2010, 08-10 Regular MeetingAGENDA
SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL/REGULAR MEETING
FORMAL MEETING FORMAT
Tuesday, August 10, 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 Manuel Denning, Fountain Ministries 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
07 -22 -2010
20674 - 20697, 722100041
$233,796.14
07 -23 -2010
20698 -20716
$173,081.16
07 -28 -2010
20717 - 20726, 723100013
$335,264.13
GRAND TOTAL
$742,141.43
b. Approval of Payroll for Period Ending July 31, 2010: $363,525.74
c. Approval of Special Council Meeting /Retreat Meeting Minutes of July 13, 2010
d. Approval of Study Session Format Council Meeting Minutes of July 20, 2010
e. Approval of Special Executive Session Council Meeting Minutes of July 27, 2010
f. Approval of Formal Format Council Meeting Minutes of July 27, 2010
NEW BUSINESS
2. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance, Solicitation (Panhandling) — Cary Driskell [public comment]
3. Second Read Proposed Ordinance, CTA 03 -10 Code Text Amendment (Sprague /Appleway) —
Christina Janssen [public comment]
4. First Reading Proposed Ordinance, CTA 04 -10 Code Text Amendment — Mike Connelly
[public comment]
5. Motion Consideration: Selection of City Manager — Mayor Towey [public comment]
6. Motion Consideration: Law Enforcement Interlocal — Mike Jackson [public comment]
7. Motion Consideration: Setting Preliminary Budget Hearings — Ken Thompson [public comment]
Council Agenda 08 -10 -10 Regular Meeting Page 1 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 name and address for the record and limit
remarks to three minutes.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
8. Estimated Revenues and Expenditures — Ken Thompson
9. Subarea Plan (SARP) Report to Council on Neighborhood Center — Mike Basinger
10. Advance Agenda
INFORMATION ONLY: (will not be reported or discussed)
11. Wheel Sport Helmets
12. Library Quarterly Report
13. Fire Department Quarterly Report
14. Draft Legislative Agenda
15. Council 2011 Draft Budget Goals
16. Community Development Monthly Report
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 generally held the 2nd and 4"' Tuesdays. Formal meeting have time
allocated for general public comments as well as comments after each action item.
The Studv Session formats (the less formal meeting) are generally 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 08 -10 -10 Regular Meeting Page 2 of 2
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: 08 -10 -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
I WNOUCHER NUMBERS:
TOTAL AMOUNT
07 -22 -2010
20674 - 20697, 722100041
$233,796.14
07 -23 -2010
20698 -20716
$173,081.16
07 -28 -2010
20717 - 20726, 723100013
$335,264.13
GRAND TOTAL
$742,141.43
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION:
Approve claims for vouchers as listed above.
BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS:
STAFF CONTACT: Ken Thompson, Finance Director
ATTACHMENTS Voucher Lists
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 7
07/22120/0
3:56:57PM
Spokane Valley
Bank code.
apbank
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description /Account
Amount
20674
7/22/2010
000150 ALLIED FIRE & SECURITY
215854
INSTALLATION OF KNOB
107.62
Total :
107.62
20675
7/2212010
000796 BUDINGER & ASSOC INC
M08218 -16 42110
GEOTECH & MATERIALS TESTING
3,255.26
Total:
3,255.26
20676
7/22/2010
000729 CH2MHILL INC
3747144 41025
0003 - BARKER ROAD BRIDGE
20,314.48
Total :
20,314.48
20677
7/22/2010
001888 COMCAST
JULY 2010
HIGH SPEED INTERNET: MAINT FA
70.89
Total :
70.89
20678
7/22/2010
000619 COSTCO MEMBERSHIP
000111753460281
ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL:
100.00
Total :
100.00
20679
7/22/2010
002387 DANIELSON, JOHN
REIMBURSEMENT
CAR RENTAL REIMBURSEMENT
170.19
Total:
170.19
20680
7/22/2010
001926 DAVENPORT, SARAH
EXPENSES
MILEAGE EXPENSE
33,25
Total :
33.25
20681
7/'L2J2010
002389 DIRECTPOS
6534
REPAIR SERVICES: PARKS
244.58
6571
REPAIR SERVICES: PARKS
163.05
Total :
407.63
20682
7/22/2010
000746 EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DEPT
217156-002
2ND QTR 2010
6,766.45
Total :
6,766.45
20683
7/22/2010
002386 FILINGSTORE.COM
17834
OFFICE SUPPLIES: CD
206.82
Total :
206.82
20684
7/22/2010
000587 GRIZZLY GLASS CENTERS
WO S0004921
WINDSHIELD REPAIR: 2008 CALIBE
216.31
Total :
216.31
20685
7/22/2010
000505 H & H FINANCIAL SERVICES INC.
3217
JUNE 2010: LEASE PAYMENT
233.71
3254
JULY 2010: LEASE PAYMENT
233.71
Page: 1
Vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 2
0712212010
3:56:57PM
Spokane Valley
Bank code:
apbank
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
20685
7/22/2010
DDD5D5 000505 H & H FINANCIAL SERVICES INC. (Continued)
Total :
467.42
20686
7/22/2010
002181 HEWLETT- PACKARD
47903748
42615
HP SERVER SUPPORT RENEWAL
726.11
Total :
726.11
20687
7/22/2010
OD1728 HP FINANCIAL SERVICES CO
JULY 2010
JULY 201 D: LEASE PYMT
2,465.96
Total :
2,465.96
20688
7/22/2010
000993 LES SCHWAB TIRE CENTER
361317
TIRE: DODGE CARAVAN- 4D204D
80.38
Total :
80.38
20689
7/22/2010
000696 MITEL NETWORKS, INC
92673624
42598
MITEL CONFERENCE PHONE
417.59
92673880
42598
MITEL CONFERENCE PHONE
46.00
92674415
42598
MITEL CONFERENCE PHONE
63.97
Total :
527.56
20690
7/2212010
000652 OFFICE DEPOT INC.
524522985001
OFFICE SUPPLIES: ADMIN
460.40
524523050001
OFFICE SUPPLIES: ADMIN
33.70
525493264001
OFFICE SUPPLIES: CHAIRMAT
2D5.23
Total :
699.33
2D691
7/22/2010
000307 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER
JUNE 2010
STATE REMITTANCE
78,477.86
Total :
78,477.86
20692
7/22/201 D
000029 PITNEY BOWES
1428301 -JY10
POSTAGE METER RENTAL
236.00
Total :
236.00
20693
7/22/2010
000090 SPOKANE CO INFO SYSTEMS
5035783
COUNTY IT SUPPORT
16,242.05
Total :
16, 242.05
20694
7122/2D1 D
000308 SPOKANE CO PROSECUTING ATTY
JUNE 2D1 D
CRIME VICTIMS COMP FUND
1,047.67
Total :
1,047.67
20695
7/22/2010
DDDDDI SPOKANE CO TREASURER
11001678
INSPECTIONS ON WEST FARMS SI
505.98
Total :
505.98
20696
7/22/201D
001895 TAYLOR ENGINEERING INC
#1
42588
TAYLOR ON CALL PE AND CN CON
292.71
#1
42589
TAYLOR ON CALL PE AND CN CON
13,863.86
Page: 2
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 3
07/22/2010
3:56 :57PM
Spokane Valley
Bank code :
apbank
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice
PO #
Description /Account
Amount
20696
7/22/2010 001895 TAYLOR ENGINEERING INC
(Continued)
42589
#1
42604
TAYLOR ON CALL PE AND CN CON
201.97
42604
#5
42523
ON CALL ENGINEER DESIGN SER%
5,640.00
#6
42523
ON CALL ENGINEER DESIGN SER%
1,600.00
Total :
21,598.54
20697
7/2212010 000842 WM WINKLER CO INC
CIP No. 0127
42594
0127 CDBG SIDEWALK IM PROJEG
76,501.13
Total :
76,501.13
722100041
7/22/2010 002244 AOT PUBLIC SAFETY CORPORATION
SPKVLY -07
CRY WOLF CHARGES: JUNE 2010
2,571.25
Total :
2,571.25
25
Vouchers for bank code: apbank
Bank total :
233,796.14
25
Vouchers in this report
Total vouchers:
233,796.14
1, the undersigned, do certify under penalty of perjury,
that the materials have been fumished, 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 I am
authorized to authenticate and certify to said claim.
Finance Director Date
Page: 3
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 1
07/23/2010
1:57:01PM
Spokane Valley
Bank code:
apbank
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice PO #
Description /Account Amount
20698
7123/2010 000150 ALLIED FIRE & SECURITY
IVC1008812
LOCK REPLACEMENT 17.59
SVC1029857
LABOR AND MATERIALS. CP 1053.43
20699
20700
20701
20702
20703
20704
20705
20706
7/23/2010 000030 AVISTA
7/23/2010 001606 BANNER BANK
7/23/2010 000841 BCI CREATIVE INC
Total
July 2010 UTILITIES: PW MASTER AVISTA
July 2010 UTILITIES: PARKS MASTER AVISTP
Total :
0618
0620
0638
4458
4474
4720
6527
8861
9835
7123/2010 000918 BLUE RIBBON LINEN SUPPLY INC 9135635
7/23/2010 001169 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY 2349
7/23/2010 000912 DEX MEDIA WEST JULY 2010
7/23/2010 001635 ISS FACILITY/EVENT SERVICES 23421
23446
7/23/2010 001576 KENDALL, KAREN Expenses
JULY 2010: 0618
JULY 2010: 0620
J U LY 2010; 0638
JULY 2010:4458
JULY 2010: 4474
JUNE 2010:4720
JULY 2010: 6527
JULY 2010: 8861
Total :
WEB HOSTING PKG. CENTERPLAC
Total :
LINEN SUPPLY AND SVC: CP
Total :
PETTY CASH: 8212, 8215, 8218, 821
Total :
ADVERTISING: SENIOR CENTER
Total :
EVENT SVCS: CENTERPLACE
JULY 2010 - MONTHLY JANITORIAL
Total
EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT
Total
1 ,071.02
20,615.73
10,127.75
30,743.48
745.46
79.95
811.86
1,522.06
229.90
2,249.10
1,054.53
450.06
7,142.92
240.00
240.00
173.03
173.03
24.36
24.36
37.25
37.25
118.20
7,136.00
7,254.20
9.50
9.50
Page: 1
vchlist
Voucher List
Page: 2
07/23/2010
1:57:01 PM
Spokane Valley
Bank code:
apbank
Voucher
Date
Vendor
Invoice
PO #
Description/Account
Amount
20707
7/23/2010
000193 NORTHWEST CHRISTIAN SCHOOL INC
2nd Qtr 2010 CAM
2ND QTR 2010 CAM CHARGES
1,497.05
August 2010
CITY HALL RENT
37,300.83
Total :
38,797.88
20708
7/23/2010
000652 OFFICE DEPOT INC.
1233560899
OFFICE SUPPLIES: FINANCE
117.49
Total :
117.49
20709
7/23/2010
000415 ROSAUERS
669552
SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE
19.65
Total :
19.65
20710
7/23/2010
000709 SENSKE LAWN & TREE CARE INC.
3940765
42553
2010 EMERG TRAFFIC CONTROL S
105.98
Total :
105.98
20711
7/23/2010
000184 SPLASH DOWN
July 2010
42607
SUMMER DAY CAMP FIELD TRIP
702.00
Total :
702.00
20712
7/23/2010
000451 SPOKANE REG SPORTS COMMISSION
2nd Qtr 2010
LODGING TAX REIMBURSEMENT-
25,039.69
Total :
25,039.69
20713
7/23/2010
000420 SPOKANE REGIONAL HEALTH DIST
2nd qtr 2010
2ND QTR 2010: WATER TESTING
189.00
Total :
189.00
20714
7/23/2010
001922 SWANK MOTION PICTURES, INC
1460236
MOTION PICTURE RENTAL FOR Pp
348.93
Total :
348.93
20715
7/23/2010
002111 WASTE MANAGEMENT OF SPOKANE
August 2010
42546
2010 LEASE ON MAINTENANCE FA
3,804.20
Total :
3,804.20
20716
7/23/2010
000487 YMCA OF THE INLAND NW
JUNE 2010
JUNE 2010 OPERATION AND MAIN"
57,260.58
Total :
57, 260.58
19
Vouchers for bank code: apbank
Bank total :
173,081.16
19
Vouchers in
this report
Total vouchers ;
173,081.16
Page: 2
vchlist Voucher List Page: 1
07/28/2010 12 :00.00PM Spokane Valley
Bank code :
apbank
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice
PO #
Description /Account
Amount
20717
7/28/2010 000648 ABADAN
147271
PLANS & SPECS: 44TH AVE PATHV
243.07
147615
PLANS & SPECS: BROADWAY AVE
851.34
147519
PLANS & SPECS. BROADWAY AVE
699.73
Total :
1,794.14
20718'
7/28/2010 000796 BUDINGER & ASSOC INC
M08218 -18
42110
GEOTECH & MATERIALS TESTING
1,618.98
M10127 -1
42592
0127 MATERIAL TESTING SEVICES
3,495.4
Total;
5,114.42
20719
7/28/2010 000101 CDW -G
TCN4992
PRINT HEADS FOR PUBLIC WORK:
419.75
Total :
419.75
20720
7/28/2010 001780 CLC ASSOCIATES, INC
31219
42488
SURVEY SERVICES FOR PROJECT
110.00
Total:
110.00
20721
7/28/2010 000683 DAVID EVANS & ASSOCIATES
292887
42571
AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL
1,242.50
Total :
1,242.50
20722
7/28/2010 000912 DEC MEDIA WEST
JULY 2010
ADVERTISING: CP
277.10
Total :
277.10
20723
7/28/2010 000652 OFFICE DEPOT INC.
