2010, 07-06 Study Session MinutesMINUTES
SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL
1i X"01rI:]MOFIIIxlIII ltwl
STUDY SESSION FORMAT
Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers
Spokane Valley, Washington
Attendance:
July 6, 2010
6:00 p.m.
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
Neil Kersten, Public Works Director
Dean Grafos, Councilmember
Mike Stone, Parks & Recreation Director
Brenda Grassel, Councilmember
Rick VanLeuven, Police Chief
Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer
Absent:
Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk
Bob McCaslin, Councilmember
Mayor Towey called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
Mayor Towey said that tonight presents an occasion to honor a citizen for the work done in realizing
savings for numerous citizens, and he read the Proclamation declaring July 6, 2010 as "Richard Behm
Recognition Day." Mr. Behm accepted the Proclamation with thanks to Council for the proclamation,
and thanks to all others who contributed to this effort, and said that persistence really does pay off.
It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to excuse Councilmember
McCaslin from tonight's meeting.
Mayor Towey recognized County Commissioner Todd Mielke in attendance and thanked him for coming.
ACTION ITEM:
1. Bid Award: 44 Avenue Pathway Project — Steve Worley
It was initially moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded to authorize the City Manager to
finalize and execute the bid award contract for the 44`" Avenue Pathway Project to the lowest responsible
bidder, Red Diamond Construction, in the amount of $270, 497.50. However, Deputy Mayor Schimmels
then recused himself from this issue due to potential conflict of interest; and the motion was re -done by
Councilmember Dempsey and Seconded by Councilmember Gothmann. Public Works Director Kersten
said that of the two bids, Red Diamond was about 20% under the engineer's estimate; he explained that
this project constructs the pathway along 44` Avenue and includes bike lanes, and is 100% paid from the
grant; adding that the goal is to have the project completed prior to the start of the school year. Mayor
Towey invited public comments; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Mayor
Towey, and Councilmembers Grassel, Dempsey, Grafos and Gothmann. Opposed: None. Abstentions:
None. Motion carried.
NON - ACTION ITEMS:
2. Spokane Regional Health District — Dr. Joel McCullough. Chief Medical Officer
Spokane Regional Health District Chief Medical Officer Dr. Joel McCullough introduced himself,
thanked council for the opportunity to speak, and acknowledged Councilmembers Dempsey and
Gothmann and Commissioner Mielke for their work on the Board. Dr. McCullough explained that he just
completed his first year anniversary here and said it has been an interesting year, starting with the issue of
Council Meeting Minutes: 07 -06 -2010 Page 1 of 5
Approved by Council: 07 -27 -2010
H1N1 on his first day, and he said he has been on a roller coaster ride ever since. Dr. McCullough gave a
brief history of the Health District and said this District is the only one in Spokane County; that they
employ about 250 employees, and their primary mission is to provide a safer and healthier community.
He said the perception is that the Health District provides health care to low income families but he said
that is only part of what they do; he said they have over thirty different programs that work primarily to
prevent illnesses before they begin, which he said is the focus of most programs. He further explained that
the Health District is divided into five divisions including (1) Administration and Vital Records; (2)
Community and Family Services, which includes the public health nursing program which includes
family home visits to infants and pregnant women; (3) Disease Prevention and Response Services which
includes a wide variety of activities such as public health clinics on HIV presentation and H1N1 public
health preparedness; (4) Environmental Public Health for such issues as their food safety program and
food worker permits; and (5) Health Promotion to address such things as tobacco prevention and control,
and the Women, Infants & Children Program which serves about 24,000 clients annually and provides
food vouchers and education to pregnant women and their infants. Dr. McCullough also mentioned the
methadone program where they provide addiction treatment services, as well as the laboratory which
includes different water testing, a clinical lab to test for TB and a variety of other conditions, and he said
this District has the only regional health lab capable for testing for bio- terrorist agents. Dr. McCullough
thanked Council for the invitation to speak tonight and said he looks forward to working within Spokane
Valley and all of Spokane County to make a safer, healthier community.
3. Comcast Extension Ordinance - Mike Connelly
City Attorney Connelly explained that this issue is identical to the extension approved about 60 days ago;
and said there was a failure in anticipating the amount of time it takes to move an ordinance through
Comcast's signature requirements; and he assured Council this will go through the process and will be
signed; he said it is not a substantive but a procedural issue, and he would like to place this on an agenda
for a first and second reading to get the documents returned; and again assured Council they will have it
back prior to the deadline. There were no objections from Council to put this on a forthcoming agenda.
4. Budget Process Update — Mike Jackson/Ken Thompson
City Manager Jackson said that he has placed copies of the 2011 Business Plan and budget worksheets at
the dial in preparation for next week's retreat at CenterPlace; he encouraged council to read the
descriptions as the focus will be on the line item detail with discussion about some of the budget numbers
with the intent to move through the program descriptions and goals and move to the impacts to the three,
six, and nine percent reductions; he suggested using the two documents together, emphasized that these
are all draft documents and encouraged Council to contact him and/or Ken Thompson should there be any
questions prior to the meeting.
5. Transportation Benefit District — Mike Connelly
City Attorney Connelly distributed a handout on the latest legislative changes from AWC (Association of
Washington Cities), and addressed the draft interlocal agreement included in the packet, dated February
26, 2010; he said that interlocal has some significant parts which allow the new entity to impose taxes
pursuant to law, and he mentioned the four funding options that can be used, of (1) property tax, (2) sales
tax, (3) annual vehicle fee up to $100, and (4) toll on specific roads. Mr. Connelly also stated that
research was conducted, and if it is determined to split the fees based on vehicle registration, we can
move in that direction as we are able to get data on the number of vehicles registered in our city; he said
we can impose a fee up to $20.00 on vehicle tabs without going to a public vote; that within the last four
or five months, he understands that the City of Spokane has considered the regional interlocal and they
intend to move ahead with some kind of impact fee independent of a TBD (Transportation Benefit
District). Mr. Connelly asked Council to let staff know if Council wants additional future information
concerning a regional approach, or any other option. Commissioner Mielke was invited to speak.
