearing that this is a concern, the 80% replacement is a concern. Another person asks about the other question about the tenant and a 20 years lease and into ten years into itand the building collapsesand the tenant that leases that bldg . . .. going to rebuild in the way the rules read you can’t replace that building like you said earlier . . . . and how does that . . . prop owner is forced to either, or the tenant could cancels the lease and the prop owner would be able to retain that structure . . Kathy says I understand what you’re saying and agreedthat she is hearing it is a concern Him – yes 80% Kathy – yes, I understand that is a concern. Comment: can’t hear it. Kathy – you have a permit to bldg one? Commenter: can’t hear him; something about specific uses you want to use it for Lori : even though this went in effect last October, it was the culmination of several years of planning, over80 public meetings, lots of notices that went out to property owners and there was a concerted effort on the part of the city to bring this to the attention of all persons involved up and down the corridor; we all recognize that we could have done more but we gave it a very good effort to notify everybody. To further respond, in terms of concentrating the uses, what has been shown is that uses that are of like uses concentrated togetherthey are more successful, when the development regulations and the uses are clustered together, you create a more successful environment for the businessthat are located in that area. What this plan does is try to create these districts, whether it is an avenue or a center, that in fact creates a setting that is conducive to supporting the businessesthat are located there. The signage regulations in the subarea plan are premised on the fact that they are attempting to reduce the sign clutter up and down Sprague Avenue; there is an abundance of signs to the extent that maybethere are so many signs at this point that they aren’t as effective as property owners think because passersbyare kind of blocking them out; that’s the premise to try to diminishthe sign clutter. The setback requirement about inrelation to the cardealershipin thegateway center and avenue, there is an allowance in there for vehicledisplays in front of the building; there are twooptions called out and displayedis in the plan; it was specifically designed for the twogateway avenue & centerzoning districtthat this whole area is designed to support and strengththe auto dealers in this area. Lori: in response to the next question (can’thear on the recording)) what are the setbacks; and also brought to light that he never receivednotices prior or the notices he did receivedidn’t convey that his property could be downgraded by zoning. The setback question is if you are in the gateway commercial centersdistrictthen the setback along Spragueis between 0 and 10 ft; so you can be as closeas 0ft from the back of the sidewalk but not further then ten feet from thesidewalk.If you’re in the gateway avenue then setback can be as great as 30 or 35’ –someone says 30 –that only applies to buildings that are Page 3 of 11 May 20 Gateway Commercial, Gateway Center Zoning Districts, meeting transcript fronting on Sprague, so if you’reon side streets that intersect with Sprague, then there’s not a maximum setback requirement. Someone asks questions; Lori asks if they are in the Gateway Commercial Center and they respond yes. Lori: well you’re allowed that provision, I guessI’d have to look at that more closely, but the code does specificallycall out the allowance for you to display cars a single row of carsin front of your building in betweenthe back of the curb andthe front of the building, and I’d have to look at that a little more closely. That’s a very specific question, and I wish I could respond to all the very specificquestionsbut the reality is that sometimes the questionstake a little more detail, and a little more thought, and alittle more review, so I’ll do the best I can and I’m struggling with that one as the allowance is there; and the other thing I just want to point out is that, I understand what you’re saying about your frustrations about the previous notices, but I just want toencourage you to look at this as your opportunity to get involved and to bring to light the concerns andcommentsthat you would likeus to address, as that is the focus, we’ll trying to takethis informationback to the council andthey’re wanting to consider this, of how best to serve the public in thismatter [Speaker start using microphone] Speaker : Butit’s my understanding that this has already passed in the matter; it’s passed, it’s done,it’s there and you’re trying to make us feel good about it. I don’t feel good about it, I don’t see how it’s going to help anything. Again, how can I display one row of cars if my maximum setback is 30 ft; I don’t see how that’s going to work; currently my building’ back about 65’; there’s no way I want to bring my building up between 30’ if something happens to it or if it burns down, I don’t want to have to go through all the other architectural things that are required. Lori: Let’s look at the code specificallyat the end of the meeting and we can talk aboutthat; because I don’t have the answer for you right now; in terms of your comments that it’s all said and done, the plan is in effect, but the purpose of this is to re-review the plan to understand what changes need to be made; that is the direction council has given to staff, and so yes, the plan is in effect but we’re trying to figureout how to move forward with the plan andthe council is very interested in making changes to the plan to make it more workable for the community. Speaker: I also have another question concerning usage of property; what if we want to have other out buildings that are behind our buildings that are used for services that we do for cars, do we have to have those 30 ft from the street too, or can other buildings or other structures be put if it is a deeper lot toward the back. Lori:you can have additional structures, if you’re fronting Sprague then that primary building would have to meet those maximumfront requirements; the additional structures would be subject to the typical setbacks and you can have those and they don’t have to be facing, fronting Sprague. Speaker (possible Barry Curry) ; another concern on the architecture side, is how you can tell us the size of the building we have, it can’t be long, can’t be narrow; can’t be too wide, too tall, I understand maybe the height issue, who determines how we best set up the building for thespecific business we ‘re building for; why is it that you seem to know that a specific footprint is going to work; what if a long narrow building does work; so because somebody doesn’t like long narrow buildings they put it in this code so we can’t build long narrow buildings, but if that is the best use for the business why can’t we do it. Lori: We don’t dictate the size of the buildings; Speaker: when you were going through the footprint you mentioned that we don’t want long narrow buildings. Page 4 of 11 May 20 Gateway Commercial, Gateway Center Zoning Districts, meeting transcript Lori: we don’t want long narrow buildings with blank walls, so there, in some district there are maximum building lengths; in the Gateway commercial Avenue a maximum length of a building is 180 ft’, if you were on a very wide piece of property then your building couldn’t’ exceed 180 ‘ in width; we do that because when you start to construct such long building you really are starting to break away from the pedestrian environment and the human scale we ‘re trying to create; there are ways around that, there are provisions what you can make some articulation affects on your building to break up the length of your building; or if you find your lot size width might dictate you’d have wider building then you’d like, there are different processes where you can use themto change the lot configuration; that would be one of the concerns we should note is that you are very much opposed to having the size of your building which we do not regulate, but the width – be dictated by the regulations. Speaker :That’s correct, and I think the setbacks is also a major concern with that. Another question I have what if on a piece of property, we want to put in a building that would be similar to a strip mall building, several different auto services; can that be done? Lori: Yes –I can’t think of any reason why that wouldn’t’ so long as the uses are consistentwith the zoning code. Speaker :But for some reason if professional service or office use wants to come in and operate in there they are banned from doing that. Lori: That’s correct, because that wouldn’t be a zoning use that is allowed in the zoning code; but if you have, I just wanted to point out that I know there are office buildings out there right now and those would be allowed to continue; and office typeuses would be allowed to cycle in andout of that existing office building, but in terms of new construction,we won’t allow that same opportunity; if you are building a new building they would have comply with the regulations and the uses that go into the new building would have to meet the new regulations. Speaker : Why is it wrong to have office uses mixed in with auto uses; why is that such a no-no? Lori: If it’s offices uses that support or are associated with the auto industry, then that’s allowed; but office uses are allowed in other zoning district within the plan based on the premise we are trying to create different characters of area and neighborhoods and trying to concentrate like uses that are compatible with other different areas; this planhas determined this is an auto oriented area and we allowed uses supportive or contemplating the auto industry and generally speaking office uses are not. Speaker : I really don’t believe you should restrict what kind of businesses are where, and in any of the property in there; so you’re now setting up different placesin Spokane Valleythat if I want to go shop for food I have to go to an area that is concerned food