525493095001
OFFICE SUPPLIES: PW
169.09
Total :
169.09
20724
7/28/2010 000322 QWEST
JULY 2010
JUNE PHONE SERVICE
362.72
Total :
362.72
20725
7/28/2010 000257 STATE AUDITOR'S OFFICE
L84361
AUDITORS
16,152.81
Total:
15,152.81
20726
7/28/2010 000140 WALTS MAILING SERVICE
JULY 2010
PUBLIC INFO MAILER: BROADWAY
1,328.56
Total:
1,328.56
723100013
7/23/2010 001865 MORGEN & OSWOOD CONSTRUCTION 16
42219
BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION
309,293.04
Total:
309,293.04
11
Vouchers for hank code: apbank
Bank total :
335,264.13
Page: i
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: 8 -10 -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 July 31, 2010
GOVERNING LEGISLATION:
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN:
BACKGROUND:
OPTIONS:
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION:
BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS:
Budget /Financial impacts:
Gross: $ 242,320.73
Benefits: $ 121,205.01
Total payroll $ 363,525.74
STAFF CONTACT: Raba Nimri
ATTACHMENTS
DRAFT
MINUTES
SPECIAL RETREAT MEETING
SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL
CenterPlace Second Floor, Room 213
2426 N Discovery Place, Spokane Valley, Washington
July 13, 2010 9:00 a.m.
Attendance:
Councilmembers
Staff
Tom Towey, Mayor
Mike Jackson, Acting City Manager
Gary Schimmels, Deputy Mayor
Ken Thompson, Finance Director
Rose Dempsey, Councilmember
Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney
Bill Gothmann, Councilmember
Greg McCormick, Planning Manager
Dean Grafos, Councilmember
Mike Stone, Parks and Recreation Director
Brenda Grassel, Councilmember
Neil Kersten, Public Works Director
Bob McCaslin, Councilmember
Kathy McClung, Community Development Dir.
Others Present:
Nina Culver, Spokesman Review
Mike Huffman, Valley News Herald
Citizens: Bill Bates, Chuck Hafner, Jack Pring,
Diana Wilhite, and Arnie Woodward
John Whitehead, Human Resources Manager
Mary Kate McGee, Building Official
Rick VanLeuven, Police Chief
Morgan Koudelka, Sr. Administrative Analyst
Michelle Rasmussen, Administrative Assistant
Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer
Deanna Griffith, Administrative Assistant
Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk
Mayor Towey opened the meeting at approximately 9:00 a.m. and explained that the budget is a work in
progress and there is no expectation of a final draft at this point as staff and council will be working on
this for the next several months, he said many times as people consider budgets, the first thing they think
of is cutting the budget, but he said that is not always necessary; sometimes the services need to be
examined and services added to lessen the impact on citizens; he said this meeting it not about cutting but
is about evaluating how and what we are doing and coming up with a plan, the end result of which will be
service to citizens, and what financial healthy picture are we going to portray for the next six years; and
said those two things should be foremost in priority and we will come out benefitting the city and the
citizens. He also cautioned that this meeting is not a debate but is an exchange of information and
discussion, and he thanked staff for the tremendous amount of work in leading council to this point.
1. Business Plan Overview — Mike Jackson
The following notes from the Business Plan Overview were written on the whiteboard for ease in
reference throughout the meeting:
Financial Management — The City proposes to:
1. Maintain basic service levels with reduced resources
2. Minimize personnel costs /overhead by continuing to contract for many services
3. Continue the 6 -year business plan process
4. Leverage city funds with grant opportunities
5. Minimize city debt with a pay -as- you -go philosophy
Financial Objectives: The City's financial objectives through 2014 are:
1. Maintain a general fund ending balance of 15% (minimum) through 2014
2. Maintain the service level stabilization fund at current level of $5.4 million through 2014
Council Retreat minutes: July 13, 2010 Page 1 of 10
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
Commitment — by committing to these objectives, the city will ensure financial sustainability through
2014 (on an ongoing basis)
1. Reducing 2010 general fund expenditures by 3%
2. Cut future (beginning in 2011) general fund expenditures by at least 3%
Challenges: Beyond the general fund, the City has 3 primary financial concerns:
1. Funding street capital projects
2. Funding the street preservation plan to maintain city roads
3. Funding parks capital projects
City Manager Jackson explained that today is an opportunity for a relaxed- discussion environment, that
we should feel free to address each other on a first -name basis and to bring up questions throughout the
day, and he reminded everyone that these documents are draft documents, to be used as a good starting
point and a good point of reference. He further explained that the information on the board and those
financial statements are included in the business plan; that information includes overreaching goals and he
said specifics can be changed but we should keep in mind that broader level. Mr. Jackson said this is the
fourth business plan this city has done; that this plan looks different from past plans as there is not very
much in added services due to the current economic times; he said that the financial objectives are basic,
but cover a lot of territory, and he asked council to remember that keeping the 15% minimum ending
balance will ensure we are never in the position of facing severe hardships with nothing to fall back on;
and said council can discuss those if changes are desired. What staff hopes to gain from this meeting, he
explained, is a refining of those objectives on the board, that staff wants to give council the opportunity to
review the department budgets line by line and get an understanding of where our revenues go; that there
are further refinements we can do to lay out exactly where those dollars go; and staff wants to present a
clear, transparent picture of the budget so council as well as the public understands how we spend the
budget; and that today is also an opportunity for Council to provide input to the City Manager and staff;
and said as we move forward to put the final budget together, that we want to align staff as closely as
possible with council; he also explained that per state statutes, the city manager prepares the budget and
delivers it to council; and once presented to council, council can make changes if they desire, and said
the hope is that in the end, staff and council will be very closely aligned.
In response to question from Councilmember Gothmann, Mr. Jackson said that the City Manager and
Finance Director can make changes between line items such as for travel or office supplies, as there is
some flexibility within that budget, and said that he and Finance Director Thompson receive direction
from council, that even with the 3% cut proposal, there won't be a lot of room with shifting; he said the
Finance Committee asked staff to present budget reduction scenarios at 3, 6, and 9 %. He said staff
proposes examining the budget at the start with a 3% reduction. Mr. Jackson also mentioned that we
recently came to a tentative agreement for a new law enforcement contract which will cost more, but said
we can achieve budget recommendations without cutting or reducing services in public safety unless
council wishes to do that, which he said could be part of today's discussion. Mr. Jackson said we could
see changes in the financial forecast, especially now since we know the law enforcement contract, and
that we can make changes within those items to respond to needs throughout the year.
Regarding the Business Plan, Mr. Jackson said at some point we may decide to merge the business plan
and the budget; that we run with a small staff and therefore try to minimize time and effort on everything
we do, that one area is preparation of the budget and that it would take considerable staff effort to
combine those. Mr. Jackson then went over the major points of the Business Plan, including the Executive
Summary on page 5 and 6; page 8 where it shows revenues have declined since a high of 2007 and said
we are looking at a $3.5 million reduction since 2007, which he explained is the economic drive we are
responding to; page 9 shows the forecast and regarding the 2014 estimates, he explained that the "net" is
the minimum general fund carryover staff is recommending; he said council could increase or reduce the
Council Retreat minutes: July 13, 2010 Page 2 of 10
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
percentage of carryover each year for any particular year, but explained that 15% is considered a good
healthy general fund carryover; he explained that for 2014, we are maintaining about 21% against
expenditures and about 26% against revenues, and said this is a very sound optimistic financial picture,
one which most cities would envy and hope that they too were in a position to only have to make mild
changes to meet the forecast. Regarding page 15, Mr. Jackson explained that two years ago we started
collecting statistics on workload to compare with other communities to see how we're doing, and even to
compare with ourselves to see trends; he said this gives a good basis; that it is difficult to compare with
other operations as there are many variables, but nonetheless is a gage which is better than no
comparison. Page 19 he explained, is the first page of each division and shows the organizational flow
chart showing staff positions, and he noted that staff will later insert the missing position of Deputy City
Clerk, and said however, that today's focus will be on the dollars. Pages 22 and 23 include Council
goals, and Mr. Jackson said we make sure we have resources and dedicate time to complete those goals;
goal three is the Laserfiche project, and when our new website goes on line, the Laserfiche repository will
be available to the general public. Mr. Jackson brought attention to the side whiteboard where the goals
were listed, and said those goals can always be revised. Mr. Jackson said page 30 shows the reductions
and description of the impact of those reductions to each department, and said as we work through those,
we will use both the business plan and the budget worksheet which shows the line items and dollars.
The discussion moved to the budget worksheets, and Finance Director Thompson went over the figures
showing the proposed 3% reductions and the accounting sheets showing where the money came from;
and he noted these numbers will change as we move ahead, and said if council wants to make changes,
staff will take a look at those as well. Mr. Thompson said the general government fund includes such
things as rent and state audits, and they are placed in the general fund as it is easier to keep track of
instead of placing that in each department budget. Regarding the contingency fund, Mr. Thompson said if
we were to have a major issue such as a flood, fire storm, or similar catastrophe, this is the fund that
would take care of those expenses; and he said we have never used any of that money as we always found
other resources, and gave as an example that we relied on our winter weather reserve fund to handle the
past severe winters. The state audit, Mr. Thompson explained, runs at an annual cost of $60,000 to
$70,000, plus $25,000 for accounting outside help from a CPA firm we've used over the past few years.
Mr. Jackson mentioned that two positions were added to the 2010 budget, one of which was to assist with
the audit, and although they are needed positions, we did not fill those this year due to the economy.
There was some brief discussion then about the carryover in the general fund and mention by Mr.
Thompson that the carryover balance can be seen on the bottom of the sheets. Mr. Jackson said
previously, the carryover was booked as an expenditure so we would have the funds available if needed,
but it made the budget appear much larger than it actually was, adding that we typically have not spent the
carryover; which lead to brief discussion on what the state law allows regarding investing funds, such as
placing funds in time certificates or the state investment pool, neither of which amounts to large interest
rates, but also neither of which would lose any funds.
Mr. Thompson then explained some of the larger expenses such as city hall rent of $465,000 and IT
(information technology) Support of $160,000; he explained that "professional services" are the funding
we do for the "outside agencies" and said we are just getting started on that process for this year, and
explained that we have two categories we fund: one for economic development entities, and the other for
social services entities, which all total about $170,000 annually; he said the purpose of distributing those
grants is those agencies provide services that we don't have employee resources to cover. Mr. Thompson
also mentioned we are required by law to contribute to the Spokane County Air Pollution Authority,
which is approximately $117,000. Mr. Thompson briefly explained about REET (real estate excise tax)
funds which are limited in their use; that Risk Management includes our liability insurance, and fire and
other similar types of insurance, which last year was $280,000 and said that fund was actually a little
short last year so he increased it this year; he said the premium formula is based on the number of
employee hours worked plus claims and other criteria, and our liability premium this year is $319,000.
Council Retreat minutes: July 13, 2010 Page 3 of 10
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
Mr. Thompson said we share throughout the state in the income of liquor sales to provide a percentage of
those funds to help those with alcohol addiction problems, adding that the county has a program
addressing that. Concerning the Economic Development, Mr. Thompson said we pay for a page, or
possibly a half -page in the Chamber of Commerce publication, adding that most of the funds going to the
economic development professional services got to GSI (Greater Spokane, Inc.,) and TTA (International
Trade Alliance). Finance Director Thompson said if there is a 3% reduction, it would likely come first
from the contingency line which we haven't touched in seven years as it is only there for disasters, and
reminded council that staff will be making minor adjustments to correct some minor errors. Mayor
Towey noted that law enforcement and the jail appear to have the biggest increase and asked if the
contract is reflective of the 3% reduction or if it needs adjustment. Mr. Jackson said that is an ongoing
discussion, he said we can afford the new contract within the budget, but it takes the contingency
dangerously low for that contract; he said we could agree to fund that way and if we have a settle and
adjust or unexpected cost, we could come back to council; he said typically we have kept $1 million in
public safety line item to cover all those public safety issues, but this year we tapped into some of that for
Geiger's settle and adjust, adding that jail costs are going to increase, but we don't know exactly to what
extent, and it might be an increase per prisoner, but if there are fewer prisoners, if might not result in a
net increase, and he said we will continue to look at that now that we know we have the law enforcement
contract for next year. Mr. Thompson added that the $1 million contingency in public safety is separate
from the general fund contingency. Councilmember Grassel noted that comparing the 2009 budget totals
with the proposed 2011 totals, the 2011 is still significantly higher than 2009 totals. Mr. Jackson said
things to watch for are not necessarily every line item, but adjustments within the departments; he said the
reductions are based on future increases and that we are not saying we are reducing what was spent in
2009, but are realizing we have inflationary increases, and that typically budgets go up about 7% each
year, and that is what we are reducing; we are reducing the 2011 proposed budget or those future
increases that would have occurred; and said the objective is to control spending and ensure financial
sustainability over time.