Council Meeting Minutes: 07 -06 -2010 Page 2 of S
Approved by Council: 07 -27 -2010
County Commissioner Mielke explained that he was here earlier this spring and discussed the concept of
a TBD, and said at that point, they were looking for input regarding the interlocal which was in draft
form; he said they hope to partner with other jurisdictions in a regional effort and thinks that gives the
benefit of consistency across the region; he said his Board asked if jurisdictions would be in support of
that and if so, to move forward to negotiate an interlocal. Commissioner Mielke said that some wanted to
see an interlocal prior to committing to move forward. Mr. Mielke discussed the statutes and process for
forming a regional TBD, and said they are asking each jurisdiction to let the Board know of their intent to
support the regional TBD. Mr. Mielke also mentioned that he received input from all but one or two
jurisdictions and every local elected official indicated they wanted to see any amount of a license tab, put
to a public vote, even though the requirement is only to put the issue on the ballot if the tab fee would be
greater than $20.00; and said only one official wanted to reserve the $20.00 councilmanic option. In
speaking to representatives from the business community, Mr. Mielke said they would support a
comprehensive approach to address transportation, but didn't want to be "hit from all directions."
Discussion followed concerning the percentage of jurisdictions needed to implement such regional TBD;
of the possibility that the City of Spokane might move forward individually if the regional approach
doesn't progress; of the preference of most jurisdictions to have any revenue source subject to a public
vote; that the amount of a vehicle tab would need to be about $45.00 in order to generate the needed
revenues (about $45 million) to adequately address transportation needs; that the most important issue
facing local government in this area is roads and our transportation system; the difference of impacts on
small versus large communities, including different formulas and how they were derived, including
whether the numbers in Cheney do or don't consider Eastern Washington University students, whether
those vehicles are registered from their area or others; the looming gap in our own City's road
preservation budget and of the idea of giving up autonomy by allowing another taxing group authority to
solve our problems. Councilmember Grafos said he prefers to postpone any discussion of a TBD until
after next week's budget retreat, and said he is not in favor of a regional TBD at this time. Mayor Towey
said he doesn't know what a local TBD would look like and he would like to see the information on a
regional and a local and compare the two, and said he would be in favor of studying a "snapshot" of a
local TBD. Deputy Mayor Schimmels said he doesn't like to raise money for a regional effort but feels
we are too small of an area not to think regionally. Councilmember Gothmann suggested we need to look
at our finances and ask staff to show information regarding the local, but to delay any such discussion
until after the budget retreat. City Attorney Connelly said staff can gather information and compare the
local with the regional concept, and to bring such information forward after the budget retreat, and all
members of council appeared to agree. Councilmember Dempsey said she recognizes there is a
responsibility to a larger community as we are not a lone entity, and said she would like to consider all
different aspects. City Manager Jackson said that next week's budget retreat will primarily be discussion
on the general fund and can touch on needs, but that a presentation is currently set for July 20 for public
works to discuss the street preservation program; and he reminded everyone that capital and preservation
needs are separate from the general fund; adding that staff will work on the local tab fee issue and bring
that back to council for future discussion.
6. The Following were for information only and not reported or discussed:
a. Truck Parking, Residential areas; b. CTA 04 -10 Code Text Amendment, Permitting Expansion of
nonconforming Uses; c. Committee Vacancy: Spokane County Housing and Community Development
Advisory Committee
7. Advance Agenda — Mayor Towey
Deputy Mayor Schimmels announced he would be absent for the July 20 meeting and would like to have
the Street Preservation Presentation topic moved if possible. Councilmember Grassel said she will be
Council Meeting Minutes: 07 -06 -2010 Page 3 of S
Approved by Council: 07 -27 -2010
absent for the July 27 meeting and would likewise like to have the panhandling issue moved. It was
confirmed there will be no meeting August 3 so councilmembers can participate in National Night Out.
8. Council Check -in — Mayor Towey
Councilmember Grafos, said as a point of order, he would like to take a minute to address remarks made
to him at the last meeting by Mr. Gothmann. "Last week Mr. Gothmann insinuated once again from the
dias that my motivation on this council was less than honorable, somehow dishonest, and that I was
guided by my own financial interests. Mr. Gothmann, I do not have a problem with your weekly blather
and bragging, but out of respect for your position as a council person before your next diatribe, poison e-
mail release or sideshow for the cameras or press, you could at the very least disclose the fact that you are
a very active and vocal member of the SVBA.
Councilmember Dempsey said as a point of order, in our "governance manual, section 7 says `we believe
that councilmembers set the tone for civic discussion and should set an example by (a) setting high
standards of decorum and civility' and I would request that we do that.
Councilmember Grafos, said point of order: "I have a right to speak in response to what Mr. Gothmann
said last week, Rose." He continued his statement: "I chose to run for council not to promote the agenda
of any special interest group but because I love this valley. I live here, employ people here, have taken
financial risks here, worked and prospered and paid taxes here for over 40 years. You also made a big
point of my involvement with the disincorporation movement and that I was a major financial donor to
that movement. For a man who knows everything in the word you got it wrong again. I would like to
give you and the rest of the council a copy of the letter signed by Dorothy Dieni, the Treasurer of the
Citizens for Disincorporation, stating that I did not contribute money to the Citizens for Disincorporation
and further states, and you can verify this fact with the PDC in Olympia. I did however, Bill, walk valley
neighborhoods in that effort and I did speak with thousands and thousands of your fellow citizens. Many
of the citizens who signed that petition may or may not have voted for disincorporation, but they wanted
to exercise their right of petition which is guaranteed to them by the Constitution of the United States.
We do this as Americans when we have an unresponsive government. Bill, you remember that right of
petition. You and your fellow councilperson Mrs. Dempsey, made fun of recently on the Sullivan
closure. I'm surprised that the man who knows everything didn't know that. After all, you brag about
being on the governance committee and having written the governance manual for the city. I must have
missed the chapter on self - importance and character assassination."
Councilmember Dempsey, said, "again Mr. Mayor, I must protest, with a point of order. I don't consider
this type of diatribe conductive to civil conversation."
Councilmember Grafos said he is "responding to what Mr. Gothmann said and you said last week. And
Mrs. Dempsey, the next time someone on this council attempts to re -visit or discuss an issue passed by
yourself and the previous council, and you feel compelled to interrupt, make faces or put them down for
questioning the wisdom of some prior council decision, please take a good look around. The previous
council that made those decisions is no longer here. That is called an election. Thank you."
Mayor Towey said he thinks that Mr. Grafos had a right to respond to Bill's statement at last council.
Councilmember Dempsey said there is a difference between responding and being insulting.