only; ortoa departmentstore only, and I don’t understand this whole concept that we have certain businessesin certain areas; and what the need for that business is down in the auto area but it’s not an auto business. Lori: But I think if there is a need for that business in that auto area then we need to go back and add that as a allowed use in that area; I think it’s a little extreme to say that grocery store area is in whatnot; now in every jurisdiction there is zoning in place where that alreadydictates where you can and can’t have your uses; this is not any different from a zoning district in place; the only thing difference about this is that we are talking about the types of uses allowed in these particular districts; but the concept of regulating uses is not new and it has been without a doubt proven as the right and within the scope of authority within any city or county to regulate where uses are allowed; and we’re not arguing that point; it’s just simply what uses are allowed in the zoning district. Page 5 of 11 May 20 Gateway Commercial, Gateway Center Zoning Districts, meeting transcript Speaker: I understand in some instances there are specific reasons you do that; but I don’t think it should be so restrictive, and I believe this is very restrictive and I don’t believe this is going to allow the full flow of other sorts of businesses that could mingle in there that may be auto connected. Lori: Ok, so we’ll add to the list that you believe the uses are too restrictive. Speaker; And #2, I also believe that when you’ve taken away 48 uses of my property, I still believe that is was a major deal of what was done, and that is specifically what youdone to the zoning to what it is now, there are 48 districtuses that you’ve taken away that I could use it for. Lori: Ok, the uses allowed is too restrictive. Scott Kuhta: I just want to clarify that the plan does not regulate the footprint of the building, it does regulate the frontage along Sprague and along other streets, but does not regulate the specific footprint; what will dictate the footprint is how much parking, landscape similar to what any commercial zoning code would require. So the configuration of your lot Mr. Riley is not, there is no minimum or maximum lot size; what will dictate through this code, what you, if you decide to remove or replace or if destroyed and you’d have to start over, it’s the minimum and maximums setbacks and how much frontage along Sprague, and along the other streets, and the number of stories and the number of parking; and anecdote - a person was looking at developing on a residential piece not a part of gateway, he liked it as he could get more development on his lot because the parking requirements were less; you really have to start looking at the design details of the plan and then figure out; and that’s what we’re here to help you; if you have specific questions Lori and I have been sitting down with a number of people going through the plan and going through the details to see exactly how they can build on their lot, and we offer that to anybody to come in if they’re looking at it or just speculating, they’re looking at a specific use or just speculating, we’re happy to help with the details. Speaker(possible Bob Ellis) : we’re a multi line power sport dealership in there, and I don’t even see power sports on your approved list Lori: Power sports being? Speaker : motorcycles, ATV, snowmobiles that kind of stuff Kathy: they are approved. Lori says that’s included. Speaker: ok. In regard to signage, our different brands require their own individual monument signs; we have multiple brands, we need to get signs out there and with all the bloody trees out there nobody can see our signage anymore Lori: ok – we’ll add that to the list. Speaker; Ok, so now we’re obviously talking more thanone sign per parcel; and that’s not a rule I have any control over, that’s what my brands demand. Lori: We have had a letter expresses some interestin making some changes to the code; we will be considering that in the preparation of the report to go to council; and if you’d like to talk with us afterwards to give us more information about the brand requirements and help us understand what the specific issues are, we’d be happy to talk with you. Speaker: ok, and the last one I got is other nonconforming issues or uses of our property; we bought our property 2.5 years ago, before SARP, and there had been rentals, office rentals, restaurants, stuff like that Page 6 of 11 May 20 Gateway Commercial, Gateway Center Zoning Districts, meeting transcript on the property; and we’re in between tenants right now and remodeling to move a restaurant into there; and we are in the gateway avenue district. Lori: and you ‘re in the process of re-modeling for a full service, sit-down restaurant Speaker; Right . Lori: Do you have your permits? Speaker : No. I haven’t done anything yet; I mean’s that’s just part of the game plan andthere was a restaurant in there earlier that was a tenant who had the permits and did that and he closed his doors and that was well within the 24 months you’re talking about. Lori: Then you should be allowed to continue if you’re within that 24 month; we can talk specifically with you afterwards if you have specific questions, but generallyif it was a use allowed previously and it hasn’t been abounded or discontinued greater than 24 months, then you can continue that. Speaker : Ok. Speaker (possible Evelyn Halseth ) : My property is 100 frontage on Sprague and 250 feet deep, and we have auto there, 4 bays, and the building right now sits from the property line 90’, which for auto you’d have to have because you have 4 bays in there and then the office and the showroom, so it sits back approx I think maybe even 100 ‘ or 80’; it sits back so we have lots of parking, which is necessary in a repair shop because a lot of people drop their cars off and then they come back and go to work and pick it up at 5 so you have to have room for them to park; so right now the building is rented to automotive; and that works well for them –it's a glass company, so that would never be permissible again, is that correct? The property is for sale, so if someone bought that they could only have a building 50’ feetwide on this 100’ ft property and be 10 feet from the road; I don’t know, it’s just for sale. Lori: So there’s a building on it now Speaker: That’s right Lori: So it sounds to me like you have anallowed use so you’re consistent and you have no issues; the current configuration is not an issue, there’s nothing in this plan that would cause you to add anything to the building or move the building; you’d be allowed to continue it as it is. Speaker : But some people may just be interested in the land and desire to do something else. Lori: If somebody were to buy the land for the purpose of re-development, then the re-development would need to meet the new regulations. Speaker: So they could only build 50’ wide Lori: They could only build so it met the frontage requirements; so if the property is 100’ wide, then you’d be looking at a building maybe as wide as 50’ on Sprague. Speaker : and 10’ ft back from the road or sidewalk, in gateway center Lori: You’d have to meet the setback requirements, and in the gateway center it’s zero to 10 feet Speaker : oh boy; that really limits anybody. Page 7 of 11 May 20 Gateway Commercial, Gateway Center Zoning Districts, meeting transcript Lori: Nice to meet you I talked to you on the phone several times Sean. Speaker; (Presumable Sean Lumsden) Thank you, I just wanted to clarify that as the auto dealers are reviewingthings, most of the things that we are going to request to be modified arethings that everyone has brought up; we have concerns about the setbacks, about how buildingscan be oriented if in fact the loop is going to be put in place we think that there needs to be some kind of attention brought to the fact that Dishman has just made the area so much nicer looking, and this wouldbe considered nonconforming at this point, Dishman Dodge, and the fact that they were able to orient going in both directions we think should be an option; signage is a huge issue for the dealers and again, as alluded to, should a dealership like Appleway, Mazda, Subaruchoose to come intothe automotive section, they will have problems from their parent brands over there they need twoseparate signs for twoseparate brands, and we know that Toyota wants to build another just gorgeous building and they have Toyota and Zion (?) and that is going to be a concern because they’re going to have two separate brand names that they want to address. Lori: If you have more than one brand being sold at that particular location, is it common for there to be separate buildings for each one of those individual dealers, or would they operate out of one building? Speaker: It morphs over time; if you look at like a building like the Subaru Mazda building, this is a situation where there is a building and two brands were able to sell there; if you look right next door where you have Audi and VW; they’re kind of related so they each got their own half; the trend now is for dealerships to have one brand in one building but again the issue for the auto dealers comes back to they are beholding to their parent brands and if we want to keep the parent brands staying in Spokane Valley, we need to be able to say to Toyota, if you want to build a brand new gorgeous building here we want you to and what can we do to make sure this gets taken care of. One Toyota Camry gets sold that’s the equivalent of tax generations for the city of ten years of gas, and we can bring people in from all over the region, buy their cars in Spokane Valleyand when they go home, they go home and they use the city services of whatever city they came in from but they gave us their tax dollars, which we appreciate. Their house burns down we don’t send the Spokane Valleyfire departmentto put it out. And another thing the dealers want to stress is, long before SARP was a gleam in anybody’s eye, the dealers were sitting down and spending their own money to hire a consultant