Mr. Jackson then went over the Executive and Legislative section of the Business plan; he explained that
they started with the 6% reduction instead of 3% because of the difference in salaries, that the previous
city manager earned a certain income and council set a new level for the acting city manager, and that
difference equals 6% and said it therefore wouldn't make sense to leave a portion to achieve the 3 %, so it
went to the 6 %, he said that a 7% reduction would remove the two currently vacant legal intern positions
from the legal department, and 9% would remove the vacant city manager intern position, that staff could
look at removing some of those positions now, and said that particular position has not been filled for
several years; adding that staff is trying to show what the impacts would be at 3, 6, and 9 %. Council and
staff went over the remaining figures in the Executive and Legislative sections including salaries and
positions, with Mr. Jackson noting that there is also an unfilled position of an administrative assistant for
the City Manager, which position has never been filled but always remained in the budget, as when the
city began we were working from scratch on what might be needed over time. Deputy Mayor Schimmels
brought up the council's travel budget and said trimming that budget by not having all councilmembers
attend all conferences would be an option; and Mr. Thompson mentioned that some of those figures also
include mileage for council to go to various meetings throughout the county.
Deputy City Attorney Driskell went over the legal department's budget explaining that most of the cost is
salaries and benefits, that there are two attorneys, an administrative assistance, and currently two legal
interns, and he explained that some interns qualify for state work study which gives us a 65%
reimbursement of what we pay the interns, but not all interns fall under that category; and he went over
the remaining sections of the legal department's budget. Discussion shifted to the overall budget and
whether the budget adds 7 %. Mr. Jackson said that the previous trend was to add 7 %, but this budget
only adds 4 %; and that these are not budgets, but are projections; adding that staff reduced the 2011
proposed budget by 3 %; he said inflation and increasing costs are very real and we have to accommodate
Council Retreat minutes: July 13, 2010 Page 4 of 10
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
for those; that we know there will be inflation, but we will reduce expenditures by 3 %. Councilmember
Grafos said if the figures increase for the 2011, even a 9% reduction is still $30,000 over what was spent
in 2009; and he suggested that if there is a 1.4% inflation rate, to take the 2009 actual number and add
that inflation rate that would be more realistic based on revenues. Mr. Jackson said we are not trying to
look back at what was spent in 2009, but rather are looking ahead to see what it would take to balance our
forecast to ensure we have a healthy general fund; that it gets back to the objectives; we don't have to
reduce spending from levels in 2009; but rather this is a different perspective on what we trying to do; we
are trying to ensure a healthy carryover in the general fund in 2014 so we are looking ahead at what that
would take, and said looking back at what was previously spent is a different objective. Mr. Jackson said
we could set a dollar amount for reserves, or set a percentage of carryover desired, or any other method,
but we are trying to set up a broad goal the city can adhere to over time; some say have 15% reserves, but
it could be higher if that is council's objective; and he added that we don't know what new services and
programs Council may want to offer to the public, as the economy improves eventually there will be
services this council will identify that we'd like to offer; so we are looking ahead, and this method gives
more forward thinking to ongoing expenditures then looking back; and he mentioned the situation with
law enforcement services; that those costs have gone up; he said we can meet our financial objectives laid
out, or we build into the plan what it would mean to change service levels; so we are looking at a net 4%
increase on the forecast. Mr. Jackson explained that the forecast is a snapshot in time in order to prepare
the 2011 budget; and then we do the whole thing again next year based on the economy; and said after all,
the reason we exist is to provide service to the citizens and make sure it is affordable.
Discussion included mention of the need to later determine council's desire concerning broadcasting of
council meetings; that we have tightened expenditures; that sales tax for first quarter returns were the least
decrease in the last couple of years; the need to make sure we don't overspend and of trying to close the
gap between the actual and the estimated figures; an option would be to reduce the amount of carryover
we have to spend in 2011; mention from Councilmember Grafos that the last thing we want to do is cut
public safety; that if there are vacant positions that have never been filled, perhaps that should be stricken
from the budget while keeping the positions on the salary classifications chart, so not funding or filling
the positions, but not eliminating those positions either. Mayor Towey mentioned that every time we add
a new project or something new to city services that isn't in the budget, and he said council has done that
since January, but if it is not in the budget, it takes away from the carryover for the next year; and if that
continues, as time goes on, council will have to make a determination. Mr. Thompson said in prior years,
the actual always turned out much better than the estimate, but we are really "squeezing down now" and
he feels this is pretty close, but still he said there is not a lot of room to maneuver, adding that we update
the forecast a couple times a year, and if we see a problem developing, we can make those adjustments
and updates as well.
Operations and Administration budgets were discussed next with Mr. Jackson going through the
appropriate pages in the business plan and the budget worksheets; and he said that the Deputy City
Manager is now in the executive and legislative support and under operations and administration, and
staff will make that necessary correction. Mr. Jackson said that page 42 shows the reduction, salaries and
wages, office supplies purchases, software licenses and maintenance, and he mentioned we are putting the
finishing touches on a new website which will cost closer to $14,000 annually to maintain; he said the
plan is to conduct citizen surveys in odd years, that they used the National Citizen Survey in the past but
could look at other vendors, but that company surveys several cities across the country and gives
comparables; he said the survey deals with daily services and they have budgeted the same amount each
year.
The meeting recessed at 10:50 a.m. and reconvened at 11:04 a.m.
Council Retreat minutes: July 13, 2010 Page 5 of 10
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
Next for discussion, Human Resources Manager John Whitehead explained his budget beginning on page
42 in the business plan; he mentioned publications necessary to keep up with changes in employment law
and briefly talked about what might be a disqualifying element from a potential employee's criminal
and /or background check, adding that even minor offenses brought out in a background check would be
discussed with the city manager; he mentioned that training for all employees comes out of the Human
Resources budget; that he was asked last year to split the budget to show training separate from travel,
and he added that there is not a great deal of all -staff training; he explained that advertising is mostly
recruitment, and there has not been a lot of need for that type of advertising in the last few years and it
was determined that some positions will remain unfilled, he mentioned they do not subscribe to the
periodicals anymore so that was removed from the budget. The erroneously placed $10,000 was noted
and staff said they will correct that error.
Finance and Information Technology were next addressed by Finance Director Thompson who gave an
overview of his figures on pages 43 and 44; and mentioned page 45 shows two positions they had planned
to add in January 2010, but with a new incoming council, he decided not to add those positions so his
finance department is "limping along" with the staff they have now, but not adding those positions has an
impact on the ability to pre -plan for the audit and on all the checking required with the audit, such as
gathering receipts, etc. Mr. Thompson mentioned we have hired the YMCA to run our swimming pools,
and those cash registers are wired to our computers; but the Y's staff are young and occasionally the cash
register comes unplugged requiring our IT personnel to venture out to the pool to address problems;
adding that this situation has improved drastically over the last few years. Regarding the figures for "IT
per number of workstations as "70 IT for every workstation" will be corrected. In response to questions
about the audit, Mr. Thompson explained that there are three different agencies here to report sales, and if
those figures are not properly reported, the funds are diverted, so those figures need to be monitored, as
we can make some corrections to past errors, but we cannot collect further back than six months. Mr.
Jackson said we need to thoroughly examine those two unfilled positions as those salaries could be
funded by finding errors associated with checking sales tax; he said we have never canvassed the city to
see what businesses are operating and conforming to the sales tax; he also mentioned that the accounting
tech position was to assist public works in tracking capital projects; he said our database manager spent a
year developing a real time accounting system for capital projects and he is working closely with public
works, but said it is difficult to pinpoint how much money we had; and said he feels this is an area where
we need to be careful as we may be "cutting it a little thin." Councilmember Grassel mentioned that there
is a big jump in salaries between 2009 and 2011, and Mr. Thompson said that includes those two unfilled
positions; that the 2011 budget with 3% reduction eliminates $31,000 worth of one of those vacant
positions; and if we go to 9 %, it eliminates both positions. The idea was again mentioned of keeping the
positions, but taking those salaries out of the budget. Mr. Thompson said the $200,000 uncollectible
account is the gambling revenue we can't collect. Mr. Jackson said we will look at omitting those unfilled
positions and make those reductions with the idea as the economy improves, he may need that additional
manpower to meet our goals. There was council concurrence to remove the positions from the budget,
but not from the salary classification grid, keeping in mind we could always reallocate in the future.
Under the proposed training, the error of 3 x 1,000 was noted and Mr. Thompson said that is not 3 times
1,000 employees, and they will make that correction.
Mr. Jackson mentioned that the legislative budget is not in the business plan; that the reductions are based
on the 3% as a starting point. Copier maintenance was discussed as was debt service, and Mr. Thompson
explained that when the city began, we didn't have any money and the bank loaned us $500,000; Spokane
County advanced us $1 million, and Liberty Lake loaned us $50,000 and that those debts have been paid,
that for the first few years we leased copy machines but have since moved to purchase and whether
leasing or purchasing, a maintenance cost is still required; he said we do not have an equipment
replacement fund for copiers but perhaps that is something to consider; that each year copy costs have
dropped a little but the volume goes up a little as well. Councilmember Grassel asked about the benefit of
Council Retreat minutes: July 13, 2010 Page 6 of 10
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
having a lobbyist, and Mr. Jackson said we have done well in the past with legislative appropriations; that
one of the benefits of having a lobbyist is they are there all the time and they put in plugs for projects, and
he reminded everyone of our acquired $500,000 for Greenacres and $800,000 in direct funds to build
Discovery Playground, so there has been a huge return on our investment if we attribute that funding to
the lobbyist. Councilmember McCaslin said he never supported paying for lobbyists; that we have
representatives and senators and that to his knowledge, they have never been contacted except informally;
he said how much influence depends on how much of a relationship there is with ruling party; and said
how much credit one can give to lobbyists or representatives, he can't tell.
The meeting recessed for lunch at noon, and reconvened at 12:38. Councilmember McCaslin did not
return to the meeting after the lunch break.
Community Development Director McClung began her explanation of her department by discussing the
background infonnation on page 61 of the business plan, which explains how her budget was changed by
adding five positions in order to improve permit times and customer service, and then reduced in 2009
due to reduction of consultants and the elimination of an "on- call" inspector position, she also explained
that one administrative assistant was reduced to half -time and that this cut has not worked well for the
department as they have experienced delays in keeping their section of the website updated, delayed in
paying bill and in finalizing planning commission minutes; she mentioned that an assistant engineer left
the city and that position was not replaced, which resulted in a savings to the street fund; there was a
vacancy of the building inspector plan reviewer, and they upgraded an existing inspector plan reviewer to
that position and will not replace the lower position; she mentioned the interlocal entered into with the
City of Airway Heights resulted so far in collecting $12,000 for June; and said the City of Millwood has
asked if we would be willing to help with their building inspection services; and while no formal
arrangement has been made between the cities, Millwood hired one of our code compliance offices to
work on weekends. Director McClung mentioned they have four divisions within their department:
Administrative, Development Engineering, Planning and Building; that under the 3% reduction scenario,
they are asking to reinstate the half -time administrative assistant position that was cut; she said their
department generates a lot of paper and they have fallen behind, and there would likely be a small
reduction in overtime if that position could be reinstated to full time. She also mentioned there was a lot
of cross training during the past year so that when one area was busy, others would help. Discussion
again focused on not budgeting the unfilled positions, which would result in a substantially smaller
amount of actual budgeted dollars. Mr. Jackson said he and Mr. Thompson will look at the positions we
are retaining and make sure we have the correct salaries listed in order to keep track of what positions we
are no longer funding or filling.
Parks and Recreation Director Stone brought council attention to page 65 of the business plan and
explained that his department includes nine employees and between 15 and 25 seasonal temps who work
in six divisions, including Parks Administration, Parks Maintenance, Recreation, Aquatics, CenterPlace,
and the Senior Center, he mentioned that the Senske Contract came in almost $100,000 less than the
previous year; that the recreation division recovers 105% of its overall costs; and for events such as the
summer movies, sponsorships could be pursued as people have approached him and let him know they
want to be associated with that. Mr. Jackson said if the decision were made to move toward sponsorships,
we would bring that before Council for consideration, and said that the Parks and Recreation Department,
as well as the other departments, are doing more and more to meet needs in these economic times.