Councilmember Gothmann asked Mayor Towey for permission to speak, which he gave. Councilmember
Gothmann said "I've been very careful to speak to speak the facts. Let's go down the list. I joined the
SVBA only when they got involved with the videotaping, and frankly, have not been an active member of
the SVBA; if anything, I've been one of the least active. Mr. Grafos indicates he was not a donor to the
disincorporation. Forgive me if I misinterpreted, but I read in the paper that Mr. Grafos paid for some
signature signers, and that was where that came from. I would suggest that Ms. Dempsey and Mr.
Council Meeting Minutes: 07 -06 -2010 Page 4 of S
Approved by Council: 07 -27 -2010
Gothmann spoke rationale and reasonably relative to Sullivan closure. It is reasonable to ask if someone
is personally involved and is personally going around and gathering a petition; that's a reasonable
question to ask. If you notice I'm very careful to disclosure any time we have anything that comes close
to; I just think that is good ethics; and I think it's poor ethics not to disclose. I have not written the
governance manual. The governance manual was written by the first assistant city manager, deputy city
manager that we had here Stan McNutt, he wrote the manual. I have been on several committees where
they have made minor changes, many of which, or some of which I would have to say I was not in favor
of but it's the committee that makes that choice not an individual. I would certainly agree with Ms.
Dempsey that there is no reason that we can't have rationale discussions. There's no reason to call
anyone names, no reason to say that somebody is blathering; to me that is improper and should not be
done. I was taught by my mother to be polite; on the other hand, I'm not afraid to tell the truth; and if
you'll notice I'm speaking in a very calm manner, I'm not calling anybody any names, and I just think
this is the right way to conduct business. Thank you Mr. Mayor."
Deputy Mayor Schimmels said "we have had more personal attacks through the council and against staff
in the last six months then we've ever had in the prior seven years. I would highly suggest that we do not
mention anyone by name; look at our governance manual, that was put there for a reason; and if we don't
like what's happening, get up and walk around or leave the building; but there's two sides of this story
from last week and this week, and I don't believe that's part of what we should be doing here in front of
the public, ever." Mayor Towey said "he certainly agrees with that; and said if we need to disagree, we
need to disagree civilly; there is a line that we cross when we name names and name incidences where it's
not substantiated. I think as a Council we need to take a deep breath and consider what we're doing and
how we're doing it, and I would strongly agree with Gary on this one."
9. City Manager Comments — Mike Jackson
City Manager Jackson said that staff will be working through the advance agenda to include items for the
remainder of the year; and said there will also be opportunity for council to discuss a legislative agenda
with the intent to adopt that about mid - August; and said as part of the annual budget process, Council
generally sets goals in August, and said perhaps Council could start to think about goals for discussion to
be included in the business plan.
10. EXECUTIVE SESSION: To evaluate the qualifications of applicants for public employment [RCW
42.30.110(1)(g)]
It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn into executive
session for approximately 20 minutes to evaluate the qualifications of applicants for public employment,
and that no action is anticipated thereafter. Council adjourned into executive session at 7:20 p.m. At
7:40 p.m., City Attorney Connelly announced that the Executive Session will continue for approximately
another 20 minutes. Mayor Towey declared Council out of executive session at 8:00 p.m., and it was then
moved by Councilmember Dempsey, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting
adjourned at 8:01 p.m.
f A E . Tomas E. Towey, Mayor stine Bainbridge, City Clerk
Council Meeting Minutes: 07 -06 -2010 Page S of S
Approved by Council: 07 -27 -2010
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: July 6, 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: Bid Award — 44 Avenue Pathway Project ( #0054)
GOVERNING LEGISLATION:
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Adopted the 2009 -2014 Six Year TIP on June 16,
2008 which included the 44 Avenue Pathway Project; Adopted the Amended 2010 TIP March
30, 2010, which included this project.
BACKGROUND:
The City received two federal STP(Enhancement) grants for the design and construction of a
pathway on the north side of 44 Avenue. Design work began in 2007 and two neighborhood
meetings were held to review alternatives. The original 10' wide multi -use pathway concept was
revised by city staff after listening to neighborhood input. The current project now consists of a
5' wide pathway with 4' bike lanes on both sides of the existing road.
The project was originally planned to be constructed with Spokane County's West Ponderosa
Phase II Sewer Project in 2009. However, the project was divided into two parts so
construction of the County sewer project would not have to meet federal criteria. The 4 foot
wide wide bike lanes were added between Woodruff Rd and Sands Rd as part of the sewer
project last year.
The remainder of the project is scheduled to be completed this August. This will include of a 5'
wide pedestrian pathway on the north side of 44 Avenue from Woodruff Road to Bates Rd and
on the south side between Bates Road and Sands Road; and 4' wide bike lanes along both
sides of 44 Avenue from Van Marter Road to Sands Road.
Contract documents were prepared by City staff; the project was advertised for bid on June 11;
with bids scheduled to be opened on Friday, July 2.
OPTIONS: 1) Award contract to lowest responsible bidder; 2) Provide additional direction to staff.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION" to authorize the City Manager to finalize and
execute the bid award contract for the 44 Avenue Pathway Project to the lowest responsible
bidder Red Diamond Construction in the amount of $ 270.497.50
BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The City of Spokane Valley received a Federal Enhancement
Program grant for this project. The grant pays 100% of the total project cost up to $334,123.
STAFF CONTACT: Steve M. Worley, P.E. —Senior Capital Projects Engineer
Neil Kersten, AIA — Public Works Director
44th Avenue Pathway Project
Project CIP No. 0054
Fed Aid No. STPE- 4010(001)
BID OPENING DATE - July 2, 2010 10:00 A.M.