to say how can we revitalize Sprague. I think the thing people should be upin arms about is the fact that Sprague is emptying out incredible quickly; small businessesare now clustering in malls and clustering in regional areas and that kills traffic for everybody and that is all the auto dealers ever wanted was traffic. Just tohave people drive by and hopefully catch, that’s the car I was looking for in the corner of their eye; that’s all the auto dealers want is just more traffic. I’m going to hazard a guess that’s what most businesses want; and considering you can fund a city through property taxes or retail sales taxes, I’m going to hazard a guess most of thepeople in Spokane Valleyare going to say, hey, let’s let the rest of the region fund our city by buying cars and going home. We don’t want our property taxes raised; let’s raise the retail sales tax area. I feel bad for the gentleman who felt he didn’t know about the meetings, but I gotta tell you Deanna and the staff were sending out e- mails to 300-400 people at a time a week before a meeting, two weeks before a meeting, a month before a meeting, and this has been going on for 2.5 years. We participated in the process, we gave our feedback and we knew all about it so I think staff has done a fine job in getting the message out. So that’s to sum up,we’re going to get you an actual list of the things that we are interested in; we need to figure out the difference between municipal codes, sign codes, and SARP before we formalize some of the requests we have. Kathy: Ok, and we’re happy to meet with you. Lori –maybe you could give a deadline for giving additional comments in order for you to get them in the staff report. Lori: My deadline to get,this is a really tight schedule in terms of getting informationback to the council; st so at this point, I’m expectedto have my staff report moving to council I think on May 31. so I guess we have a very short timeframe - the rest of this week and next week where persons could come talk with us or get comments in to be included inthe staff report. Deanna, who I said keeps us on track, says no later Page 8 of 11 May 20 Gateway Commercial, Gateway Center Zoning Districts, meeting transcript than next Thursday, and then bear in mind that we also have Memorial Day weekend coming up so we are on a really fast tract; and I don’t want it to seem that we don’t want your comments, but I really want to stressthat if you want to give us information, then to please work with us quickly. And if it turns out that we need to ask for more time because the issues turn out to be greater than what we anticipated, then I th guess we’ll have to move with that; but at this point we are anticipating going back to council on the 8 . Speaker: Yes, getting back to the gentleman’s question about saying he didn’t receive notice Lori: I just want to clarify, he did say he received notice, but he said that the notice didn’t convey to him exactly what he felt should have been conveyed; so in his defense, everybody knows we had plenty of notices. Speaker : Well, my suggestion is going back to when they made Sprague a one-way street, I went to the city council meeting in downtownSpokane and they said well we put a little ad in the legal section of the paper, well half of the people affected by the one-way on Sprague Avenue up and down the street, didn’t even realize they were going to make Sprague a one-way street until the tractor was at the doorstep. I suggest that it would solve a lot of problems for everyone, is that if they, the city of Spokane Valleywhen they’re going to do something to affect people’s property, at least send them a certified or registered letter saying that, then they know that they receivedthese notices, because a lot of people, they think, well it’s just another flyer and they throw it in the file 13 or whatever, and it’s very important for people to know these things, and for having someone say that they didn’t receive a notice you could say well yes you did because we have a signedreceipt here for your certified letter. So then they have no reason not to be able to do that. That’s what I suggest. Kathy: I am encouraged by the number of people that are here this morning and seeing some new faces. Speaker: (possible Shelley Rundlfson) (said she didn’t need the mic) speaking about the one-way street, was a quick fix for the freeway construction, if there was an accident on the freeway that kind of followed that traffic for miles and miles, so that was a quick fix to get that one-way road in and get those people home, and now we all have to pay for this quick decision, we went to all those stupid meetings and it was just a quick decision; now watch the population on the north side of the street, no one would ever ever open up a business on the north side of that one-way street. So I think the purpose is to see what can be done about that, I mean we get heartburn about that 81 meetings, 82 meetings, it just goes on and on and on so we’re not addressing the issue of the one way roads and of business on the one-way streets. Sorry, I’m a little emotional here. The other thing is I don’t understand this automobile row and everything has to be related to automobile row. We were there long before any of those automobile people were there, way long before. So shouldn’t it be called carpet row. Lori: Well, the reason for auto row is that is the general character so that seems so to be the way it’s developing. Speaker: It’s a money issue. So I’m just addressing some of these issues, and we could go to all the meetings we want but it comes to a point where you know, you have to stop the meetings and resolve some of the issues. But anyway, the one-way was just a quick fix, that’s all it was to get traffic off that freeway. Someone asked about what ones have to go to the Planning Commission and which ones Kathy: Right, I’ll do my best; I’m thinking we’d better give certificates to people that attend these classes. The comp plan is a policy document that is supposed to provide the framework for how the city wants to grow in the next 20 year horizon. We can only change that plan once a year by state law, because the idea behind it is that onceyou adopt a comp plan, people should be able to rely on that comp plan for making decisions. So we have a part of the Sprague Appleway Plan that is in our comprehensive plan which talks about the policy direction, and then the regulations provide the specificsof how to implementthe policy; Page 9 of 11 May 20 Gateway Commercial, Gateway Center Zoning Districts, meeting transcript so we can make any changes any time to the regulations as long as they are not in conflict with the policy; so there’s lot of changes we can make now that won’t be in conflict with the policy, but if it it’s a sweeping change that does change the policy, then we have to look at it at the time we look at our comprehensive plan; I don’t know if that makes it Speaker: (can’t hear him) Kathy: sure Speaker (can’t hear him well) something about give us an example of something that would need a comp plan amendment and something that can be done . . . . would it be on the list. . . Kathy: Scott, do you want to do that, you’re more familiar with what’s in the Scott: Yea, some of these we’ll have to look at closer, I think when we’re talking about the setbacks, I think if we’re talking about putting buildingsin the middle of lots that may be more of an overall a policy-level decision because the whole intent of the subarea plan is to bring buildings closer to the streets, and within each district zone again, we don’t have an overall map, but in each district zone it’s a little different and you can see that by the different levels of setbacks from zero to five, to ten to thirty feet; and we’ll have to look at that closely, we may be able to think about adjustingthose but if we’re talking about just placing buildings in the middle of lots I think that’s probably a comp plan issue. If we’re looking at adding specific uses to the list, I think we can certainly look at adding some of those uses without being in conflict with the overall policy and intent. We’ll have to look at thingscase by case. This 80% standard, that’sin the municipal code, and we could take an amendment right now through the process and look at adjusting that 80% or do a full 100% if you have 100% loss we could say you would re-build it as it was where it was; that process is that, and we do text amendments; and I want to make it clear we do text amendments all the time, we have codes that are in placeand we are constantly looking at them and adjusting them to make them work better; so what the process would be for any of the code amendments is they go to the Planning Commission first, first we make a report to council; council would say yea, that sounds good so we go to the Planning Commission and a public hearing and the planning commissionmakes a recommendation back to the city counciland ultimatelythe city council will make the changes to the municipal code, which are the code amendments. So this one we could certainly look at and we’ve identified this use versus structure issue is something we really need to examine closely and that’s something we could do right away; signage certainly there’s no magic in the signage numbers, the idea is to try to make it a little more aesthetic instead of having, the idea is you don’t have quite so many signs and the clutter and the visual aspects of the signage and there’s a different perspective; that if you restrict the signage in any way it’s not business friendly, Speaker: Where can I determine what’s immediate andwhat’s Scott: I’m sorry, I get a little wordy, signage is something that we can look at immediately. Uses, those, that’s the idea, we’ll have to go through the list, there’s some things like signage, nonconforming uses, accessory structures – we kind of answered that question but I think we could specify a little clearer in the code; the frontage percentage: 30%? 