Concerning possible reductions, Mr. Stone explained the outcome of possible 3, 6, and 9% reductions;
and added that he is not sure how successful CenterPlace will be in the next few years for competing for
hotel /motel funding; that council can make a direct appropriation from those funds and staff would
recommend pursuing that, and he said currently they have enough dollars in the budget to do some basic
things; he said the point is whether it is worth having CenterPlace go through the process as the
committee made it clear that CenterPlace should compete as the other entities do, rather than have funds
Council Retreat minutes: July 13, 2010 Page 7 of 10
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
appropriated by council; that they generate "heads in beds" but he is sure his figures would not compare
with those in the hotel/motel industry. Mr. Jackson said the original intent to allocate those funds is they
do put heads in beds, and the original objective wasn't just to sell CenterPlace, but to promote the City of
Spokane Valley, and he mentioned the City's emblem on the Center's front door; cities can do that and
can make direct appropriations of those funds and that is different from other tourism activity; he said this
facility and the playground are big attractions for the City of Spokane Valley, and said he is not sure of
the scenario of competing and said he feels there was merit to the way it was done in directly
appropriating a portion of those funds for that use.
CenterPlace was discussed including the building replacement fund, which currently has $317,000; and
Mr. Stone said it snakes the expenditures look strange but we are paying ourselves back, he said we could
reduce that without a serious impact to programs, or keep it; and should further reductions be warranted,
he said we might consider closing a pool or reducing the season, or not opening restrooms until later and
closing theirs earlier, he said recreation is almost all revenue - driven; and the aquatics requires a huge
subsidy as we cannot recoup costs on the aquatics program. Mr. Jackson said that those items listed by
Mr. Stone are speculations, adding that we have no plans to close the facility. It was also mentioned that
we do not have a contract with others to maintain our part of the Centennial Trail so we are doing that,
and he mentioned that the restroom is not located on city property; he said there is work to be done on an
agreement before investing city funds to get a water supply for that restroom which is state property, and
said there are very strict state requirements concerning well water. Director Stone stated that our current
lease with the college has expired, but they would like to rent a room or two for a year with the ability to
add rooms at the hourly rate; he said they are working on negotiations to put together a new lease and said
the College indicated they would love to have a presence here; he also mentioned that Central Valley
School District would like to rent a room or two for their staff training, and said we are working on a
lease with them as well. Our original lease price is $16.00 per square foot, which Mr. Jackson said is
pretty low rental.
Mayor Towey called for a recess 1:50 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 2:05 p.m.
Pages 73 through 77 were discussed by Public Works Director Kersten; he mentioned the three different
levels of construction and maintenance of streets, stormwater systems, and operations and maintenance of
traffic signs and signals along with transportation planning. Director Kersten said our stormwater ERU
(equivalent residential unit) is among the lowest in the state, and Mr. Kersten described the reductions as
shown on page 81, and said some staff switched to the lower cost health plan which represents a savings;
and said they are working on an all public -works wide safety plan as their department has more safety
issues as many staff work in the field, and said they have hired a consultant to help, the plan has been
started and is being updated. As shown on page 82, Mr. Kersten said the re- pavement is greatly
underfunded; he said Spokane City spends over two times what we spend and said we could easily spend
another three to four million on streets if we had it; that we get funds from the gas tax and the phone tax
and said we try to hold our budget to that level; and said we try to keep a fund balance of over $1 million
so if we have a major snow or bridge problems, we have some available funds; he explained that we spent
about $400,000 on crack sealing this year, which is more than normal as we were getting behind; and
contracting that with a local private company is going well. Mr. Kersten brought attention to page 83 and
the separate fund of stormwater, with a reserve of approximately $1.5 million; he mentioned we received
a grant to help implement the NPDES (National Pollution Discharge Elimination System), and the large
requirement of implementing NPDES Phase II is upcoming.
Mr. Kersten explained the notebook budget worksheets concerning the street fund, which fiind handles
bridge inspections, which he said is about the last contract Public Works has with the County and he
explained that bridge inspectors must inspect at least one bridge annually in order to keep their
certification. The street maintenance contract, Mr. Kersten explained, is the contract with Poe which
Council Retreat minutes: July 13, 2010 Page 8 of 10
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
company does the bulk of the summer work, adding that Senske handles our emergency calls. Spokane
County, he added, does handle the paint striping on the street, signs and signals, and said the County has
discussed eliminating that, so we may have to take that over later. Mr. Kersten mentioned that the
$44,600 SRTC (Spokane Regional Transportation Council) membership also comes from the street fund.
Concerning the public works shop, Mr. Kersten said he sent out notices to all realtors in our city but
didn't get many responses, but of the few we received, staff is working to get those together and said he
will bring those to council at an upcoming meeting. Mr. Kersten said all projects have been bid and some
came in under budget so we will be able to do those projects as planned; and said concerning all funds
within their department, that typically we don't spend all the amounts funded, and said if we don't need it,
we don't spend it as can be seen in prior years. In response to Councilmember Grassel's questions about
the road fund and stormwater fund, Mr. Jackson explained those are separate funds and are not included
in the street fund; that state law mandates we cannot switch appropriations from one fund to another; that
today's focus was on the general fund and time will not permit having a discussion on the REET funds
today. Finance Director Thompson said there are other funds, some which we can't do much about like
lodging funds which will come to council later in the year concerning allocation to entities.
City Manager Jackson brought council attention to Addendum A of the Business Plan, and explained that
this is the first time we have included the Police Department in our Business Plan as it is a contracted
service; he said he has worked with Chief VanLeuven concerning these figures, and asked all to keep in
mind that the contract has specific means by which we can make reductions; said he has heard general
comments that we don't have to reduce public safety, and he asked Chief VanLeuven to discuss the
services provided by the Police Department. Chief VanLeuven explained that his department is
continually looking for ways to work smarter and more efficiently, and said the successes speak for
themselves as does the survey, which had a 94% positive rating of his department; he said he likes to
compare our Police Department with other Police Departments, and in comparing us with cities of similar
populations such as Kent and Federal Way, we have a significantly lower cost per capital for law
enforcement services. Chief VanLeuven said he feels public safety needs to be top in the priority list, and
he quoted their mission of `providing a highly- trained, dedicated team of professionals, working in
partnership with our community, through utilizing their unique talents and skills in conjunction with new
technology and research based criminal justice training." Chief VanLeuven said calls to the police
department continue to increase each year, and he went over some of the functions of the various
divisions of his department, as listed no pages 86 through 90; then explained about their training as noted
on subsequent pages. There was brief discussion concerning developing a customer friendly environment;
the possibility of a sign on the flagpole; an intercom system the public can use if no one is in the building;
SCOPE stations; facebook; involvement with the Spokane Valley Mall; and the internet and connecting
links.
General discussion then ensued regarding the "settle and adjust" for our contracts with the county and of
keeping approximately $1 million available to handle those adjustments; that Animal Control has worked
to sustain their budget figures; that the Council's budget goals can be discussed at the July 27 council
meeting, and once finalized, those goals will be part of the business plan. Mr. Jackson said staff will
examine those unfilled positions as noted previously. He asked if council had any comments or
suggestions concerning maintaining a minimum 15% carryover and of not touching the service level
stabilization fund, and there were no objections or suggestions from council. Councilmember Grassel
said that she noted each year between now and 2014 it appears we are deducting from the carryover fund,
she said she doesn't feel it is council's position to go through each budget line item, but rather it is
Council's responsibility to make sure we are living within our means of a budget; and said if we are using
carryover dollars to reach goals, she feels we are pushing off a problem that in 2014 will surface as a
large problem; and said she would rather see that money used for funding streets or for a benefit to
citizens, adding that personnel costs are a huge issue and the budget can be reduced if we take out unfilled
positions. Regarding the $3 million negative figure on page 9 of the business plan under 2011, Mr.
Council Retreat minutes: July 13, 2010 Page 9 of 10
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
Thompson explained that in January, February and March or April of every year, we won't bring in
enough money to pay all the bills, so that $3 million is our cushion until the property tax check gets in
about May; and by doing it this way, it keeps him from having to go to the bank for a loan to handle the
carryover until May, which loan action would require a council bond involvement and costs; so he
explained that this is just a cash flow procedure to make sure we have a way to pay bills. Mr. Jackson said
he would not envision carrying this plan to 2014; that if the economy doesn't improve next year, we will
look even harder; but that the carryover is to see us through the lean years; he said you can't manage a
budget for the next ten to twelve years on carryover; and if the economy continues on that trend, we'd
come back and re- assess the current financial situation, he said with a 20 -25% carryover and a $5.4
million stabilization fund, we are in very good shape; and said even with moving ahead with the planned
recommended levels in 2014, we would still have over 20% in reserves; he explained that we use a
forecast to set the budget, that this is not a spending plan; he noted there was previously showing a deficit
for 2014, but said it is a matter of perspective; that the cuts we talked about today amount to
approximately $2 million in reductions, he said they are very real reductions, and that staff will come
back in 2011 as we put the 2012 budget together. Mr. Jackson said we have the luxury of planning ahead;
that it is too soon to spend those reserves, and depending on what happens in the future, we may need
those to sustain basic operations; but at some point he would recommend council set objectives, like
keeping 15% carryover, and when we meet those objectives, if we have additional cash after this
economic crisis, we could use those for capital projects or another use. Mr. Jackson said we are fortunate
to currently have a healthy general fund.
Mayor Towey thanked staff for today's information and said staff did a terrific job; and he thanked
everyone for coming, and said Council has a better appreciation of where we stand and where we're
going, and that this should make the finalization process better.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 3:50 p.m.
ATTEST:
Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk
Thomas E. Towey, Mayor
Council Retreat minutes: July 13, 2010 Page 10 of 10
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
MINUTES
SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
STUDY SESSION FORMAT
Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers
Spokane Valley, Washington
Attendance:
July 20, 2010
6:00 p.m.
Councilmembers
Staff
Tom Towey, Mayor
Mike Jackson, Acting City Manager
Rose Dempsey, Councilmember
Mike Connelly, City Attorney
Bill Gothmann, Councilmember
Ken Thompson, Finance Director
Dean Grafos, Councilmember
Neil Kersten, Public Works Director
Brenda Grassel, Councilmember
Mike Stone, Parks & Recreation Director
Bob McCaslin, Councilmember
Rick VanLeuven, Police Chief
Kathy McClung, Community Development Dir.
Absent:
Inga Note, Traffic Engineer
Gary Schimmels, Deputy Mayor
Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney
Mike Basinger, Senior Planner
Greg McConnick, Planning Manager
Morgan Koudelka, Sr. Administrative Analyst
John Whitehead, Human Resources Manager
Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer
Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk
Mayor Towey called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. City Clerk Bainbridge called roll; all
councilmembers were present except Deputy Mayor Schimmels. It was moved by Councilmember Grafos,
seconded and unanimously agreed to excuse Deputy Mayor Schimmels from tonight's meeting.
ACTION ITEM:
1. First Reading Proposed Ordinance Amending Commute Trip Reduction (CTR) Plan — Cary Driskell
After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Councilmember Gothmann and
seconded to advance this ordinance amending Spokane Valley Municipal Code Chapter 10.20 to a second
reading on a future agenda. Deputy City Attorney Driskell stated that Aurora Crooks from Spokane
County's CTR office is here to answer any questions. Mr. Driskell explained that we are mandated by
state law to have a CTR program, we adopted our CTR Code in 2003 and the legislature occasionally
amends various provisions, and amendments occurred in 2006 which caused Spokane County's Office to
engage in some activity related to drafting proposed revisions for various constituents, and to draft CTR
plans for its member cities; he said we have an interlocal with Spokane County that they operate the CTR
program we are required to have, we get state funds for that and turn them over to Spokane County. He
said this ordinance reflects changes made in state law that need to be carried forth to all agencies required
to have this, and mentioned that for the second reading, there would be slight changes in one of the
recitals. Mayor Towey invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In
Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried.
2. Motion Consideration: Greenacres Neiahborhood Park Funding — Mike Stone
It was moved by Councilmember Dempsey and seconded to authorize the use of $200, 000 from the civic
facilities _fund to provide the necessary funding and complete the design and construction of Greenacres
Neighborhood Park. Parks and Recreation Director Stone gave a brief re -cap of the history of this project,
and said they are proposing the park to be constructed in two phases and mentioned our state funding may
Council Meeting Minutes: 07 -20 -2010 Page 1 of 10
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
be in jeopardy if we are not able to show substantial progress toward the completion of the project.