Sp®ne
'fey
�N. }LLD
� WASH
� $a
27s7E
cls � eR�
- ihi ► i si� ''
Engineer's Estimate
Red Diamond Construction
Knife River
ITEM
NUMBER
ITEM
Unit
TOTAL
QUANTIT
V
UnitPrice
Total Cost
Unit Price
Total Cost
Unit Price
Total Cost
BASE BID - SCHEDULE A
1
Mobilization
LS
1
$32,000.00
$32,000.00
$25,000.00
$25,000.00
$50,200.00
$50,200.00
2
Construction Surveying
LS
1
$5,000.00
$5,000.00
$6,000.00
$6,000.00
$14,000.00
$14,000.00
3
SPCC Plan
LS
1
$500.00
$500.00
$600.00
$600.00
$1,000.00
$1,000.00
4
Erosion Control
LS
1
$500.00
$500.00
$1,500.00
$1,500.00
$4,225.00
$4,225.00
5
Project Temporary Traffic Control
LS
1
$3,000.00
$3,000.00
$1,200.00
$1,200.00
$6,600.00
$6,600.00
6
Pedestrian Control And Protection
LS
1
$3,000.00
$3,000.00
$750.00
$750.00
$1,100.00
$1,100.00
7
Clearing and Grubbing
ACRE
2
$500.00
$1,000.00
$1,250.00
$2,500.00
$20,300.00
$40,600.00
8
Large Tree Removal
EA
4
$500.00
$2,000.00
$800.00
$3,200.00
$1,300.00
$5,200.00
9
SawcutAC Pavement
LF -IN
8280
$1.00
$8,280.00
$0.30
$2,484.00
$0.27
$2,235.60
10
Remove Asphalt Concrete Pavement
SY
210
$2.00
$420.00
$0.80
$168.00
$8.50
$1,785.00
11
Remove Type C Curb
LF
90
$3.00
$270.00
$4.00
$360.00
$8.50
$765.00
12
Remove PCC Sidewalk! Ddveway Approach
SY
105
$5.00
$525.00
$6.00
$630.00
$14.25
$1,496.25
13
Remove PCC Curb & Gutter
LF
90
$5.001
$450.00
$5.00
$450.00
$14.00
$1,260.00
14
Roadway Excavation Incl. Haul
CY
520
$10.00
$5,200.00
$15.00
$7,800.00
$21.25
$11,050.00
15
Common Borrow Incl. Haul
CY
595
$15.00
$8,925.00
$2.00
$1,190.00
$15.00
$8,925.00
16
Crushed Surfacing Top Course, 2 In. Depth
SY
850
$6.00
$5,100.00
$4.00
$3,400.00
$8.25
$7,012.50
17
Crushed Surfacing Top Course 4 In. Depth
SY
3000
$7.00
$21,000.00
$4.00
$12,000.00
$7.00
$21,000.00
18
Crushed Surfacing Top Course 6 In. Depth
SY
1150
$10.00
$11,500.00
$9.00
$10,350.00
$11.25
$12,937.50
19
HMA Cl. 1/2 -Inch, Pq 64-28, 2 1n. Depth
SY
2580
$20.00
$51,600.00
$13.40
$34,572.00
$13.25
$34,185.00
20
HMA Cl. 112 -Inch, Pg 64-28, 4 In. Depth
SY
1150
$40.00
$46,000.00
$23.75
$27,312.50
$23.00
$26,450.00
21
Job Mix Compliance Price Adjustment
CALC
1
$1.00
$1.00
$1.00
$1.00
$1.00
$1.00
22
Compaction Price Adjustment
CALC
1
$1.00
$1.00
$1.00
$1.00
$1.00
$1.00
23
Asphalt Concrete Curb, Type C
LF
1440
$5.00
$7,200.00
$5.00
$7.200.00
$4.00
$5,760.00
24
Seedin , Fertilizing and Mulching
SY
2500
$2.00
$5,000.00
$0.80
$2,000.00
$1.00
$2,500.00
25
Sod Installation
SY
100
$12.00
$1,200.00
$8.50
$850.00
$16.50 1
$1,650.00
26
Bark Mulch
SY
5
$30.00
$150.00
$20.00
$100.00
$11.25 1
$5625
27
River Rock
SY
30
$30.00
$900.00
$15.00
$450,00
$16.75
$502.50
28
Irrigation System Revisions
EA
5
$500.00
$2,500.00
$500,00
$2,500.00
$315.00
$1,575.00
29
Cement Conc. Traffic Curb and Gutter
LF
50
$18.00
$900.00
$20.00
$1,000.00
$13.70
$685.00
30
Remove and Replace Chain Link Fence
LF
200
$5.00
$1,000.00
$17.00
$3,400.00
$25.00
$5,000.00
31
Cement Conc. Curb Ramp Type A4
EA
2
$1,000.00
$2,000.00
$400.00
$800.00
$1,125.00
$2,250.00
32
Cement Concrete Sidewalk
SY
30
$35.00
$1,050.00
$40.00
$1,200.00
$36.00
$1,080.00
33
HMA Curb Ramp Dectable Warning Surface
EA
104
$40.00
$4,160.00
$255.00
$26,520.00
$170.00
$17,680.00
34
Mailbox Support T 1
EA
5
$200.00
$1,000.00
$250.00
$1,250.00
$275.00
$1,375.00
35
Mailbox Support T e2
EA
7
$250.00
$1,750.00
$525.00
$3,675.00
$475.00
$3,325.00
36
Relocate Group Mailbox
EA
2
$160.00
$320.00
$200.00
$400.00
$300.00
$600.00
37
Permanent Signing
LS
1
$2,500.00
$2,500.00
$4,400.00
$4,400.00
$3,500.00
$3,500.00
38
Plastic Line
LF
5200
$2.00
$10,400.00
$1.35
$7,020.00
$2.00
$10,400.00
39
Removing Paint Line
LF
5200
$0.50
$2,600.00
$0.70
$3,640.00
$1.00
$5,200.00
40
Plastic Bic cle Lane Svmbol I
EA
14
$200.00
$2.800.00
$71.00
$994.00
$45.00
$630.00
41
Segmental Concrete Retaining Wall
SF
80
$20.00
$1,600.00
$40.00
$3,200.00
$37.00
$2,960.00
42
Block Retaining Wall
SF
375
$24.00
$9,000.00
$30.00
$11,250.00
$37.00
$13,875.00
43
IMinorChanqe
Calc
1 1
$1.00
$5,000.00
$5,000.00
$5,000.00
$5,000.00
$5,000.00
44
Plastic Wide Line
77
$2.00
$11,200.00
1
$2.50
$14,000,00
$2.501
$14,000.00
Total Base Bid
1 $280,502.00
$242,317.50
$351,632.60
Calculation Errors corrected on Red Diamond Bid for Sch A Bid Items'! 9, 38 & 39.