50%? Those are numbers we could look at right now. Speaker : Could you clarify kind of why giving every business the opportunity to have 50 signs would not make any of those signs more visible? Scott: Suggested the speaker do that. Speaker: If ever you’ve driven in Federal Way down Pacific Highway, I think it’s Pacific Highway or 99, there are 50,000 signs; having the ability to put up more signs only lessensthe abilityof each sign to Page 10 of 11 May 20 Gateway Commercial, Gateway Center Zoning Districts, meeting transcript be visible; and while we don’t have signage codes to be overly restrictive, opening up the door to have as many signs as they want just makes the place look cluttered and then nobody’s sign gets seen as well. Speaker: hi, My name is Bonnie Quinn, and Quinn Clausennow, and I representthe auto row dealers, and I want to make this statement because I think it’s extremely important; It’s a marketing group. We got together because we saw that this area was deteriorating; and we realize that if we didn’t work together, we’d have nothing; and that’s exactly what that area was heading toward; Gus Johnson was attracted to going out there to Post Falls, of course we lost George Gee, Toyota, there was the potential of that, and while you might say that’s fine let them go, I don’t think you really realize, that first of all, these are local business owners, local people like you, good people with integrity, willing to invest in the community, there are people to be honored and not treated that way, it’s very offensive to me when I hear those slanderous, big business,this isn’t big business this is medium business that happens to provide over 500 jobs to our local economy. We need these people. Iwant these guys to stay and work together. Now we thought it would be nice to create a destination, to create a place where people would want to go. Let’s take one of the worst areas of Spokane Valleyand change it to something great. That’s what we’d like to do. It is very simple. We came up with some ideas, we did present them, if it doesn’t work out that’s fine, we’re about the community and I just personally want to say that when you talk about auto row you’re talking about a bunch of guys that want to work together for the better good for everybody and everybody wins, the Spokane Valleywins, businesses wins, jobs are created and tax burdens are decreased because of what they can contribute to this community. So if you have any other comments, please come to me directly. I’d be more than happy to share with you and introduce to you some of the nicest, most community minded people who give to charities beyond belief. So I just wanted to make that very clear. Speaker: Just curious, if you feel that strongly about the auto dealers, why didn’t they just come in and buy the property and make it the way they wanted to ratherthan (Bonnie says something) - but neither do we –the nonauto row, we’re important to the city, we should be there. They’re saying we want auto people here not other people, you’ll need to go somewhere else. (Bonnie saidwe’ not asking people to …) he says you are, you’re telling us to leave, you’re not asking us, we don’t have an option. Kathy: this is a conversation you need to have privately. We’re going to wrap this up so if people want to come up and look at the maps or talk to us; please if you ‘d like to have a meeting about your individual property please sign up out in the table, we have a place for you to put in your contact information; and thank you so much for coming and spending almost two hours and being so attentive and get your comments to us before next Thursday. Thank you. Page 11 of 11 DRAFT ADVANCE AGENDA For Planning Discussion Purposes Only as of June 2,2010;2:30p.m. Please note this is a work in progress; items are tentative To:Council & Staff From: City Clerk, by direction of Acting City Manager Re:Draft Schedule for Upcoming Council Meetings June 15, 2010, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m.[due date Mon, June 7] Action Item: 1. Second reading Ordinance CTA 02-10 Code Text Amendments –Lori Barlow(5 minutes) 2. Motion Consideration: Purchase Backhoe (bid award)–Neil Kersten (10 minutes) 3. Motion Consideration: Purchase Snow Plow (bid award) –Neil Kersten (10 minutes) 4. Motion Consideration: Comcast Contract Suspension of Fees –Cary Driskell(15 minutes) Non-action items: 5. Subarea Plan (SARP) Zone Discussion: Mixed Use –Scott Kuhta(30 minutes) 6. 2011 Budget –Mike Jackson/Ken Thompson(20 minutes) 7. Panhandling –Cary Driskell(30 minutes) 8. JAG Grant –Morgan Koudelka (10 minutes) 9. Advance Agenda (5 minutes) Executive Session 10.: Review Applications for City Manager(60-90 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 135minutes+exe.sess] June 22, 2010:No Meeting : Council Attends AWC Conference in Vancouver (June 22-25) Special Regular meeting June 29, 2010, format 6:00 p.m.[due date Mon, June 21] 1. Consent Agenda: Claims, Payroll, Minutes (5 minutes) th 2. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance Vacating Street (W of 16& Kahuna(STV 01-10)-K.Kendall(10 mins) 3. Proposed Resolution Adopting Six-Year 2011-2016 TIP –Steve Worley (10 minutes) 4. Motion Consideration: Suspend Broadway Safety Project –Neil Kersten(15 minutes) 5. Motion Consideration: JAG Grant –Morgan Koudelka(10 minutes) ( 6. Admin Report: GSI Update –Robin Toth tentative)(20 minutes) 7. Advance Agenda(5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 75minutes] 8. Info Only: Department Report July 6, 2010, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m.[due date Mon, June 28] 1. Comcast Ordinance –Cary Driskell/Mike Connelly(20 minutes) 2. Budget Process Update –Mike Jackson/Ken Thompson (20 minutes) 3. Advance Agenda (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: minutes] July 13, 2010, Special Meeting: Budget Retreat9:00 a.m. to approx 4:00 p.m. –CenterPlaceClassroom [due date Mon, July 5] July 13, 2010 Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m.[due date Mon, July 5] 1. Consent Agenda: Claims, Payroll, Minutes (5 minutes) 2. First Reading Proposed Ordinance Amending Comcast Franchise –Mike Connelly(20 minutes) 3.Admin Report: Subarea Plan (SARP) Check-in –Kathy McClung (15 minutes) 4. Admin Report:Code Text amendment –Christina Janssen(15 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 55minutes] 5. Admin Report: Advance Agenda Draft Advance Agenda 6/4/20102:30:55 PM Page 1of 4 July 20, 2010, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m.[due date Mon, July 12] 1. Subarea Plan (SARP) Zone Discussion: NeighborhoodCtrs –Scott Kuhta (30 minutes) 2. Advance Agenda (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: minutes] 3. Info Only: Department Reports July 27, 2010, Formal Meeting Format 6:00 p.m.[due date Mon, July 19] 1. Consent Agenda: Claims, Payroll, Minutes (5 minutes) 2. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance Amending Comcast Franchise –Legal(20 minutes) 3. First Reading Proposed Ordinance, Code text Amendment –Christina Janssen (15 minutes) 4. Advance Agenda(5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 25minutes] 5. Info Only: Department Reports August 3, 2010, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m.[due date Mon, July 26] 1. Advance Agenda(5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: minutes] August 10, 2010 Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m.[due date Mon, Aug 2]] 1. Consent Agenda: Claims, Payroll, Minutes (5 minutes) 2. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance, Code Text Amendment –Christina Janssen(15 minutes) 3. Motion Consideration: Setting Prelim. Budget Hearings 9-14 & 9-28–Ken Thompson (5 minutes) 4. Admin Report: Estimates of 2010 & 2011 Revenue/Expenditures –Ken Thompson (10 minutes) 5.Admin Report: Subarea Plan (SARP) Report to Council re Public Mtg –S.Kuhta –(20 minutes) 6. Admin Report: Advance Agenda(5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 55minutes] August 17, 2010,Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m.[due date Mon, Aug 9] 1. Subarea Plan (SARP) Zone Discussion: City Center –Scott Kuhta (30 minutes) 2. 2011 Budget –Property Tax Levies –Ken Thompson(15 minutes) [*estimated meeting: minutes] 3. Advance Agenda August 24, 2010, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m.[due date Mon, Aug 16] 1. PUBLIC HEARING: 2011 Budget Revenues –Ken Thompson (10 minutes) 2. First Reading Proposed Ordinance adopting2011 Property Tax Levy–Ken Thompson(15 minutes) 3. First Reading ProposedOrdinance property tax confirmation –Ken Thompson (10 minutes) Outside Agency Presentations 4. Admin Report: –Ken Thompson (60 minutes) 5. Admin Report: Advance Agenda(5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 100minutes] 6.Info Only: Department Reports August 31, 2010, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m.[due date Mon, Aug 23] 1. Advance Agenda [*estimated meeting: minutes] 2. Info Only: Preliminary Budget September 7, 2010, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m.[due date Mon, Aug 30] 1. Advance Agenda(5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: minutes] Draft Advance Agenda 6/4/20102:30:55 PM Page 2of 4 September 14, 2010 Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m.[due date Fri Sept 3] PUBLIC HEARING 1.: 2011 budget –Ken Thompson (5 minutes) 2.SecondReading Ordinance adopting2011 Property tax Levy –Ken Thompson (15 minutes) 3. Second Reading Ordinance property tax confirmation –Ken Thompson (5 minutes) Allocationof Funds to Outside Agencies 4. Motion Consideration:–Ken Thompson (25 minutes) 5. Subarea Plan (SARP) Plan) –Update to Council –Mike Basinger (30 minutes) [*estimated meeting: 80minutes] September 21, 2010, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m.[due date Mon, Sept 13] 1. Community Development Block Grant –Greg McCormick (15 minutes) 2. Advance Agenda [*estimated meeting: minutes] September 28, 2010, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m.[due date Mon, Sept 20] . PUBLIC HEARING 1: 2011 budget –Ken Thompson (5 minutes) 2. First Reading Ordinance to adopt 2011 Budget –Ken Thompson (15 minutes) 3. Subarea Plan (SARP) Zone Comm. Blvd –Lori Barlow(30 minutes) [*estimated meeting: minutes] 4. Info Only: Department Reports October 5, 2010, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m.