Mayor Towey invited public comment, and City Clerk Bainbridge read the following into the record:
"Dear Mayor and Council, please note that we as citizens of Spokane Valley support your decision to
fund the proposed park in Greenacres. It is your responsibility to leave a legacy, for this and future
generations, of public areas for the citizens to enjoy healthy forms of recreation. This park is much
needed for this area and as time goes on with the current density of home building this need will
accelerate. The proposed park and proposed school will be good symbiotic partners. Please show your
support of a family friendly city with your vote to fund the Greenacres Park." - e -mail from Alden and
Gail Sherrodd, 17315 E. Montgomery, Greenacres, Washington.
"Honorable Mayor Towey and City Council, I apologize I cannot be here as we are out of town this week.
Thank you for reading our public comment into the record. I've had the privilege of serving as North
Greenacres Chairwoman for the past 5 years and we appreciate the time Council and staff has given in
creation of the Greenacres Park. This has been an exciting project that's been accomplished over the last
five years. Mike Jackson was Park Director when this started. He had just completed the City's Master
Park plan, a huge task, when he chose to meet the intensive work it would take to meet the grant
application deadline in 3 weeks. Neighborhood involvement played a big part in grant criteria and the
city was awarded state matching funds to purchase the parkland. Our current park director, Mike Stone is
equally committed and we have loved the collaborative spirit and success of the visioning and
informational meetings. The neighborhood also thanks Mike Terrell who worked with us when we first
began visioning a park in January of 2005. His creativity, talent for park design and ability to keep us
focused has brought us to this final step. We cannot urge you enough to find a way to approve funding of
Greenacres Park today. The neighborhood population has dramatically increased. I've seen families
barbecuing under the cover of their garage, toddlers playing in driveways for lack of space, or straying
into the street. The close proximity to the Centennial Trail is wonderful but also dangerous along the
Spokane River. Our neighborhood is geographically caught between the river and the freeway. Families
need a safe place for their children to play. There couldn't be a better time to finish this park. Please
approve the funding to build Phase one of our park. Best Wishes, Mrs. Mary Pollard, North Greenacres
Neighborhood Chairwoman, 17216 E. Baldwin Avenue, Spokane Valley, Wa."
There were no other public comments. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None.
Abstentions: None. Motion carried.
3. Motion Consideration: Code Text Amendment CTA 04 -10, Nonconforming Uses — Mike Connelly
It was moved by Councilmember Gothmann and seconded to accept the Planning Commission findings
and recommendation and disapprove the proposed text amendment CTA 04 -10. City Attorney Connelly
explained that this is a different situation than what we have been faced with in his tenure here; he
explained that this proposal was initiated by a private property owner who asked for a specific text
amendment to the UDC (Uniform Development Code), and said that if granted not only would it apply to
the applicant's property, it would also apply to any nonconforming use within Spokane Valley. Mr.
Connelly said there are four choices for Council to consider: (1) vote in favor of the motion as made and
the findings of the Planning Commission and that would be the end of it; (2) vote against the motion
which would therefore reject the Planning Commission Findings, then instruct staff to prepare an
ordinance to approve the amendment as proposed by the applicant; (3) vote against the motion accepting
the Planning Commission findings and instruct staff to prepare an ordinance different from that which
was provided by the applicant, to include alternate language which may or may not go back to the
Planning Commission; or (4) ask staff for additional infonnation specifically related to other options or
alternatives and continue this matter for a week to give staff time to prepare the documents.
Council Meeting Minutes: 07 -20 -2010 Page 2 of 10
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
Mr. Connelly said under our current code, nonconfonning uses can be expanded onto an adjacent
property if you own the property at the time the nonconfonning use was established; and this amendment
proposed by the applicant would take away that restriction and would allow expansion of a
nonconforming use to adjacent property whether you owned it prior to use and whether you owned it at
all. Mr. Connelly said a city -wide consequence would be that any nonconforming use could expand onto
adjacent properties subject to determination of the Community Development Director based on general
criteria; that it would be an unfettered expansion of uses; additionally, he said there would be no limit as
to how many times this could happen, and one could keep expanding onto the next adjacent property. Mr.
Connelly said the planning commission rejected this as written so it has come to council based on that
recommendation. Attorney Connelly said another alternative council could explore which would
accomplish a similar goal, would be to consider a zone change for this particular circumstance to allow
the use Mr. Hite is proposing; and said that a change in the uses allowed within the use category could be
expanded to allow the use; and Council could set forth an ordinance which would require specific
circumstances; and said Council could also require a conditional use pen which would necessitate a
public hearing so all neighbors could weigh -in on the proposal; and said with a conditional use permit, the
Council could condition the approval on such things as having adequate buffers, etc. Mr. Connelly noted
that staff has included exhaustive materials in tonight's council packet describing what other communities
have done in similar situations, but he noted that no one has had an exact proposal.
Attorney Connelly explained some of the purposes of nonconforming uses, which includes allowing an
existing use but not encouraging the expansion of that use so that ultimately the use will be discontinued
over time; in this way it preserves the investment while encouraging development of uses consistent
within what is allowed in any zone. Via his PowerPoint, Mr. Connelly again explained that the proposed
amendment is to allow nonconforming uses to expand to adjacent property without regard to ownership;
he explained what a nonconforming use is and the purpose of such, the current nonconforming expansion
rules contained in the Spokane Valley Municipal Code Chapter 19.20.060B (4), and the change approving
this amendment would make to that Code Chapter. Mr. Connelly stated that this is not a site specific
request as Council would not just solve Mr. Hite's problem if council approved the amendment, but that
this would be a legislative change that would affect all properties within the city, and he asked Council to
make its decision based on that, and that such would be a legislative change to the UDC. Mayor Towey
invited public comments.
Stan Schultz, said he is a semi - retired real estate lawyer, 425 S Alpine Drive, Liberty Lake; he explained
that he represents Hite Crane & Rigging and urged council to reject the pending motion. Mr. Schultz said
in examining the comprehensive plan for Spokane Valley, the front page includes the city's vision: "A
community of opportunity where individuals and families can grow and play and where businesses can
flourish and prosper." He said the business about nonconforming uses arises when a city like Spokane
Valley enacts a new zoning code and by virtue of doing so, makes existing uses nonconforming, which he
said can create such illegal issues as unconstitutional taking issues, claims for damages, etc. He said one
of the safety valves is to enact nonconforming rights provisions into the code which would allow
businesses to operate as nonconforming uses and in the case of this city, allow certain expansion of those
nonconforming uses. To point out the problem in our city's code, he gave the following hypothetical
examples: a business within the city limits is lawful prior to the adoption of the city's most present code,
which present code made the business unlawful; the owners of that business not only own the parcel on
which the business is located, but they own an adjacent 100' wide track; he said business was good and
they wanted to expand their business and asked the city if that were possible, and under the present code,
the city would say yes, as long you don't adversely affect the transportation system and /or neighbors. He
said to take that situation and compare it with the same exact business only they don't own the adjacent
100'; and where the business owner wants to buy the adjacent site to expand the business, and said there
would be no adverse impacts on the traffic system or the neighbors; but under the present code, the
answer would be no. He asked what the physical difference is, and suggested there is none, except in the
Council Meeting Minutes: 07 -20 -2010 Page 3 of 10
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
first situation, the owners already owned the adjacent strip and in the second, they did not. He suggests
Council consider what public purpose it is trying to further by requiring ownership; and said he feels
Council would be hard - pressed to find a valid public purpose. Further, Mr. Schultz said citizens have a
right to expect they will be treated equally in similar circumstances, and that privileges would not be
inferred on some and not on others; and he said that is want happened here; that there is a class of people
who will benefit by this — those who owned the two parcels — as opposed to those who do not, and he
suggested an improper public purpose; and said this amendment is meant to solve that problem and put
all people on equal footing regarding expansion of uses. Mr. Schultz said there is no issue about
nonconforming issues being permitted as the code allows that, and there is no issue about nonconforming
issues being expanded; but the question is what citizens will be allowed to do that. He further stated that
there are many problems associated with nonconforming uses; and said that Mr. Connelly raises several
good points, one of which Mr. Schultz disagrees with: the code as it states today and after this
amendment, a nonconforming use may be expanded only within the boundaries of the original lot or track
in any adjacent lot or track. Mr. Schultz said Mr. Connelly indicated that there was a reasonable
interpretation of this that a person could not only expand onto the 100' strip, but buy another 100' strip
next to that and expand onto that and so on, and Mr. Schultz said he respectfully disagrees. He explained
that the term "original lot" means that lot and whatever is next to it, and does not mean you can keep
moving down the street ad infinitum expanding the nonconforming use uncontrolled; and he said that is
not what is intended. Mr. Schultz said he feels this is a delicate circumstance, and said that once it is
decided to allow the expansion of nonconforming uses, it will allow our businesses to flourish and
prosper; he asked if we should create a certain class of people who are only able to do that, or should we
make that available to all citizens in the same circumstances, keeping in mind that there are safeguards so
that such would not impact the transportation system or adversely impact the neighbors.
Dwight Hume, proponent of the amendment, 9101 N Mountain View Lane, Spokane, 99218 said that the
staff report contains a suggestion that they were inconsistent, that there is criteria in the code for
reviewing and approving and accepting text amendments; and among other things, it should show
compliance with the comprehensive plan; and said as he explained to the Planning Commission, this is a
nonconformity and nonconformities cannot be consistent with the comprehensive plan; and said if you
look carefully at the staff report, "that first criteria that Scott addresses, he openly says in writing, there
isn't really anything in the comprehensive plan that says anything about nonconfonnity, so he fabricates a
whole story upon which this thing was eventually denied; fabricates the extreme of industrial use being
next to residential, and that is not compatible and the comp plan is about all creating compatibility;
nonconforming uses aren't necessarily compatible, but pay attention to the fact that the criteria for
expanding nonconforming use creates the requirement for a discernment by the administrator, usually the
planning director, that your request is going to be compatible, or they can say no to you. It doesn't just
give a free license to everybody to have an expansion. You have to prove that he's not going to cause a
traffic impact and you have to prove that he's not adversely going to affect the surrounding neighborhood.
That's adopted into the code, and what I'm pulling out of it is language that says what Stan just
addressed: the history of who owns the property. Who owns the property has nothing to do with land use
impact and that's the theme of what we're here with tonight. The second aspect of this that was
erroneously construed by the planning commission was that this use was going to be inconsistent with the
comprehensive plan, and yet you have under your economic chapter, a requirement, and I'll point that out
to you, that it says under Goal EDG -7.2: `Review development regulations periodically to ensure clarity,
consistency and predictability.' As Mr. Schultz just explained to you, you don't have a regulation that
we're addressing tonight that creates consistency and clarity, and fosters economic development. There
was a suggestion even made tonight by your legal council, and was asked by the planning commission,
well, isn't there any other solution to this individual, Mr. Hite, that would solve his problem and not open
Pandora's box, as they were presuming would happen. And that was, oh yes, I believe that was the staff
dialogue after public testimony when I couldn't speak, and it was, the question was asked of staff can we
do a re -zone. You heard that again tonight. Members of the council. This is a nonconforming use; it's
Council Meeting Minutes: 07 -20 -2010 Page 4 of 10
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
nonconforming with the comprehensive plan. It can't be a spot zone to industrial, your first zone that
allows this use. It can't be. I would never in my 40 years of doing this stuff, take on the task of trying to
convince any legislative body that they should approve, by zoning, a nonconforming use. Amendments.
You're not going to do an amendment either. You're not only to allow a use that by your own matrix, is
otherwise first permitted in light industrial in corridor mixed use. Staff has given us the letter that says
yes, you have a valid right to be there as a nonconforming use; the gap of time has not occurred;
Consolidated Pipe left, you got there within a couple of months, you didn't have a 12 -month lapse; you
didn't lose your nonconforming rights; you can be there; it's all about the rest of the property. As you
will hear from Mr. Hite tonight, one of the other regulatory reviews suggests that this additional piece of
property, and I don't want to dwell upon this property, but this additional piece of property is necessary
for emergency and fire access, not to mention what he wants to do, so you have the criteria there. Is there
an impact on the surrounding land use; is there a change and adverse impact on traffic; does it change the
level of service by expanding it? It can only expand on the contiguous adjoining piece. Ownership is
what this is all about; and that shouldn't be in there and we're suggesting that it be taken out."