Engineer's Estimate
Red Diamond Construction
Knife River
ITEM
NUMBER
ITEM
Unit
TOTAL
QUANTIT
Unit Price
Total Cost
Unit Price
Total Cost
Unit Price
Total Cost
ADDITIVE ALTERNATE BID - SCHEDULE B
41
Remove CulverU Storm Drain Pie
LF
40
$20.001
$800.00
$5.00
$200.00
$17.00
$680.00
42
JAbandon Existing Catch Basin
EA
1
$1,250.001
$1,250.00
$100.00
$100.00
$1,100.00
$1,100.00
43
1 Permeable Ballast, 4 In. Depth
SY
300
$15.001
$4,500.00
$7.00
1 $2,100.00
$16.50
$4,950.00
44
1 Plain St. Culy Pipe 0.064 In Th. 24 In, Diam.
LF
25
$50.001
$1,250.00
$40.00
$1,000.00
$65.00
$1,625.00
45
Culvert Headwall
EA
2
$500.00
$1.000.00
$500.00
$1,000.00
$1,100.00
1 $2,200.00
45
Solid Wall PVC Storm Sewer Pipe, 18 In. Diam.
LF
60
$45.00
$2,700.00
$27.00
$1,620.00
$50.00
$3,000.00
46
Solid Wall PVC Storm Sewer Pipe, 12 In_ Diam.
LF
30
$40.00
$1,200.00
$18.00
$540.00
$42.00
$1,260.00
47
Solid Wall PVC Storm Sewer Pipe, 10 In. Diam.
LF
1 80
$38.00
$3,040.00
$26.00
$2,080.00
$32.00
$2,560.00
48
Existing Drywell Connection
EA
2
$500.00
$1,000.00
$400.00
$800.00
$260.00
$520.00
49
Existinq Culvert Pipe Connection
EA
3
$500.00
$1,500.00
$150.00
$450.00
$275.00
$825.00
50
Catch Basin Type 1
EA
1
$1,200.00
$1,200.00
$1,700.00
$1,700.00
$1,400.00
$1,400.00
51
Catch Basin Type 2, 48 In. Diam.
EA
4
$1,500.00
$6,000.00
$1,700.00
$6,800.00
$2.100.00
$8,400.00
52
Drywell Type A
EA
3
$3,500.00
$10:500.00
$2,000.00
$6,000.00
$2,400.00
$7,200.00
53
Spill Control Se arator
EA
3
$350.00
$1,050.00
$100.00
$300.00
$340.00
$1.020.00
54
Ad Existin Manhole Catch Basin or D ell
EA
6
$100.00
$600.00
$500.00
$3,000.00
$240.00
$1,440.00
55
Quarry Spalls
6Y
14
$1,000.00
$14,000.00
$35.00
1 $490.00
$37.00
$518.00
Total Additive Alternate
$51,590.00
$28,180.00
$38,698.00
Engineer's Estimate
Red Diamond Construction
Knife River
SCHEDULE
BASE BID - SCHEDULE A
$280,502.00
$242,317.50
$351,632.60
ADDITIVE ALTERNATE BID - SCHEDULE B
$51,590.00
$28,180.00
$38,698.00
TOTAL
$332,092.00
$270,497.50
$390,330.60
�N. }LLD
� WASH
� $a
27s7E
cls � eR�
- ihi ► i si� ''
JANUARY 2010
Administration Vital Records
Health Officer, Administrator ......
A Quick Guide to Our
Phone:......... (509) 324 -1500
Programs & Services
Toll -free: ....... (888) 535 -0597
The Vital Records Office is open gam- 4:45pm.
TDD:........... (509) 324 -1464
324 -1601
Orders placed in person normally take just a few
What is Public Health?
Hours:
Public health is an essential set of services guaranteed to all citizens. It is a network of local, state and national
Monday— Friday 8am -5pm
professionals working together for a safer and healthier community. From restaurant inspections and drinking
(clinic and program hours may
water safety, to health education, immunizations, and disease control and prevention, the Spokane Regional
vary- please call ahead)
Health District provides over 30 different programs and services to individuals, families and organizations
Maintenance ...................
across Spokane County.
Location:
Public Information (media contact)
1101 West College Avenue
The Spokane Regional Health District is one of 34 local public health agencies serving Washington State's 39
Spokane, WA 99201 -2095
counties. Local public health agencies and the Washington State Department of Health (DOH) together make
Order online at: www.srhd.org /links /certificates.asp
up our statewide public health network. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) leads our
national public health network.
Programs by
Under the leadership of Dr. Joel McCullough, who was appointed Health Officer in 2009, the Spokane Regional
Health District now has approximately 250 employees at several locations and serves a population of more
Division:
than 400,000 in Spokane County.
Administration & Vital Records , pg 1
A twelve- member Board of Health is the governing body of the Health District, uniting the cities and county in
Community & Family Services .. pg 2
a cooperative effort to oversee all matters pertaining to public health, according to state law. The Board creates
Disease Prevention & Response . pg 2
and promotes prudent health policy, ensures compliance with all applicable chapters of state law and invites
Environmental Public Health ... pg 3
participation by all persons and organizations interested in public health. The Board adopts local ordinances
Health Promotion ............ pg 4
and resolutions and approves budgets.
Laboratory ................. pg 4
Methadone ................. pg 4
Agency Organization
The Spokane Regional Health District is organized into seven divisions to best serve the diverse needs of our
community. Details about the wide variety of programs and services offered by our agency is contained in this
publication. For more information, please visit our website at: www.srhd.org
Administration Vital Records
Health Officer, Administrator ......
324 -1501
Birth & Death Certificates
Finance ......................
324 -1511
The Vital Records Office is open gam- 4:45pm.
Client Services (billing) ...........
324 -1601
Orders placed in person normally take just a few
Human Resources ..............
324 -1558
minutes. A completed application must be received
Job Line ......................
324 -1506
to process your request. Each copy of a birth or death
Information Systems .............
324 -1513
certificate is $20, payable by cash, debit or credit
Maintenance ...................
324 -1482
card, or money order.
Public Information (media contact)
. 324 -1539
Order by phone: 324 -1524
Regional AIDS Program ..........
324 -1551
Order online at: www.srhd.org /links /certificates.asp
Additional information about our programs and services can be found on our website: www.srhd.org
Environmer. --jl Public
Health Division
Food Safety Program • 324 -1560 ext. 2
Environmental health specialists work with the food service industry
and our community to prevent food -borne illness, provide food worker
education, food establishment inspections, investigate complaints and
illnesses associated with food establishments, and much more. We
permit over 2300 permanent retail food establishments and nearly 200
temporary food establishments each year.