[due date Mon, Sept 27] 1. Advance Agenda(5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: minutes] October 12, 2010 Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m.[due date Mon Oct 4] 1. Consent Agenda (Claims, minutes, payroll) 2.Second Reading Ordinance to adopt 2011 Budget –Ken Thompson (15 minutes) 3. Admin Report: Fee Resolution Proposed Changes –Mike Jackson (15 minutes) 4. Advance Agenda(5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: minutes] October 19,2010, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m.[due date Mon, Oct 11] 1. SARP Report to Council –Kathy McClung (30 minutes) 2. Advance Agenda [*estimated meeting: minutes] October26, 2010, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m.[due date Mon, Oct 18] 1. Consent Agenda (Claims, minutes, payroll) 2. Proposed Resolution Amending Fee Resolution –Mike Jackson (15 minutes) 3. Advance Agenda [*estimated meeting: minutes] 4. Info Only: Department Reports Draft Advance Agenda 6/4/20102:30:55 PM Page 3of 4 OTHER PENDING AND/OR UPCOMING ISSUES/MEETINGS: Affordable Housing Participation Alternative Analysis (contracts) Area Agency on Aging Bidding Contracts (SVMC 3. –bidding exceptions) Capital Projects Funding Clean Air Agency Code Amendments (Kathy McClung) Proposed Ordinance Amending CTR Plan –Morgan Koudelka Concurrency Contract Ordinance Amendment East Gateway Monument Structure# Hotel/Motel Grant Proposals for 2011 (Nov 2010) Industrial Pre-treatment Interlocalw/City of Spokane Jail Update Law EnforcementInterlocal Milwaukee Right-of-way Overweight/over size vehicle ordinance Planned Action Ordinance Shoreline Master Program “Inventory & Characterization Report” Signage(I-90; Sprague Exist, etc.) Solid Waste Amended Interlocal Speed Limits Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC) Interlocal SpragueAppleway Corridor Environ.Assessment Street Maintenance Facility Transportation Benefit District Interlocal Transportation Benefit District: (a).Establish ord.; (b) set public hearing; (c) draft resolution; (d) ballot language Transportation Impacts WIRA, Water Protection Commitment, public education = request for Council’s early consideration #=Awaiting action by others *= doesn’tincludetime for publicor council comments Draft Advance Agenda 6/4/20102:30:55 PM Page 4of 4 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.921.1000Fax: 509.921.1008 cityhall@spokanevalley.org Memorandum To:Mike Jackson, Acting City Manager Mayor and Members of Council From:Morgan Koudelka, Senior Administrative Analyst Date:June 8, 2010 Re:Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program 2010 Application Deadline: June 30, 2010. City of Spokane Valley Eligible Amount: $44,231 Match Required: None Award Period: Awards are made in the first fiscal year of the appropriation and may be expended during the following 3 years, for a total grant period of 4 years. Summary: The Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program (42 U.S.C. 3751(a)) is the primary provider of federal criminal justice funding to state and local jurisdictions. JAG funds support all components of the criminal justice system, from multijurisdictional drug and gang task forces to crime prevention and domestic violence programs, courts, corrections, treatment, and justice information sharing initiatives. JAG-funded projects may address crime through the provision of services directly to individuals and/or communities and by improving the effectiveness and efficiency of criminal justice systems, processes, and procedures. Purpose Areas: JAG funds may be used for state and local initiatives, technical assistance, training, personnel, equipment, supplies, contractual support, and criminal justice information systems for criminal justice that will improve or enhance such areas as: •Law enforcement programs. • Prosecution and court programs. • Prevention and education programs. • Corrections and community corrections programs. • Drug treatment and enforcement programs. City of Spokane Valley –JAG Grant June 8, 2010 Page 2of 3 • Planning, evaluation, and technology improvement programs. • Crime victim and witness programs (other than compensation). Note: The authorizing statute for the JAG Program provides that funds are to be used for the purposes above and notes that these purposes include all of the purposes previously authorized under the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Assistance Program (Byrne Formula) and the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Program (LLEBG). This provision may be useful to applicants in understanding all of the allowable uses under the above purpose areas. For example, relying on this provision, it can be understood that the JAG Purpose Area “Prosecution and court programs” listed above, provides the states and local units of government with the authority to fund defender, judicial, pretrial, and court administration efforts as well as prosecution programs. For a listing of prior Byrne Formula and LLEBG purpose areas, see www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/grant/byrnepurpose.html. Although these two programs have been eliminated, their prior purpose areas may be useful in appreciating the scope of the JAG purpose areas. PrioritiesIdentified by the Department of Justice: Violent Crime Counterterrorism Indigent Defense Alternatives to Incarceration Smart Policing –Evidence-based and data-driven law enforcement Economic Crimes Offender Re-entry Crimes Against Children Responsibilities: The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of an eligible unit of local government or other officer designated by the CEO must submit the application for JAG funds. A unit of local government receiving a JAG award will be responsible for the administration of the funds including: distributing the funds; monitoring the award; submitting quarterly financial status (SF-425) and performance metrics reports and annual programmatic reports; and providing ongoing oversight and assistance to any sub recipientsof the funds. City of Spokane Valley Expenditures: Proposed expenditures will be identified in the administrative report on June 15.The City expended the 2009 JAG grant on the following items. $24,300 Twenty (20) Air Cards to allow the transmission of encrypted data to patrol vehicles $10,000 Contribution to Regional Virtualization Server $12,500 Contribution toward Deputy Prosecutor Position for auto theft cases. $ 2,000 Chairs for Officers at SV Precinct Building $ 1,567 Ammunition Administrative Funds: A unit of local government may use up to 10 percent of the award, plus any interest accrued, for costs associated with administering JAG funds. City of Spokane Valley –JAG Grant June 8, 2010 Page 3of 3 Tentative Timeline: June 8:Information item presented to Council with details of award June 15: Administrative Report to Council identifying proposed expenditures June 29:Motion Consideration by Council, authorizing City Manager to apply for JAG grant June 30:Apply for grant with Council approval. Prohibited Uses: No JAG funds may be expended outside of JAG purpose areas. Even within these purpose areas, however, JAG funds cannot be used directly or indirectly for security enhancements or equipment for nongovernmental entities not engaged in criminal justice or public safety. Nor may JAG funds be used directly or indirectly to provide for any of the following matters unless BJA certifies that extraordinary and exigent circumstances exist, making them essential to the maintenance of public safety and good order: •Vehicles (excluding police cruisers), vessels (excluding police boats), or aircraft (excluding police helicopters). • Luxury items. • Real estate. • Construction projects (other than penal or correctional institutions). • Any similar matters. Non-Supplanting: Federal funds must be used to supplement existing funds for program activities and cannot replace or supplant nonfederal funds that have been appropriated for the samepurpose. Supplanting is prohibited under JAG. Reporting Requirements: Once an award is accepted, award recipients must submit quarterly financial status (SF-425) and annual performance reports through GMS (https://grants.ojp.usdoj.gov). To assist in fulfilling the Department’s responsibilities under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA), P.L. 103-62, applicants who receive funding under this solicitation must provide data that measures the results of their work. Additionally, applicants must discuss in their application their methods for collecting data for performance measures. Please refer to “What An Application Must Include” (below), for additional information on applicant Quarterly performance metrics reports must responsibilities for collecting and reporting data. be submitted through BJA’s Performance Measurement Tool (PMT) web site: www.bjaperformancetools.org. OMB No. 1121-0329 U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Assistance TheU.S. Department of Justice,Office of Justice Programs' (OJP) Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) is pleased to announce that it is seeking applications for funding under the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program. This program furthers the Department’s mission by assisting state, local, and tribal efforts to prevent or reduce crime and violence. Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program FY 2010 Local Solicitation Eligibility Applicants are limited to units of local government appearing on the FY 2010 JAG Allocations List. To view this list, go to www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/grant/10jagallocations.html.For JAG program purposes, a unit of local government is: a town, township, village, parish, city, county, borough, or other general purpose political subdivision of a state; or, it may also be a federally recognized Indian tribe that performs law enforcement functions (as determined by the Secretary of the Interior and published in the Federal Register). Otherwise a unit of local government may be any law enforcement district or judicial enforcement district established under applicable state law with authority to independently establish a budget and impose taxes. In Louisiana, a unit of local government means a district attorney or parish sheriff. In the District of Columbia or any United States Trust Territory, a unit of local government is any agency of the District of Columbia or federal government performing law enforcement functions for the District of Columbia or Trust Territories of the United States. Deadline This application must be submitted through OJP’s Grants Management System (GMS). Registration with OJP’s Grant Management System (GMS) is required prior to application submission. (See “How to Apply,” page 6.) All applications are due by 8:00 p.m. eastern time on June 30, 2010 (See “Deadlines: Registration and Application,” page 1.) Contact Information For technical assistance with submitting the application, contact the Grants Management System Support Hotline at 1–888–549–9901, option 3, or via e-mail to GMS.HelpDesk@usdoj.gov. Note: The GMS Support Hotline hours of operation are Monday–Friday from 6:00 a.m. to 12 midnight eastern time, except federal holidays. For assistance with the requirements of this solicitation, contact your State Policy Advisor: . www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/resource/ProgramsOffice.pdf Release date: April 26, 2010 CONTENTS Overview 1 Deadlines: Registration and Application 1 Eligibility 1 JAG Program—Specific Information 1 How to Apply 6 What an Application Must Include: 7 Standard Form 424 Program Narrative Budget and Budget Narrative Review Narrative Abstract Review Process 8 Additional Requirements 9 Application Checklist 10 OMB No. 1121-0329 ii Approval expires 02/28/13 Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program CFDA #16.738 Overview The Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program (42 U.S.C. 3751(a)) is the primary provider of federal criminal justice funding to state and local jurisdictions. JAG funds support all components of the criminal justice system, from multijurisdictional drug and gang task forces to crime prevention and domestic violence programs, courts, corrections, treatment, and justice information sharing initiatives. JAG-funded projects may address crime through the provision of services directly to individuals and/or communities and by improving the effectiveness and efficiency of criminal justice systems, processes, and procedures. Deadlines: Registration and Application Registration is required prior to submission. The deadline to register in GMS is 8:00 p.m. eastern time on June 30, 2010 and the deadline for applying for funding under this announcement is 8:00 p.m. eastern time on June 30, 2010. Please see the “How to Apply” section, page 6, for more details. Eligibility Please refer to the cover page of this solicitation for eligibility under this program. JAG Program—Specific Information All awards are subject to the availability of appropriated funds and any modifications or additional requirements that may be imposed by law. Established to streamline justice funding and grant administration, the JAG Program allows states, tribes, and local governments to support a broad range of activities to prevent and control crime based on their own local needs and conditions. JAG blends the previous Byrne Formula and Local Law Enforcement Block Grant (LLEBG) Programs to provide agencies with the flexibility to prioritize and place justice funds where they are needed most. Formula The Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) calculates, for each state and territory, a minimum base allocation which, based on the Congressionally mandated JAG formula, can be enhanced by (1) the state’s share of the national population, and (2) the state’s share of the country’s Part 1 violent crime statistics. Once the state funding is calculated, 60 percent of the allocation is awarded to the state and 40 percent to eligible units of local government (please note that the territories and District of Columbia are exempt from this part of the formula). Eligible state/territory recipients are entitled to the previously mentioned 60 percent state allocation plus any funds designated for the state’s units of local government whose direct allocation would be less than $10,000. Funds from these “less than $10,000 jurisdictions” are added to the state allocation and must be distributed by the state to state police departments OMB No. 1121-0329 1 Approval expires 02/28/13 that provide criminal justice services to units of local government and units of local government that were not eligible for a direct award of $10,000 or more. In addition, the formula then calculates direct allocations for local governments within each state, based on their share of the total violent crime reported within the state. Local governments entitled to at least $10,000 awards may apply directly to BJA for local JAG grants. States also have a variable percentage of the allocation that is required to be “passed through” to units of local government. This amount, also calculated by BJS, is based on each state’s crime expenditures. Updated Variable Pass-through percentages (VPT), which State Administering Agencies (SAA) are required to use in the administration of Fiscal Year 2010 JAG awards, can be found at: www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/grant/jag10/10JAGvpt.pdf. Award Amount Eligible award amounts under JAG are posted annually to BJA’s JAG web page: www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/grant/jag.html. Purpose Areas JAG funds may be used for state and local initiatives, technical assistance, training, personnel, equipment, supplies, contractual support, and criminal justice information systems for criminal justice that will improve or enhance such areas as: Law enforcement programs. Prosecution and court programs. Prevention and education programs. Corrections and community corrections programs. Drug treatment and enforcement programs. Planning, evaluation, and technology improvement programs. Crime victim and witness programs (other than compensation). Note: The authorizing statute for the JAG Program provides that funds are to be used for the purposes above and notes that these purposes include all of the purposes previously authorized under the Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Assistance Program (Byrne Formula) and the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Program (LLEBG). This provision may be useful to applicants in understanding all of the allowable uses under the above purpose areas. For example, relying on this provision, it can be understood that the JAG Purpose Area “Prosecution and court programs” listed above, provides the states and local units of government with the authority to fund defender, judicial, pretrial, and court administration efforts as well as prosecution programs. For a listing of prior Byrne Formula and LLEBG purpose areas, see . Although these two programs have been www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/grant/byrnepurpose.html eliminated, their prior purpose areas may be useful in appreciating the scope of the JAG purpose areas. Priorities BJA recognizes that the downturn in the economy has resulted in significant pressures on state and local criminal justice systems. In these challenging times, all of DOJ, and especially OJP and BJA, wish to ensure that local JAG recipients are aware of several areas of national focus and priority for DOJ that may be of help in maximizing the effectiveness of the Byrne/JAG funding at the state and local level. As an overall framework for success, we encourage comprehensive justice planning, bringing all of the system stakeholders together, including law enforcement, courts, prosecutors, defenders, OMB No. 1121-0329 2 Approval expires 02/28/13 corrections officials, and other stakeholders to create a comprehensive and strategic justice plan to ensure coordination and a more effective justice system. As a part of this strategic planning process, we strongly encourage state and local planners to consider programs that are evidence-based and have been proven effective; in a difficult budgetary climate, it is critical that dollars are spent on programs whose effectiveness is proven. However, we recognize that state and local programs can also be wonderful laboratories for innovative programs that can be models for other states and localities addressing difficult problems. BJA has made resources available to state administering agencies and others to provide training and technical assistance in identifying and using evidence-based practices as the outcome of a comprehensive and strategic justice plan in the state or local community. In addition to these overarching considerations, and in addition to our longstanding and unwavering commitment to keeping violent crime at its lowest level in decades, the following priorities represent key areas where we will be focusing nationally and invite each state to join us in addressing these challenges as a part of our Justice Assistance Grants partnership. A key priority for the Department of Justice and, indeed, the entire Administration, is effective counterterrorism and terrorism prevention programs. We recognize that state and local law enforcement are critical partners in detecting, identifying, preventing, and disrupting acts of violence against the United States by both domestic and international extremist organizations. Preventing terrorism remains the first goal of the Department of Justice’s strategic plan and remains a priority for BJA. Another key priority area is ensuring that justice is truly done in the criminal justice system—the Attorney General has consistently stressed that the crisis in indigent defense reform is a serious concern of his, a concern which is shared by OJP and BJA. As a former prosecutor and judge, however, the Attorney General is also acutely aware that without adequate funding for the courts, prosecution, problem-solving courts, and other innovative, cost-saving