Gary Hite, owner of Hite Crane & Rigging, 4323 East Broadway Mr. Hite said he has been at the
present location for 40 years; and said when they originally built there it was within the County; it was
bordering Havana which is the line for the City of Spokane. He said if you recall, "there was a movement
afoot that there was concern about what the City of Spokane might impose on people in the valley region
so the City of the Valley was formed to create their own destiny and preclude that. In my case, the City
of Spokane has decided to do a project that they want my property; and so they came to the prior council
here in the valley to ask you to give them jurisdiction over me, which was done; and the City of Spokane
sued me for eminent domain and has taken my property. I need to relocate and I have made great
endeavors to find an appropriate place to do that; and facing this immense task I had to find some plusses
or I would have given up; and I felt that if I made a better place to be, then I can operate more efficient, fit
into the community better, and provide good employment for my people on an ongoing basis. I looked at
several vacant sites and talked with Planning and Permitting, and I could see that my lifeline plan
probably wasn't going to fit their timeline that I could get that accomplished; so I found an existing
facility that hopefully would be quicker to move in because I am under an extreme timeline. My decision
from the City of Spokane requires me to totally vacate the property by the end of October. An added
problem with that is that the construction of Havana Street Bridge is already ongoing, and is tearing up
our access to get in and out of the property to operate and to eventually move. The facility that I found
and bought and have applied for and gotten permission to occupy the main facility, was actually built as a
Tidyman's warehouse and office in '82, and the adjacent property that is contiguous is an additional 85'
which I felt was necessary for me to safely move and stage my equipment and be able to access around
the existing building to pull back onto the side street to not interrupt traffic; there is a street light off of
Corbin onto Appleway which makes a good safety entrance for me similar to what I've had on Havana;
but I need to be able to get around the building to stage my equipment. In our original conversations with
permitting here, the representative from the fire department told us that they actually would require
additional space on the east side of the building for emergency access for us to occupy the building. This
building's been there since 1982, as I previously said it was Tidyman's originally and then Consolidated
Pipe the last approximate twelve years. The abandoned car wash that was on the east side really in my
opinion was a detrimental thing that was there and really needed to be cleaned up; so I feel that I'm
bettering the area is what I'm endeavoring to do. As I'm understanding it, and I'm obviously not an
attorney, or in the habit of doing development work, and I'll tell you at this point, it would not be a thing
that I would go into because it is so difficult to try to build and improve... and I think that's a sign of our
times and in some of the past meetings that Pve been to here, there seems to be concern about being able
to develop additional revenue in order to pay maintenance costs for streets and other facilities, but if
businesses can't continue to operate and employ people, then there's no revenue base. As I'm
understanding nonconforming, which we seem to be hearing here a lot, I kind of equate nonconfonning
with change; and it seems like Mr. Connelly's description of nonconforming earlier and the purpose
Council Meeting Minutes: 07 -20 -2010 Page 5 of 10
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
behind it was two - fold; that either where an existing operation wanted to take advantage of changes in the
market place or that sort of thing where they need to change their operation in order to survive they
become nonconforming; but also if the surroundings around them change, then they become
nonconforming. Now, I'm not one that thinks change is not good; I think in our world we need a certain
amount of change; so it's my feeling that's the reason that nonconforming was originally addressed, is to
allow some flexibility to encourage expansion of a business and employment of people. Also to me, it
seems like the whole concept of eminent domain, I was in my location for 40 years, and I had no desire to
move, but to me, the nonconforming thing is that Pm forced to move, so I'm doing my best to get in a
good location and I guess maybe in some respects I might have been smarter to just quit and sell off my
stuff, but I have employees that have been very loyal to me; 20, 25 years, there's quite a few that have
retired actually; and I think that's great. I also have people that have maybe only been with me five to ten
years and have a young family, and they're dependent on working. It seems kind of silly to me when
we're concerned nationally about extending unemployment, and we don't want to allow business to
employ people. I'm just trying to continue what I've been doing, but do it in a better manner if possible.
So I would really encourage the council to look at this as we seem to be caught up on a technicality; I
think what I'm trying to do, everybody would be in favor of, but the language seems to make it kind of a
glitch to getting it done; so I would encourage you to defeat the current motion and to take an option that
would make a motion that would allow me to move into my facility and go to work before I have to be
out of the one that I'm in. Thank you."
Councilmember Dempsey asked how long it would take him to move, and Mr. Hite said it would
probably depend on when he can start; he said there is current construction that is starting on Havana; and
said if he could go right away, he said he feels he could be moved, that the majority of his big equipment
is what he'd try to move first as he needs to get that out before he can't get it out, he said they have
renovations and additions they want to do on the existing building before they can occupy with offices;
but feels he could move the majority of his heavy equipment within the next month; and the rest
hopefully shortly thereafter. Councilmember Dempsey asked if Mr. Hite has to be out of his current
location by the end of October and he confirmed that is the case. Councilmember Grafos asked how many
people he employs, and he responded that typically 30 to 35; and said in better times he has employed up
to 70.
There were no further public comments. Councilmember Grafos said he would like to reject the proposal
from the planning commission and instead have an ordinance prepared which would allow the expansion
to the adjacent parcel. Mr. Connelly said if that is Council's motion; then that is what staff will do; but
there is a motion on the floor now to accept the Planning Commission recommendation, which should be
dealt with prior to making another motion; and Mayor Towey reminded council that the current motion is
to accept the findings of the planning commission, which disapproves the proposed amendment.
Councilmember Gothmann said he feels Mr. Hume's proposal is not a solution that is good public policy;
and said he previously fought for neighborhood policies, to include the wording "maintain and protect the
character of existing and future residential neighborhoods through the development and enforcement of
the City's land use regulations and joint planning" and said if we adopted what has been suggested by Mr.
Hume, that could present future problems such as having an apartment house next to single family
residential homes, and said if this were adopted, the apartment use could be expanded to the adjacent
properties; and he said he does not like that and those lines of separation should be kept as such, unless
there is a good reason; and said the question is are we going to keep neighborhoods the way they are; and
he said it has been suggested we are creating a class of those who would benefit, but he explained that
such exists now, that he benefits in that his home is zoned single family, and he does not have the benefit
of multi - family housing on his land; and said he is not anxious to have an adjacent property owner say if
he has multi - family, he can have my property multi - family also; and stressed that there is a neighborhood
chapter in the comprehensive plan that preserves neighborhoods, and this particular proposal will not
preserve the neighborhood; and said he would be glad to consider other options; but at this time he
Council Meeting Minutes: 07 -20 -2010 Page 6 of 10
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
encouraged Council to adopt the motion as presented, and after that, said we could ask staff for other
choices that would solve this particular problem while not affecting the residential neighborhoods.
Councilmember Dempsey said regarding the suggestion that the Community Development Director could
make all these decisions, that she feel the director doesn't need that kind of target on her back; and she
said the laws and ordinances need to be maintained to keep a functioning community; and said she
realizes the prior council was concerned with Mr. Hite's dilemma as is the present council, and we want
him to be able to have his business; and she asked about Mr. Connelly's other suggestions, such as a
conditional use permit so we could give Mr. Hite what he needs to maintain his business while
maintaining the integrity of our ordinances; and suggested council ask staff to come up with another
solution, realizing such needs to be done quickly.
Councilmember Grafos stated that the city of Spokane allows nonconforming uses expansions within the
commercial and industrial zone but not in the residential, and agreed he would not approve
nonconfonning uses in residential zones; but said this could be restricted to commercial or industrial
zones and to the contiguous parcel; and gave as an example a use that was changed as a result of a zone
change, the INB Bank which is now in a mixed use zone which doesn't allow banks with a drive - through;
and said if that INB Bank which is a legitimate use of that property, decided they wanted to put in a center
for additional employees in the vacant lot next to it, that would be an expansion of a nonconforming use,
and said he feels such example would not be detrimental to the community; and said he would be in favor
of allowing the expansion of a nonconforming use to adjacent property if it is in the same zone. Attorney
Connelly reminded council of the pending motion to accept the recommendations of the planning
commission, which would reject the proposal; and after the council makes that determination, council can
instruct staff further, and that this motion is to instruct staff, and its outcome could result in a future
ordinance amendment of the development code. Councilmember McCaslin asked for a roll call vote,
which was conducted by City Clerk Bainbridge with the following outcome: Councilmember Gothmann:
yes; Councilmember Dempsey: Yes; Councilmember Grafos: No. Mayor Towey: No. Councilmember
Grassel: No; and Councilmember McCashn: No. The motion was therefore defeated and the proposed
amendment was not disapproved and the planning commission findings and recommendation were not
accepted.
After council discussion about various options including whether to require a conditional use permit, and
that staff will bring that information concerning the cost of a conditional use permit; that staff will bring
back an ordinance which will contain some options including that for such provision it would have to be
in a commercial or industrial zone, and /or the same zone, meaning if you were in commercial zone you
could not move to residential, and could only move to the adjacent property; and to ask staff to do so as
quickly as possible.
Mayor Towey called for a recess at 7:20 p.m. and reconvened at 7:31 p.m.
NON - ACTION ITEMS:
4. Bike Helmets — Marion Lee, Spokane County Health Department
Ms. Marion Lee, Public Health Educator of the Spokane Regional Health District, thanked Council for the
invitation to speak and for the previous acknowledgement of "May as Helmet Safety Month;" she
explained that part of what she does is monitor injury data that affects the safety of the community, and
one aspect of that deals with wheel -sport injuries; she said there were 1,299 wheel sport emergency room
visits last year which equates to over $15 million just in hospital costs; she said she is here today to
provide additional information on helmets. Ms Lee explained that 90% of youth reported in a survey,
either indicated they "rarely" or "never" wear a helmet, which tells her there is a gap in the education
efforts to get helmets on kids. Ms. Lee said she has never met anyone who said helmets don't save lives.
She discussed the different strategies, like using SCOPE volunteers to educate the public about helmets
and distribute free helmets, and she acknowledged and expressed her appreciation for this city's efforts in
Council Meeting Minutes: 07 -20 -2010 Page 7 of 10
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
supplying helmets. Ms. Lee said we all realize there is no impact we can measure on the loss of a life,
and no dollar amount that can equate to that loss, but said that $15 million in one year is exorbitant; and
all that leads to premium rate increases; and if the injured are uninsured, the expenses fall to the
taxpayers; and said that a lot of that $15 million would be prevented by helmet use. Ms. Lee said there
were 921 emergency room visits for head injuries due to wheel sport accidents, and all these figures don't
even include those patients who are admitted, or who need physical therapy or after care treatment; and
said the bigger issue is thinking about the impacted families; adding one must also take into consideration
how the driver would feel who struck someone who perhaps darted in traffic. Ms. Lee asked the
rhetorical question of what can we do to make sure more kids wear helmets; she said she is not an
advocate of ticketing kids without helmets; but it appears "knowing" one must wear a helmet and
"wearing" a helmet are not the same. Ms. Lee said that she feels one way to increase the number of
people wearing a helmet is to have an ordinance; she said the City of Spokane has an ordinance, that they
don't enforce it but use it as an educational tool, and she asked Council to consider moving forward with
an ordinance as a means to solve the issue of how to get more helmets on kids; said she appreciates this
City setting aside funds for helmets for those who don't have access to helmets, and said she is willing to
help as this city moves toward further protection of the citizens by means of policies to increase voluntary
compliance. Councilmembers thanked Ms. Lee for her information, and Mr. Jackson said there have been
previous discussions concerning this issue, and staff will pull that together and include it as an upcoming
informational agenda item.
5. Transportation Improvement Board Call for Projects — Steve Worley
Standing in for Mr. Worley, Public Works Director Kersten explained that recently a 2010 Call for
Projects was issued by the Washington State Transportation Improvement Board for allocation of Urban
Arterial Program (UAP) and Urban Sidewalk Program (SP) funding; and he went through his PowerPoint
explaining the projects and descriptions, including how the projects are evaluated, and he added that the
applications are due August 31. There were no questions from Council and no council objections to
bringing this back next week for a motion consideration.
6. Smart Routes — Steve Worley
Traffic Engineer Inga Note and Public Works Director Kersten, standing in for Mr. Worley, went over
some of the background of the Smart Routes program and the June 4 SRTC (Spokane Regional
Transportation Council) call for projects associated with the Smart Routes program, which program
promotes regionally significant non - motorized construction and planning projects that affect walking,
bicycling and access to transit; adding that applications are due July 22, 2010. Via their PowerPoint
presentation, project examples were given and partners and supporters mentioned, including STA
(Spokane Transit Authority), and GSI (Greater Spokane Incorporated), and mentioned some of the
Spokane Valley projects including the Spokane Valley /Millwood Trail, the North Greenacres Trail, and
the new projects of Dishman -Mica Road Shared Use Pathway and the Centennial Trail Bike /Ped
Connectivity Study. Ms. Note and Mr. Kersten explained some aspects of the Spokane Valley Millwood
Trail as well as the other trail proposed projects; and summarized by explaining that these projects will
connect neighborhoods to commercial areas, and are safer than having bikes on major arterials. Director
Kersten added that with Transportation Enhancement Grants (20 10) typically no local match is required;
and said staff will move ahead and in their monthly reports and at other times, will bring council updates
on what they are doing with the grants.