Food Worker Permits • 324 -1563
All food service employees in Spokane County who handle unwrapped
foods or beverages are required to hold a current Washington State
Food Handler Permit. Over 16,000 food service worker permits are
issued annually. The permit is $10. Information about the required
class and test are available on our website or by calling 324 -1563.
LIVING ENVIRONMENT
School Safety Program — 324 -1560 ext. 4
All public, private, and parochial schools (K -12) in Spokane County are
routinely inspected for environmental health and safety issues. All
plans for proposed remodeling or new construction of schools are
reviewed, and health and safety concerns are investigated. School and
community representatives serve on the School Advisory Committee to
help guide School Safety Program activities.
Water Recreation Program — 324 -1560 ext. 4
All public and semi - public water recreation facilities (pools, water
slides, spas) are permitted and annually inspected for compliance with
state water quality and safety regulations. Program staff investigate
complaints and reported illnesses, review plans for remodeling or new
construction, and work with partners on drowning prevention.
Vector Program — 324 -1560 ext. 7
Environmental Health Specialists investigate reports of bites by dogs,
cats, bats, ferrets and wild animals for the risk of rabies, working
closely with animal control agencies. Program staff work with Health
District epidemiologists to monitor illnesses contracted from ticks,
mosquitoes and mice, and educate about methods to reduce the risk of
disease through habitat control. Staff may also conduct surveillance for
emerging animal and insect - carried diseases, including West Nile virus.
Liquid Waste Program (Septic Systems) 324 -1560 ext. 1
Septic system designs for single family homes, small businesses, and
apartment buildings (systems less than 3,500 gallons per day) are
reviewed for compliance with regulations, permitted, and inspected
after installation. Residential on -site sewage systems are issued a
renewable three -year permit by the Health District; and a one -year
permit for commercial systems. On -site sewage system inspection and
maintenance is required, prior to permit renewal.
We also provide as -built record drawings showing the location of the
septic tank and drain field or other on -site sewage disposal system for a
specific address or tax parcel number. To request a drawing, call the
automated request line at (509) 324 -1546.
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES • 324 -1560 ext. 3
Solid Waste Program (Garbage) —All solid waste facilities and
septic tank pump trucks in Spokane County are licensed annually and
periodically inspected, according to the Solid Waste Handling
Standards. This includes facilities and organizations involved in solid
waste storage, collection, transportation, treatment, utilization,
processing and final disposal. Fees are assessed, based on the type of
facility and solid waste activity. Complaints of improper or illegal solid
waste, animal waste or garbage on the ground are also investigated.
Drinking Water (Private Wells) — We provide assistance to private
well owners inquiring about water quality, odor, taste and
contaminants. Environmental Health Specialists inspect new drinking
water wells in Spokane County to assure they meet construction
standards, and old or unused wells when taken out of service. Call 324-
1560 ext.6.
Land Use Development — Specialists review new land subdivisions,
conditional use permits and zoning changes for potential sewage
disposal and water supply source issues. We provide findings and
conditions for development to the appropriate planning jurisdiction.
Site Hazard Assessment — Specialists evaluate sites identified by the
Washington State Department of Ecology as hazardous, due to residual
chemicals or toxins, and rank them to help establish clean -up priorities.
Program staff also evaluate meth labs, clearing the site for safe
occupation after cleaning by licensed contractors.
Urban Waters Initiative — Specialists identify storm water drainages
that enter the Spokane River and sample for contaminants. Specialists
inspect businesses connected with these drainages to see how they
manage their hazardous waste and intervene when hazardous
materials are observed impacting these drainages.
J u t y 2 0 1 0
1
rr
Transportation Benefit OF WASH1NGT
ASi �oN�TaN
cl 1 iES
District Legislation in Effect
Through the cooperative efforts of the Association of Washington Cities (AWC) and the Washington State Associations of
Counties (WSAC), significant legislation went into effect in 2007, which resulted in the most important local transportation
tool for cities and counties in sixteen years — Transportation Benefit Districts (TBDs). Newly enacted 2010 legislation
enhanced the TBD's authority.
TBDs are independent taxing districts that can impose an array of taxes or fees either through a vote of the people or through
district board action.TBDs are flexible -- they allow cities and counties to work independently or cooperatively on addressing
both local and regional transportation challenges.
Frequently Asked Questions
Background
In 1987, the Legislature created TBDs as an option for local
governments to fund transportation improvements. In 2005,
the Legislature amended theTBD statute to expand its uses
and revenue authority. In 2007, the Legislature amended
the TBD statute to authorize the imposition of vehicle fees
and transportation impact fees without a public vote. In
2010, the Legislature amended theTBD statute again to
clarify project eligibility, the use of impact fees, and sales tax
expenditures, and make TBD governance more flexible.
What is a Transportation Benefit District (TBD)?
ATBD is a quasi - municipal corporation and independent
taxing district created for the sole purpose of acquiring,
constructing, improving, providing, and funding transportation
improvements within the district.
additional jurisdictions through interlocal agreements,
then the governing body must have at least five members,
including at least one elected official from each of the
participating jurisdictions, or may be the governing body of
a metropolitan planning organization if the TBD boundaries
are identical to the boundaries of the metropolitan planning
organization serving the district.
What are the boundaries of aTBD?
The boundaries of aTBD may be less than the boundaries
of those jurisdictions participating in theTBD. For example,
a county or city may choose to have theTBD boundaries
identical with the county or city, or it may choose just to
include a portion of the county or city. However, if aTBD
chooses to exercise the tax authority that does not require
a public vote (e.g. vehicle and impact fees), the boundaries of
the TBD must be countywide, citywide, or unincorporated
countywide.
Who may create aTBD?
The legislative authority of a county or city may create aTBD
by ordinance following the procedures set forth in Chapter
36.73 RCW.The county or city proposing to create aTBD
may include other counties, cities, port districts, or transit
districts through interlocal agreements.
Who governs theTBD?
The members of the legislative authority (county or city)
proposing to establish aTBD serves as the governing body
of theTBD.The legislative authority is acting ex officio and
independently as theTBD governing body. If aTBD includes
Why create aTBD if the county or city legislative
authority is the governing board?
ATBD is an independent legal creature. Although aTBD
has many of the powers of a county and city (impose taxes,
eminent domain powers, can contract and accept gifts,
etc.), - it is a separate taxing district. Additionally, by being a
separate legal and taxing entity,TBDs have more flexibility.