alternatives to incarceration, true justice cannot be achieved. As important as a well-functioning court system is “Smart Policing”—evidence-based and data- driven law enforcement efforts that allow agencies to maximize their resources and more efficiently target emerging and chronic crime problems, hopefully preventing crimes before they occur and ultimately lessening the burden on the courts and the justice system overall. As our economy shows signs of recovery, it is essential that we not allow this progress to be thwarted by economic crime, including mortgage fraud, financial crimes, fraud, and intellectual property crimes that threaten our economic growth and stability. In order to lessen the burden on what has been described as an overreliance on incarceration, it is essential that those who have served time can transition back into the community and into crime-free pro-social lives. To do this, we will emphasize smart and effective approaches to offender reentry and will support statewide and local efforts in justice reinvestment, which reduces costly spending on incarceration and reinvests a portion of the savings into other areas of the justice system without sacrificing accountability. Last, but certainly not least, we must ensure that, in the context of our continued focus on addressing violent crime, children who are exposed to violence are responded to effectively so that these experiences do not risk the futures of these children and do not fuel the cycle of violence. OMB No. 1121-0329 3 Approval expires 02/28/13 These priorities and others will be the focus of our efforts during FY 2010, and we invite you as a partner and grantee to join us in our efforts to address these critical issues. Responsibilities The Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of an eligible unit of local government or other officer designated by the CEO must submit the application for JAG funds. A unit of local government receiving a JAG award will be responsible for the administration of the funds including: distributing the funds; monitoring the award; submitting quarterly financial status (SF-425) and performance metrics reports and annual programmatic reports; and providing ongoing oversight and assistance to any subrecipients of the funds. Administrative Funds A unit of local government may use up to 10 percent of the award, plus any interest accrued, for costs associated with administering JAG funds. Disparate Certification A disparate allocation occurs when a city or municipality is allocated one-and-one-half times (150 percent) more than the county, while the county bears more than 50 percent of the costs associated with prosecution or incarceration of the municipality’s Part 1 violent crimes. A disparate allocation also occurs when multiple cities or municipalities are collectively allocated four times (400 percent) more than the county, and the county bears more than 50 percent of the collective costs associated with prosecution or incarceration of each municipality’s Part 1 violent crimes. joint Jurisdictions certified as disparate must identify a fiscal agent that will submit a application for the aggregate eligible allocation to all disparate municipalities. The joint application must determine and specify the award distribution to each unit of local government and the purposes for which the funds will be used. When beginning the JAG application process, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that identifies which jurisdiction will serve as the applicant/fiscal agent for joint funds, must be completed, and signed by the Authorized Representative for each participating jurisdiction. The signed MOU should be attached to the application. For a sample MOU, go to Failure to submit a singed MOU may www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/grant/jag10/10JAGMOU.pdf. result in the attachment of a withholding special condition at the time of award, preventing the draw-down of funds until the required information is submitted. Governing Body Review The applicant agency (fiscal agent in disparate situations) must make the grant application available for review by the governing body (or to the organization designated by the governing Failure to submit a body) not fewer than 30 days before the application is submitted to BJA. review narrative including the required governing body notification information may result in the attachment of a withholding special condition at the time of award, preventing the drawdown of funds until the required information is submitted. Public Comment The applicant agency (the fiscal agent in disparate situations) must include a statement that the application was made public and that, to the extent of applicable law or established procedure, an opportunity to comment was provided to citizens and to neighborhood or community-based Failure to submit a review narrative including the required public comment organizations. OMB No. 1121-0329 4 Approval expires 02/28/13 information may result in the attachment of a withholding special condition at the time of award, preventing the drawdown of funds until the required information is submitted. Supplanting Federal funds must be used to supplement existing funds for program activities and cannot replace or supplant nonfederal funds that have been appropriated for the same purpose. Supplanting is prohibited under JAG. Length of Awards Awards are made in the first fiscal year of the appropriation and may be expended during the following 3 years, for a total grant period of 4 years. Extensions beyond this period may be made on a case-by-case basis at the discretion of the Director of BJA and must be requested no less than 30 days prior to the grant end date via the Grants Management System (GMS) . Trust Fund Award recipients may drawdown JAG funds in advance. To do so, a trust fund must be established in which to deposit the funds. The trust fund may or may not be an interest-bearing account. If subrecipients draw down JAG funds in advance, they also must establish a trust fund in which to deposit funds. Prohibited Uses No JAG funds may be expended outside of JAG purpose areas. Even within these purpose areas, however, JAG funds cannot be used directly or indirectly for security enhancements or equipment for nongovernmental entities not engaged in criminal justice or public safety. Nor may JAG funds be used directly or indirectly to provide for any of the following matters unless BJA certifies that extraordinary and exigent circumstances exist, making them essential to the maintenance of public safety and good order: Vehicles (excluding police cruisers), vessels (excluding police boats), or aircraft (excluding police helicopters). Luxury items. Real estate. Construction projects (other than penal or correctional institutions). Any similar matters. Reporting Requirements Once an award is accepted, award recipients must submit quarterly financial status (SF-425) and annual performance reports through GMS (https://grants.ojp.usdoj.gov). To assist in fulfilling the Department’s responsibilities under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA), P.L. 103-62, applicants who receive funding under this solicitation must provide data that measures the results of their work. Additionally, applicants must discuss in their application their methods for collecting data for performance measures. Please refer to “What An Application Must Include” (below), for additional information on applicant Quarterly performance metrics reports must responsibilities for collecting and reporting data. be submitted through BJA’s Performance Measurement Tool (PMT) web site: . www.bjaperformancetools.org OMB No. 1121-0329 5 Approval expires 02/28/13 Budget Information Match Requirement While match is not required with the JAG Program, match can be used as an effective strategy for states and units of local government to expand justice funds and build buy-in for local criminal justice initiatives. How to Apply Applications will be submitted through OJP’s Grants Management System (GMS).GMS is a web-based, data-driven computer application that provides cradle to grave support for the application, award, and management of grants at OJP. Applicants should begin the process immediately to meet the GMS registration deadline, especially if this is the first time they have used the system. Complete instructions on how to register and submit an application in GMS can be found at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/gmscbt/. If you experience technical difficulties at any point during this process, please email the GMS.HelpDesk@usdoj.gov or call 1-888-549-9901 (option 3), Monday-Friday from 6:00 a.m. to 12 midnight eastern time, except federal holidays. The Office of Justice Programs highly recommends starting the registration process as early as possible to prevent delays in the application submission by the specified deadline. All applicants are required to complete the following six steps, before an application can be sub mitted through GMS: Acquire a DUNS Number. 1.