7. Subarea Plan (SARP): Neighborhood Centers — Mike Basinger and Greg McCormick
Senior Planner Basinger explained that as requested and as part of the ongoing zone -by -zone review
connected with the Sprague /Appleway Subarea Plan, tonight's report focuses on the Neighborhood
Center District Zone, and said the community meeting to discuss that district is scheduled for July 22,
from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. in Council Chambers. Via his PowerPoint presentation, Mr. Basinger
showed the neighborhood center areas, explained what uses are permitted, showed a zone comparison
Council Meeting Minutes: 07 -20 -2010 Page 8 of 10
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
with the interim zoning and the pre -SARP zoning (2007), and explained what uses are no longer
permitted. Mr. Basinger also showed examples of some businesses which are non- confonning uses, and
mentioned that the "Hancock Fabrics" store was included in error and is not a nonconforming use. Site
development standards such as smaller setbacks and wider sidewalks were mentioned, and sign standards
were briefly addressed. As with other zoning districts, staff will report back to council after the
community meeting.
8. Law Enforcement Interlocal — Mike Jackson and Morgan Koudelka
City Manager Jackson explained that since early February, staff has been working to negotiate a new
interlocal for law enforcement services as a member of the negotiating team, which included Senior
Administrative Analyst Koudelka, City Attorney Connelly, Sheriff Knezovich, County CEO Farnell, as
well as an attorney on County's staff, and said that Chief VanLeuven attended several meetings as well.
Mr. Jackson said he wanted to give Council an overview of the contract so council has a good
understanding of the contents, that he would cover the high points, and that we can come back for
additional reports if needed; and Mr. Jackson referenced the worksheet of Exhibit 1 and the dedicated
FTEs (full time equivalents). A PowerPoint presentation included dedicated services that the City has
control over, shared services charged based upon usage, and direct support as determined by the Sheriff,
then the non - chargeable services that are the Sheriff s responsibility, or do not provide service to the City,
such as marine patrol, sex offender registration, or the child sex predator grant.
Mr. Jackson said the primary increased services changed under category 2, shared services which are
services essentially controlled by the Sheriff Office. Regarding the contract, Mr. Jackson brought
attention to page 2, section 4.1 Initial term and Renewal and that this four -year contract is retroactive to
the beginning of the year; and Mr. Jackson, Mr. Connelly, and Mr. Koudelka `vent over other sections
including section 5 services, section 6 cost of services, section 9 police chief and commander selection,
section 12 and he mentioned the idea of our patrol vehicles being marked was well received; and finally
section 16 concerning liability.
Shortly before 9 p.m., Councilmember McCaslin left the meeting. At 9:00 p.m. it was moved by
Councilmember Dempsey, seconded and unanimously agreed to extend the meeting 30 minutes.
Further discussion included Mr. Koudelka explaining the rationale and method of calculating percentage
increases, monitoring costs, and statistics, and councilmembers extended their appreciation to staff for
their dedicated work. Attorney Connelly said rather than bring this back for a motion next week, he
would like to confirm where the County is in this process, then bring in the final document for council
approval consideration at the August 10 meeting. Council concurred. At 9:30 p.m., it was moved by
Councilmember Dempsey, seconded and unanimously agreed to extend the meeting another fifteen
minutes.
9. Legislative Agenda — Mike Jackson
Mr. Jackson said tonight represents a first touch as Council begins consideration of establishing the next
legislative agenda; that this council amended the current legislative last February, and this is an
opportunity to start to review this agenda even though AWC (Association of Washington Cities)
generally doesn't ask for our input until fall. Possible items mentioned by council included requesting a
sprinkler system in the food bank as something to consider endorsement of, anti - harassment provision
concerning 911 operators and keeping phone names and other information confidential when registering
cell phones; the initiative of privatizing liquor sales and potential impact on Spokane Valley; and the
acquisition of park property; and he said these issues can be included in an upcoming agenda packet as we
move toward possible adoption in August.
Council Meeting Minutes: 07 -20 -2010 Page 9 of 10
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
10. Advance Agenda — Mayor ToweX
Councilmember Grafos asked about the one - way /two -way ballot measure, and City Manager Jackson said
a full report is scheduled for next week to address costs, potential funding, history of previous council
discussion, and a sample ballot measure.
11. Information Only: The Avista Home Energy Grant was for information only and was not reported or
discussed.
12. Council Check -in — Mayor ToweX No comments were offered.
13. City Manager Comments — Mike Jackson No comments were offered.
14. EXECUTIVE SESSION: To evaluate the qualifications of applicants for public employment [RCW
42.30.110(1)(g)]
It was moved by Councilmember Dempsey, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn into executive
session for approximately 30 minutes to evaluate the qualifications of applicants for public employment,
and that no action is anticipated thereafter. Council adjourned into executive session at 9:35 p.m. Mayor
Towey declared Council out of executive session at 10:03 p.m., and it was then moved by Councilmember
Dempsey, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 10:03 p.m.
ATTEST:
Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk
Thomas E. Towey, Mayor
Council Meeting Minutes: 07 -20 -2010 Page 10 of 10
Approved by Council:
A
MINUTES
City of Spokane Valley Special Meeting
City Council Executive Session
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Attendance:
Councilmembers:
Tom Towey, Mayor
Gary Schimmels, Deputy Mayor
Rose Dempsey, Councilmember
Bill Gothmann, Councilmember
Dean Grafos, Councilmember
Bob McCaslin, Councilmember
Absent:
Brenda Grassel, Councilmember
Staff:
Mike Connelly, City Attorney
John Whitehead, Human Resources Manager
Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk
The meeting was convened in open session at Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers, with Mayor
Towey calling the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. It was moved by Councilmember Gothmann, seconded
and unanimously agreed to adjourn into Executive Session for approximately one hour to evaluate the
qualifications of applicants for public employment, and that no action is anticipated thereafter. Council
adjourned into executive session at 5:01 p.m. At 5:50 p.m., Mayor Towey declared council out of
executive session. It was moved by Councilmember Dempsey, seconded and unanimously agreed to
adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 5:51 p.m.
Thomas E. Towey, Mayor
ATTEST:
Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk
Sp Meeting, Council Minutes: 07 -27 -2010 Page 1 of 1
Approved by Council:
1 : lvm
MINUTES
City of Spokane Valley
City Council Regular Meeting
Formal Meeting Format
Tuesday, July 27, 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 Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney
Bill Gothmann, Councilmember Kathy McClung, Community Development Dir
Dean Grafos, Councilmember Mike Stone, Parks & Recreation Director
Bob McCaslin, Councilmember Scott Kuhta, Senior Planner
Absent:
Brenda Grassel, Councilmember
Christina Janssen, Assistant Planner
Steve Worley, Senior Engineer
John Whitehead, Human Resources Manager
Morgan Koudelka, Sr. Administrative Analyst
Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer
Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk
INVOCATION: Pastor James Karshork of Holy Trinity Lutheran 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 except
Councilmember Grassel. It was moved by Councilmember Dempsey, seconded and unanimously agreed
to excuse Councilmember Grassel from tonight's meeting.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously
agreed to approve the agenda.
INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS: n/a
COMMITTEE, BOARD, LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS:
Councilmember Gothmann: reported he attended the Chamber of Commerce breakfast where they
discussed their next level program of entrepreneurship and how to set up a business, they also had a
presentation by Ian Robertson on panhandling, and then held a discussion about the new health care
reform lead by some people who sell health insurance; said he went to a SNAP Board meeting where they
discussed housing and an article in the paper about them selling properties, went to an employee
appreciation barbecue; attended the community meeting at City Hall regarding the SARP; attended the
Barker Bridge dedication; said the Health Department meeting discussed approval of some union
contracts, and said they also adopted a helmet resolution, and had an extensive discussion on electronic
cigarettes, which he said are now available, and he distributed copies of information concerning that
topic; also attended a 911 Board meeting this morning and reported that in August, the Board of County
Commissioners will meet to consider raising the 911 fee from the current 50¢ per subscriber to 70¢ per
subscriber, and said he went to the Kentucky Fried Chicken on Sprague and expressed on behalf of the
Council, Council's concern for their business during the construction, and he was told they were "holding
their own."
Council Regular Meeting 7 -27 -2010 Page 1 of 8
Approved by Council:
1 : 1YW
Councilmember Dempsey said she went to the Homebuilders' reception for legislators; attended the
employee appreciation barbeque; the Board of Health Meeting, and the SARP Community meeting held
at City Hall.
Councilmember Grafos: said he attended the reception for homebuilders; the barbeque for employees; the
SARP community meeting; the Growth Management Steering Committee meeting; and the STA
(Spokane Transit Authority) Board meeting which discussion centered around transportation issues and
bringing the Board up to date on the Connect Spokane Project, and said that sales tax revenues were
revised and they are still lagging behind those revenues of 2009.
Deputy Mayor Schimmels no report.
Councilmember McCaslin: no report.
MAYOR'S REPORT: reported that he attended a neighborhood center meeting, went to the Barker
Bridge opening, which he said was well attended, visited with the "lunch bunch" who are citizens who get
together monthly to discuss neighborhood concerns; went to Northern Quest Casino for the dedication of
the Thunderbirds and in support of their air show on Saturday and Sunday; yesterday went to Mirabeau
Park for a 20 Anniversary of ADA (Americans' with Disability Act) celebration; attended the Board of
Trustees meeting with GSI (Greater Spokane, Inc.); met with Valleyfest coordinator Peggy Doering and
Central Valley School Superintendent to discuss ways public officials can interact more with citizens at
Valleyfest.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Towey invited general public comments.
Ernest Buckler 1408 S. Shamrock Street, Spokane Valley, 99037: spoke regarding the ping -pong group
he is involved with at the Senior Center; he reviewed the history of their group's use of part of the Senior
Center and of his dissatisfaction with the current situation of them having to relocate to Hepton
Community Center, and of his interactions with the Senior Center Coordinator Karen Parson, the Senior
Board, and with Parks and Recreation Director Mike Stone; and said he eventually contacted the media to
let them know of the problem; and said he wrote a letter to Mr. Stone who responded by telling him that
the determination of use is made by the Senior Center Board. Mr. Buckler said he has pursued this issue
with politeness and insistence, but has been met with total resistance.
Vern Hutchinson, 607 N Best Road: also spoke concerning the issue of ping pong at the CenterPlace
Senior Center and of his attempts to solve the problem which has not been resolved, and he mentioned
many of the same frustrations voiced by Mr. Buckler above, including a letter from the Senior Center
Board which told his group they were "trapped and no longer able to play" and he said he is now trying to
determine why that occurred. He asked if Council could assist in this situation and asked if the Mayor had
the authority to hire and fire people, and Mayor Towey responded that he did not, that that responsibility
and authority rests with the City Manager. Mr. Hutchinson said he feels Parks and Recreation is not doing
much for the seniors except for billiards, and that Parks and Recreation should be more involved.
Mr. Pat Waddell, 4715 S Progress Court, Veradale: also addressed his concerns with the Ping Pong
playing and the problems with Hepton Point, that it is further away from the hospital; the area is not well
snow plowed during the winter, and cell phone reception is poor. He said one of the complaints about his
group at CenterPlace was a concern of damaging the floor, but he contacted a floor contractor who said
his activity would not damage the floors and he suggested that players could donate $1.00 per person to
cover any damage; he said the Senior Center has liability but all the players signed liability waivers, he
said he is not sure if the Senior Board made the decision against their playing or the Parks and Recreation
Department management, but he feels it was the latter using the Board as a conduit; and he asked if
council could influence or encourage management to open a meaningful dialogue to solve this problem as
their group very much wants to get back to the Senior Center.
Council Regular Meeting 7 -27 -2010 Page 2 of 8
Approved by Council:
"'k YW
Ray Ward, 13404 East 9 th Avenue: said he mentioned during a previous council meeting about keeping
highway trucks out of residential neighborhoods, and he requested an ordinance to address that, including
a fine sufficient to cure the problem.
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
07/09/2010
20562 -20594 630100020
702100015,
$1,826,909.9
07/09/2010
20595 -20608
$76,638.54
07/13/2010
20609 -20631
$28,981.89
07/14/2010
3235 -3237
$60,033.98
0719/2010
20632 -20673
$222,823.10
GRAND TOTAL
$2,215,387.44
b. Approval of Payroll for Period Ending July 15, 2010: $264,000.80
c. Approval of Formal Format Council Meeting Minutes of June 29, 2010
d. Approval of Study Session Format Council Meeting Minutes of July 6, 2010
e. Approval of Fonnal Format Council Meeting Minutes of July 13, 2010
f. Approval of Special meeting Executive Session Council Meeting Minutes of July 14, 2001
It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the consent
agenda.
NEW BUSINESS
2. Second Reading Probosed Ordinance Amendin-a Comcast Franchise — Cary Driskell
After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and
seconded to adopt the ordinance extending the time to August 11, 2010, for acceptance and return of the
cable franchise by Comcast. Deputy City Attorney Driskell briefly re- capped the situation, and said he
spoke with representatives of Comcast who indicated they have signed the franchise and are putting
together their new performance bond, and they assured Mr. Driskell we would have all necessary
documents prior to August 11. Mayor Towey invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote
by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried.