For example, more than one type of jurisdiction can be part
of aTBD and the boundaries can be less than countywide or
citywide.
continued
Association of Washington Cities • 1076 Franklin St SE • Olympia,WA 98501 a www.awcnet.org
Can aTBD be created without imposing fees or proposing
voter approved revenue options?
Yes.A county or city takes legislative action through the
ordinance process to create aTBD.The ordinance must
include a finding that the creation of aTBD is in the public's
interest, describe the boundaries of the TBD, and specify the
activities or functions to be implemented or funded by the
district.The county or city ordinance creating the TBD may
also specify and authorize what fees or revenues that the
TBD may pursue.TheTBD, acting in its own official capacity,
has the authority to identify proposed fees or revenue
options.
Are TBD revenues required to be spent as they are
collected?
No.The governing body which creates aTBD must develop
a plan that specifies the transportation improvements to
be provided or funded by theTBD.As part of this plan, the
TBD's governing board can indicate if the funds will be used
immediately, or if they will be collected for a specified period,
prior to spending the accumulated funds.Typically, funds that
are collected for a specified period before being expended
are used to fully fund large projects, when bonding, or serve
as a match for state or federal funds that may only become
available in a specified time frame.
Does aTBD have to meet certain tests?
There are three threshold tests for transportation
improvements in aTBD: 1) the type of transportation
improvement contained within the boundaries of the TBD,
2) whether the improvements are identified in any existing
state, regional, county, city or eligible TDB jurisdiction's (port
or transit) transportation plan and that the improvements
are 3) necessitated by existing or reasonably foreseeable
congestion levels. The definition of "congestion" does not
have a set standard in law; each TBD has the discretion to
tailor and make its own determination of congestion levels
when implementing its TBD ordinance.
What transportation improvements can be funded
by aTBD?
The definition of transportation improvements is broad.This
can include maintenance and improvements to city streets,
county roads, state highways, investments in high capacity
transportation, public transportation, transportation demand
management and other transportation projects identified in
a regional transportation planning organization plan or state
plan.
In developing criteria for a transportation improvement, it
can include one or more of the following: reduced risk of
transportation facility failure and improved safety; improved
travel time; improved air quality; increases in daily and peak
period trip capacity; improved modal connectivity; improved
freight mobility; cost - effectiveness of the investment; optimal
performance of the system through time; and other criteria,
as adopted by the governing body.
Note: In 2010, cities within King County are specifically
authorized to provide or contract for supplemental
public transportation improvements to meet the mobility
needs of the city, and may contract for such improvements
with private and nonprofit entities and may also form public -
private partnerships.
If a jurisdiction uses the SEPA process to collect
impact fees, would this preclude aTBD from using
impact fees?
No. However, the law requires the jurisdiction to provide
a credit to commercial or industrial developments that are
subject to SEPA, or transportation impact fees authorized
under GMA.This is commonly called a "no double- dipping"
provision.
continued
What revenue options doTBD's have?
TBD's have several revenue options subject to voter
approval:
• Property taxes — a I -year excess levy or an excess levy
for capital purposes;
• Up to 0.2% sales and use tax;
• Up to $100 annual vehicle fee per vehicle registered in
the district; and
• Vehicle tolls.
Please Note:There are exemptions or unique requirements
when using the vehicle fee or vehicle tolls.
TBD's have two revenue options that do not
require voter approval, but are subject to
additional conditions:
1. Annual vehicle fee up to $20.This fee is collected at
the time of vehicle renewal and cannot be used to fund
passenger -only ferry service improvements.
2. Transportation impact fees on commercial and industrial
buildings. Residential buildings are excluded. In addition, a
county or city must provide a credit for a commercial or
industrial transportation impact if the respective county
or city has already imposed a transportation impact fee.
Please Note: Foregoing a vote is an option only. A county
or city still has the option of placing either the annual fee of
up to $20 or the impact fees to the vote of the people as an
advisory vote or an actual requirement of imposition.
What are the additional conditions required to
impose revenue options not subject to voter
approval?
To impose either fee, the TBD's boundaries must
be countywide or citywide, or if applicable, in the
unincorporated county.
Vehicle Fees:
When the Legislature revised the TBD authority in 2007 to
enable councilmanic vehicle fees, it was intended to ensure
a county-wide or regional approach for first consideration
of this new option.That is why counties had the exclusive
authority of the $20 vehicle fee for the first six months
after enactment of the 2007 Iegislation.Today, a county that
creates a countywide TBD (incorporated and unincorporated
areas) and proposes to impose up to a $20 non -voted
vehicle fee should first attempt to impose a countywide
fee to be shared with cities by interlocal agreement. Sixty
percent (60 %) of the cities representing seventy-five (75%)
of the incorporated population must approve the interlocal
agreement for it to be effective.The Legislative expectation is
that if an interlocal agreement cannot be reached between a
county and city or cities, the county is authorized to create a
TBD and impose the fee only in the unincorporated area of
the county.
Credits must be provided for previously imposed TBD
vehicle fees. Credits are not required for voter approved
vehicle fees.
Commercial and Industrial Transportation
Impact Fees:
ATBD that is either countywide or citywide must provide a
credit for a commercial or industrial transportation impact
fee if the respective county or city has already imposed a
transportation impact fee.This is commonly called a "no
double- dipping" provision.
If we create a countywide TBD for the up to $20
vehicle fee, how is the revenue distributed to
cities?
The revenue must be shared according to the interlocal
agreement.The law does not prescribe what the interlocal
agreement contains. Consequently, the revenue can be shared
by population, number of vehicles within each jurisdiction,
project list, a combination of these, or whatever the county
and cities can reach agreement on.
What happens if a city imposes the up to $20
vehicle fee and then the county imposes a
countywide fee without voter approval?
The law requires TBDs to provide a credit for vehicle fees
previously imposed by aTBD.
continued
For example, if a city was the first to create aTBD and
impose a $20 vehicle fee and subsequently its county
creates a countywide TBD imposing a $20 vehicle fee, the
county TBD must provide a $20 credit against its fee for
vehicles registered within the city.As a result, no fee would
be collected by the county TBD from vehicles registered
within the city. Additionally, the city would not be part of the
interlocal agreement with the county or be included in the
number /percentages needed for the interlocal agreement to
be effective.
However, if in the same example, the cityTBD imposed only
$10 of the $20 vehicle fee and the countyTBD imposed
a countywide $20 vehicle fee, only a $10 credit would be
provided for vehicles registered within the city.The county
TBD would collect $10 from vehicles registered in the city.