(Data Universal Numbering System) A DUNS number is . required to submit an application in GMS The Office of Management and Budget requires that all businesses and nonprofit applicants for Federal funds include a DUNS number in their application for a new award or renewal of an existing award. A DUNS number is a unique nine-digit sequence recognized as the universal standard for identifying and keeping track of entities receiving Federal funds. The identifier is used for tracking purposes and to validate address and point of contact information for federal assistance applicants, recipients, and sub-recipients. The DUNS number will be used throughout the grant life cycle. Obtaining a DUNS number is a free, one-time activity. Obtain a DUNS number by calling 1-866-705-5711 or by applying online at www.dunandbradstreet.com. Individuals are exempt from this requirement. Acquire or Renew Registration with the Central Contractor Registration (CCR) 2. Database. CCR registration is required to receive funding. OJP requires that all applicants (other than individuals) for federal financial assistance maintain current registrations in the CCR database. The CCR database is the repository for standard information about federal financial assistance applicants, recipients, and sub-recipients. Organizations that have previously submitted applications via Grants.gov are already registered with CCR, as it is a requirement for Grants.gov registration. If you have previously registered with CCR, your registration must be updated or renewed at least once per year to maintain an active status. Information about CCR registration procedures can be accessed atwww.ccr.gov. Acquire a GMS Username and Password 3.. If you are a new user, please create a GMS profile by selecting the first time user link under the sign-in box of the GMS home page. For more information on how to register in GMS, go to www.ojp.usdoj.gov/gmscbt/. Search for the Funding Opportunity on GMS. 4. After you log in to GMS or complete your GMS profile for your username and password, go to the Funding Opportunities link on the OMB No. 1121-0329 6 Approval expires 02/28/13 left hand side of the page. Please select BJA and the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program—Local Solicitation. Select the Apply Online Button Associated with the Solicitation Title. 5.The search results from step 4 will display the solicitation title along with the Registration and Application Deadlines for this funding opportunity. Please select the Apply Online button in the Action Column to create an application in the system. Submit an Application Consistent with this Solicitation by Following the Directions in 6. GMS. Once the application is completed and submitted, GMS will display a confirmation Important:You are urged to submit your screen stating your submission was successful. application at least 72 hours prior to the application deadline. Note: OJP’s Grants Management System (GMS) does not accept executable file types as application attachments . These disallowed file types include, but are not limited to, the following extensions: ".com," ".bat," ".exe," ".vbs," ".cfg," ".dat," ".db," ".dbf," ".dll," ".ini," ".log," ".ora," ".sys," and ".zip." Experiencing Unforeseen GMS Technical Issues If you experience unforeseen GMS technical issues beyond your control which prevent you from submitting your application by the deadline, you should immediately contact the GMS Help Desk at 1-888-549-9901, option 3 to report the difficulties and obtain a GMS Help Desk Tracking within 24 hours after the deadline number. Additionally, you must contact BJA staff and request approval to submit your application. At that time, BJA staff will require you to email the complete grant application, your DUNS number, and provide a GMS Help Desk tracking number(s). After the program office reviews all of the information submitted, and validates with the GMS Helpdesk the technical issues you reported, OJP will contact you to either approve or deny your request to submit a late application. If the technical issues you reported cannot be validated, your late application will not be accepted. The following conditions are notvalid reasons to permit late submissions: (1) failure to begin the registration process and apply for a DUNS number and/or complete the CCR registration in sufficient time; (2) failure to follow GMS instructions on how to register and apply as posted on its website; (3) failure to follow all of the instructions in the OJP solicitation; and (4) technical issues experienced with the applicant’s computer or information technology (IT) environment. Notifications regarding known technical problems with GMS are posted on the OJP funding web page,www.ojp.usdoj.gov/funding/solicitations.htm. What an Application Must Include This section describes what an application is expected to include and sets out a number of elements. Applicants should anticipate that failure to submit an application that contains all of the specified elements may negatively affect the review of the application and, should a decision nevertheless be made to make an award, may result in the inclusion of special conditions that preclude access to or use of award funds pending satisfaction of the conditions. OJP strongly recommends use of appropriately descriptive file names (e.g., “Program Narrative,” “Budget and Budget Narrative,” “Memoranda of Understanding,” etc.) for all required attachments. OMB No. 1121-0329 7 Approval expires 02/28/13 Standard Form 424 Please see www07.grants.gov/assets/SF424Instructions.pdf for instructions on how to complete your SF-424. Program Narrative (Attachment 1) must Applicants submit a program narrative that generally describes the proposed program activities for the four year grant period. The narrative must outline the type of programs to be funded by the JAG award and provide a brief analysis of the need for the programs. Narratives must also identify anticipated coordination efforts involving JAG and related justice funds. joint application Certified disparate jurisdictions submitting a must specify the funding distribution to each disparate unit of local government and the purposes for which the funds will Failure to submit an appropriate program narrative may result in the attachment be used. of a withholding special condition at the time of award, preventing the drawdown of funds until the required information is submitted. Budget and Budget Narrative (Attachment 2) must Applicantssubmit a budget and budget narrative outlining how JAG funds, including administrative funds if applicable, will be used to support and implement the program. This narrative should include a full breakdown of administrative costs, as well as an overview of how funds will be allocated across approved JAG purpose areas. Applicants should utilize the following approved budget categories to label the requested expenditures: Personnel, Fringe Benefits, Travel, Equipment, Supplies, Consultants/Contracts, and an Other category. For informational purposes only, a sample budget form may be found at Failure to submit an appropriate budget www.ojp.usdoj.gov/funding/forms/budget_detail.pdf. and budget narrative may result in the attachment of a withholding special condition at the time of award, preventing the drawdown of funds until the required information is submitted. Review Narrative (Attachment 3) must Applicantssubmit information documenting that the date the JAG application was made available for review to the governing body, or to an organization designated by that governing body, on a date not less than 30 days before the application was submitted to BJA. The attachment must also specify that an opportunity to comment was provided to citizens to the Failure to extent applicable law or established procedures make such opportunity available. submit an appropriate review narrative may result in the attachment of a withholding special condition at the time of award, preventing the drawdown of funds until the required information is submitted. Abstract (Attachment 4) are requested to Applicants provide an abstract that includes the applicant's name, title of the must project, goals of the project, and a description of the strategies to be used. The abstract not exceed a half-page, or 400-500 words. Review Process OJP is committed to ensuring a fair and open process for awarding grants. The Bureau of Justice Assistance reviews the application to make sure that the information presented is reasonable, understandable, measurable, and achievable, as well as consistent with the solicitation. OMB No. 1121-0329 8 Approval expires 02/28/13 Absent explicit statutory authorization or written delegation of authority to the contrary, all final grant award decisions will be made by the Assistant Attorney General (AAG). Additional Requirements Applicants selected for awards must agree to comply with additional legal requirements upon acceptance of an award.We strongly encourage you to review the information pertaining to these additional requirements prior to submitting your application. Additional information for each can be found at www.ojp.usdoj.gov/funding/other_requirements.htm. Civil Rights Compliance Faith-Based and Other Community Organizations Confidentiality and Human Subjects Protection (if applicable) Anti-Lobbying Act Financial and Government Audit Requirements National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (if applicable) DOJ Information Technology Standards (if applicable) Single Point of Contact Review Nonsupplanting of State or Local Funds Criminal Penalty for False Statements Compliance with Office of Justice Programs Financial Guide Suspension or Termination of Funding Nonprofit Organizations For-Profit Organizations Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) Rights in Intellectual Property Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA) of 2006 Awards in excess of $5,000,000 – federal taxes certification requirement OMB No. 1121-0329 9 Approval expires 02/28/13 Application Checklist FY 2010 Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program: Local Solicitation The application checklist has been created to aid you in developing your application. Eligibility Requirement: _____ The jurisdiction listed as the legal name on the application corresponds with the eligible jurisdiction listed on BJA’s JAG web page _____ The federal amount requested is within the allowable limit of the FY 2010 JAG Allocations List as listed on BJA’s JAG web page The Application Components: _____ Program Narrative _____ Budget and Budget Narrative _____ Review Narrative (the date the JAG application was made available to the governing body for review and that it was provided to the public for comment) _____ Abstract _____ Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), if in a funding disparity Program Narrative Format: _____ Double-spaced _____ 12-point standard font _____ Not less than 1” margins Abstract Format: _____ 12-point standard font _____ Not less than 1” margins _____ ½ page or less Other: _____ Standard 424 Form _____ DUNS Number _____ CCR Registration OMB No. 1121-0329 10 Approval expires 02/28/13