Consequently, the county TBD would need to include the
city in the interlocal agreement discussions and the city is
included in the number /percentages needed for the interlocal
agreement to be effective.
If a county or city is considering the $20 vehicle
fee, how does a county or city estimate revenues?
Currently, no TBD has been in effect for an entire year and
therefore revenue estimates and histories are incomplete.
WhatTBDs around the state have learned to date: vehicles
per household calculations vary significantly around the
state. Statistical data shows that there tends to be about
one vehicle per person in rural areas and 0.8 vehicles per
person in urban areas. Another factor to strongly consider
is seasonality; vehicles sales are not evenly distributed
throughout the year and this will affect monthly receipts.
Finally, a city or county must understand and recognize that
other factors such as people failing to register their vehicles,
and data accuracy can affect actual revenues when compared
to forecasted revenues.
What other requirements should I be aware of?
Revenue rates, once imposed, may not be increased, unless
authorized by voter approval.
If project costs exceed original costs by more than 20
percent, a public hearing must be held to solicit public
comment regarding how the cost change should be resolved.
This is typically called a material change policy.
The TBD must issue an annual report to include the status
of project costs, revenues, expenditures, and construction
schedules.
TheTBD must be dissolved upon completion of the
project(s) and the payment of debt service.
Who has imposed aTBD?
The cities of Lake Forest Park, Edmonds, Des Moines,
Olympia, Prosser, and Shoreline imposed the $20 vehicle
fee. Ridgefield and Sequim passed the 2/10% sales tax.
Point Roberts and Liberty Lake formed TBD's prior to the
legislative changes in 2005.
Checklist
For a checklist that highlights many of the important
considerations when creating aTransportation Benefit
District (TBD), please see www.awcnet.org /tbd.
Eligibility requirements vary. For additional questions on
Transportation Districts, please contact AWC staff
Ashley Probart at ashleyp @awcnet.org
Sheri Sawyer at sheris @awcnet.org.
y
ao-1 4)
MR. MAYOR,
AS A POINT OF ORDER, I WOULD LIKE TO TAKE A MINUTE TO ADDRESS
REMARKS MADE AT THE LAST MEETING BY MR. GOTHMAN.
LAST WEEK, MR. GOTHMAN INSINUATED ONCE AGAIN FROM THE DIAS
THAT MY MOTIVATION ON THIS COUNCIL WAS LESS THAN HONORABLE,
SOMEHOW DISHONEST, AND THAT I WAS GUIDED BY MY OWN FINANCIAL
INTERESTS.
MR. GOTHMAN, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH YOUR WEEKLY BLATHER
AND BRAGGING, BUT OUT OF RESPECT FOR YOUR COUNCIL POSITION,
BEFORE YOUR NEXT DIATRIBE, POISONOUS EMAIL, OR SIDESHOW FOR THE
CAMERAS AND PRESS, YOU COULD AT THE VERY LEAST DISCLOSE THE
FACT THAT YOU ARE AN ACTIVE AND VOCAL MEMBER OF THE SVBA. IN
FACT, YOU MAY WANT TO CHECK IF YOU NEED TO REGISTER AS A
LOBBYIST WITH THE STATE OF WASHINGTON.
I CHOSE TO RUN FOR COUNCIL NOT TO PROMOTE THE AGENDA OF ANY
SPECIAL INTEREST BUSINESS GROUP, BUT BECAUSE I LOVE THIS VALLEY,
LIVE HERE, EMPLOY PEOPLE HERE, HAVE INVESTED, WORKED, PROSPERED
AND PAID TAXES HERE FOR OVER 40 YEARS.
YOU ALSO MADE A BIG POINT OF MY INVOLVEMENT WITH THE
DISINCORPORATION MOVEMENT AND THAT I WAS A MAJOR FINANCIAL
DONOR TO THAT MOVEMENT.
FOR SOMEONE WHO "KNOWS EVERYTHING IN THE WORLD" YOU GOT IT
WRONG. I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE YOU AND THE COUNCIL A COPY OF A
LETTER SIGNED BY DOROTHY DIENI, TREASURER OF CITIZENS FOR
DISINCORPORATION STATING THAT DEAN GRAFOS DID NOT CONTRIBUTE
MONEY TO THE GROUP AND FURTHER STATES THAT THIS CAN BE
VERIFIED WITH THE PDC IN OLYMPIA.
I DID HOWEVER, WALK VALLEY NEIGHBORHOODS IN THAT EFFORT AND
DID SPEAK WITH THOUSANDS OF YOUR FELLOW CITIZENS. WHILE MANY
WHO SIGNED THAT PETITION MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE VOTED FOR
DISINCORPORATION, THEY WANTED TO EXERCISE THEIR RIGHT OF
PETITION WHICH IS GUARANTEED TO THEM BY THE CONSTITUTION OF
THE UNITED STATES. WE DO THIS AS AMERICANS WHEN WE HAVE AN
UNRESPONSIVE GOVERNMENT.
YOU KNOW, THAT RIGHT OF PETITION BILL THAT YOU AND COUNCIL
PERSON DEMPSEY MADE FUN OF RECENTLY ON THE SULLIVAN CLOSURE
ALONG WITH THE PERSONAL ATTACKS.
EMU
I'M SURPRISED THAT SOMEONE WHO KNOWS `EVERYTHING" MISSED
THAT PARTICULAR "RIGHT." AFTER ALL, YOU BRAG ABOUT BEING ON
THE GOVERNANCE COMMITTEE AND HAVING WRITTEN THE GOVERNANCE
MANUAL. I MUST HAVE MISSED THE CHAPTERS ON SELF - IMPORTANCE
AND CHARACTER ASSASINATION.
AND MRS. DEMPSEY, THE NEXT TIME SOMEONE ON THIS COUNCIL
ATTEMPTS TO REVISIT OR DISCUSS AN ISSUE PASSED BY YOURSELF AND
THE PREVIOUS COUNCIL, AND YOU FEEL COMPELLED TO INTERUPT, MAKE
FACES, OR PUT THEM DOWN FOR QUESTIONING THE WISDOM OF SOME
PRIOR COUNCIL DECISION, PLEASE TAKE A GOOD LOOK AROUND. THE
COUNCIL THAT MADE THOSE DECISIONS IS NO LONGER HERE. THAT'S
CALLED AN ELECTION.
THANK YOU
m