3. Second Readiniz Probosed Ordinance Amendine Commute Trm Reduction (CTR) Plan — Cary Driskell
City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, and it was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and
seconded, to adopt this ordinance amending Spokane Valley Municipal Code Chapter 10.20 regarding
Commute Trip Reduction. Mr. Driskell reiterated the background as he had explained at a previous
council meeting, and Mayor Towey invited public comments; no comments were offered. Deputy Mayor
Schimmels asked about the list of companies in the Plan and noted that some of those companies are no
longer in the area; and Mr. Driskell said that such would not be determinative as to who is bound by the
Plan. Vote by Acclamation: In_favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried.
4. First Readine Probosed Ordinance. CTA 03 -10 Code Text Amendment (Sbraeue /Annlewav) —
Christina Janssen
After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and
seconded, to advance the ordinance to a second reading. After Planner Janssen explained the proposed
amendments, including the change to allow full service restaurants as a permitted use in the Mixed Use
Council Regular Meeting 7 -27 -2010 Page 3 of 8
Approved by Council:
"'k vm
Avenue Retail zone, Mayor Towey invited public comments; no comments were offered.
Councilmember Grafos asked about the addition of vehicle sales and service and Mayor Towey said that
the Planning Commission is considering that issue separately, and it will come to council on an upcoming
agenda. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion
carried.
5. Motion Consideration: Mayoral Appointment to Spokane County Housing and Community
Development Committee — Mayor Towey
It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded to confirm the Mayoral appointment of Kristi
Kerkuta to the Spokane Housing and Community Development Committee for a three-year term
beginning immediately. Mayor Towey announced his intention to appoint Kristi Kerkuta, who has
submitted an application for membership consideration on this committee; and he introduced her and
thanked her for her interest and community involvement. Mayor Towey also extended thanks to out-
going committee member Rick Scott for his many years of dedicated service. Mayor Towey invited
public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed:
None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried.
6. Motion Consideration: Avista Home Energy Audit Request — Mary May
It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded to approve the proposed increase in EECBG
funds per home audit. Community Development Director McClung explained that she is standing in for
Engineer Tech Mary May whose plane was delayed on a return training trip. Director McClung said that
Avista previously asked they be awarded $88,000 for energy grant audits for Spokane Valley residents;
that amount was approved and the program was launched this spring but resulted in limited participation;
and to encourage more participants, Avista requested approval to increase the amount of grant dollars per
audit from $87.50 to $138 which would therefore lower the cost of the homeowner from $150 to $99.
Mayor Towey invited public comments; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor:
Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried.
7. Motion Consideration: Subarea Items to Send to Planning Commission — Scott Kuhta
It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded to direct the Planning Commission to consider
text amendments to Book II: Development Regulations, Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan
to address the following issues: (1) Permitted Uses: Consider adding some additional uses, including
vehicle sales, and single-family homes, as permitted uses in the Mixed Use Avenue District Zone; (2)
Setbacks: Clarify setbacks where easements may make the requirement infeasible; (3) Additions
Expansion, Reconstruction: Consider increasing the 50% threshold for additional, expansion or
reconstruction of existing buildings to meet the SARP regulations; (4) Prelocated Streets: Consider
options for street requirements, specifically the 5 -acre requirement. Senior Planner Kuhta explained that
at the July 13, 2010 Council meeting, Council directed staff to prepare a motion directing the Planning
Commission to consider specific changes to the development regulations; and this proposed motion is a
result of that direction. Mayor Towey invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by
Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried.
8. Motion Consideration: Transportation Improvement Board Call for Projects — Steve Worley
It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded to approve the list of projects for submitting
grant applications in response to TIB's 2010 Call for Projects. Senior Engineer Worley explained that
the list includes UAP (Urban Arterial Program) Projects of (1) Bowdish Road Improvements, Sprague
Avenue to 16 Avenue to upgrade existing sidewalks; (2) Mission Avenue Improvements, Flora Road to
Barker Road to reconstruct the roadway to a three -lane section with sidewalks, bike lanes and new
stormwater facilities; (3) Park Road Improvements, Broadway Avenue to Indiana Avenue, also to
reconstruct the roadway to a three -lane section with sidewalks, bike lanes and new stormwater facilities,
and that the SP (Sidewalk Program) Projects include (1) 24` Avenue, Adams Road to Sullivan Road; (2)
Council Regular Meeting 7 -27 -2010 Page 4 of 8
Approved by Council:
1 : IVW
S Avenue, Calvin Road to Adams Road, and (3) 4th Avenue, University Road to Pierce Road. Mayor
Towey invited public comments; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous.
Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried.
9. Motion Consideration: SRTC (Spokane Regional Transportation Council) Interlocal — Mike Connelly
City Attorney Connelly explained that since SRTC hasn't taken final action on the Interlocal, he proposed
postponing this motion, and Council concurred. Mr. Connelly then explained some of the final changes,
as noted in blue on the copy included in Council's packet. Mr. Connelly said a report will be scheduled
for Council as soon as we receive word from SRTC that the agreement has been finalized.
10. Motion Consideration: Broadcasting — Mike Jackson
It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded, to authorize the City Manager or designee to
continue the month -to -month agreement with Community Minded Television for the broadcasting of city
council meetings. City Manager Jackson explained that the current contract expires the end of July, and
this is opportunity for council to discuss broadcasting, as was Council's desire to do so after the budget
retreat; and he suggested Council first make a determination about the contract, then discuss the issue of
long -range, ongoing broadcasting, and said staff can include funds in the budget which can be discussed
at the August 10 finance committee meeting; or the issue could be delayed and discussed later. Mayor
Towey invited public comment, and Carlos Landa, 12019 E Sprague said he feels the issue is one of
transparency, and he encouraged council to continue the broadcasting with an annual contract. Vote by
Acclamation: In Favor: Mayor Towey, Deputy Mayor Schimmels, and Councilmembers Dempsey,
Gothmann and Grafos. Opposed: CouncilmemberMCCashn. Abstentions: None. Motion carried.
Mr. Jackson and Council then discussed identifying funds for ongoing broadcasting, with an estimated
$46,000 in recurring annual costs depending on which option council chooses; and said that determination
can be made later, and said that figure would impact the carryover, but there are available funds.
Councilmember Gothmann said we should be able to reduce the operational cost by using the funds from
the Comcast PEG funds, and there was overall council concurrence that council would like to maximize
the PEG funds and therefore minimize the overall operational cost of broadcasting.
Mayor Towey called for a recess at 7:30 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 7:40 p.m. It was noted
Councilmember McCaslin did not return from recess.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Towey invited general public comments.
Carlos Landa, 12019 E Sprague said he can't believe the oxymoron he is witnessing here with the great
job Council is doing to change the zoning and address the SARP, but then still have the one -way street
issue on the agenda; he said it doesn't make sense as businesses need two -ways to survive and said he
feels two -way will benefit the community, and he suggested Council take a poll of the business and
property owners instead of wasting the money to put it up to public vote; and said he is sure Council will
get plenty who will say to bring back the two -way; and said he feels this should be put to rest and Council
should do what the comp plan says, and said he hopes Council buries this issue once and for all as it was
done a long time ago.
Dick Behan, 9405 East Sprague said he's on that one way stretch from Argonne to University and that it
makes his heart sick to look at how deteriorated that street is with over half the properties vacant or
empty; said he is getting a new neighbor who was assured it will go back to two -way; said there were 63
meetings and workshops, and if you put this on the ballot as keeping it one -way, then he asked, where
will it end, or will it run all the way to Greenacres once you get the Milwaukee right -of -way; he said
council must plan ahead to consider the consequences of any action; that the business community figured
Argonne Dishman -Mica was the logical place to end the one -way; and said if council lets it go back to
Council Regular Meeting 7 -27 -2010 Page 5 of 8
Approved by Council:
1 : IVW
two -way, the area would redevelop whether or not it becomes a city center; he said private enterprise will
build it as it is a logical place for it to grow; and again urged council to strongly consider the
consequences of actions, and if council elects to keep it one way all the way to University, then what are
council's plans?
Mike King, 9300 E Spry urged Council to consider the consequence of extending one -way or to
continue with a two -way conversion; that this council was elected on a pro- business campaign and he said
a one -way is contrary to being business - friendly; and cautioned council in making decisions to be aware
of long -term consequences, and said the business community needs council's support in this.
Gary Hite, owner Hite Crane, 4323 E Broadway 99212 explained that he spoke at past council meetings
about him being forced out of his location at Broadway and Havana; that he purchased new property and
is here tonight because he expected the code amendment CTA 04 -10 to be addressed tonight, and said he
realizes it is not on the agenda; and said he appreciated Councilmember Dempsey's comments last week
about trying to expedite this action so he can effectively move on but that he is still struggling and is
frustrated; that he looked at a variety of places in the couplet and said he is amazed how much is
abandoned or not being used or developed and that he was told he wouldn't be allowed in any of those
places; and said we need to find a way to expedite this and he would appreciate efforts to help him so he
can move forward. Mayor Towey said a proposed ordinance is scheduled for the August 10 meeting,
which will be the first time to address such an ordinance since council is not meeting next week due to
National Night Out.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
11. City Manager Selection Process — Mayor Towey
Mayor Towey thanked everyone for being patient through this long process of evaluating candidates'
qualifications, and that he recommends council now conclude this process and ask staff to schedule a
motion to make a decision at the next meeting on August 10; and councilmembers indicated their
agreement and readiness in having that on the August 10 agenda.
12. Ballot Measure (one -way vs. two -way Sprague) — Mike Jackson /Steve Worley
Mr. Jackson said that tonight he, Mr. Worley, and Mr. Connelly will discuss several facets associated
with one -way versus two -way on Sprague as a potential ballot measure, including cost estimate to convert
Sprague and Appleway between Argonne Road and University from one -way to two -way; the cost to
develop an engineering estimate to convert that portion of Sprague and Appleway from one -way to two -
way between Thierman and Argonne; an overview of the federal funds available for the
Sprague /Appleway corridor; what the ballot measure could include; and minutes from previous council
meetings where this topic was discussed. Staff went over the information contained in the Request for
Council Form, including the $134 million cost estimate for the Sprague /Appleway Conversion; the
$150,000 cost estimate for converting Sprague /Appleway Thierman Road to Argonne Road; clarified
information concerning the previously mentioned $4.2 million available federal funds and the process to
use those funds; discussed briefly the limited work done by Bond Attorney Mike Ormsby, and brought
council's attention to included past council meeting minutes.
Council /staff discussion included the process of and problems with implementing a tax increment district;
the estimated two to three years it will take to turn the road back to two -ways since it would take
approximately a year to get the needed environmental assessment; whether to put this on an upcoming
ballot for the voters to decide and then consideration of whether a bond issue would be needed; comments
that businesses have a sense of urgency in resolving this issue; whether to pursue state and /or federal
funding and of waiting to see what happens in the next five to ten years. Councilmember Gothmann said
that this issue has been decided and is in comp plan now to convert back between University and
Argonne; and he suggested the real question is when and how to put that into effect; he suggested not
Council Regular Meeting 7 -27 -2010 Page 6 of 8
Approved by Council:
1 : 1VW
going to the voters, but to get the environmental assessment done; and if we want to change the comp
plan that is an option, and he suggested if council is proposing a bond, that this is not the time to go to
people to ask them to boost their property tax; he said we haven't looked at the city center zoning to
determine what kind of livability we want so at this point, said he feels we are not in a position to
determine the street issue as the zoning issue should be addressed first; and Mayor Towey agreed that we
don't have a downtown section, we have a road; that it is too late to put this on the November ballot; that
council will be finished with the SARP review this fall so Council by then should have a clear picture of
what land use this council wants to go forward with; and that should determine the street issue; and there
was Council consensus to wait until the land use issue is settled before approaching the street funding.
13. Animal Shelter — Morgan Koudelka
Sr. Administrative Analyst Koudelka gave some background history on the concept of a regional animal
control facility, adding that the white paper included in the packet was produced by County
Commissioner Todd Mielke, who is a member of the committee researching the feasibility of a new
animal shelter. Mr. Koudelka said from the city's viewpoint, we are satisfied with the services provided
by SCRAPS and have no issues with the facility, but in glancing at the initial numbers, if the City of
Spokane doesn't join SCRAPS and the system upgrades occur and are passed to us with the current usage
rates, we would be paying about $2.2 million; and he explained the cost and challenges with three
options: expand the current facility, purchase an existing structure and retrofit it as needed, or purchase
land and build a new structure. Mr. Koudelka said another report will be given to jurisdictions at the end
of this summer, and an anticipated ballot measure is set for fall of 2011; and if a ballot measure passes, a
complete facility is anticipated during 2013. Mr. Koudelka said staff will continue to evaluate the figures
as they become more solid and will give council future updates. In response to council questions about a
commitment from the City of Spokane, Mr. Koudelka said they had originally committed before they
went out on their own with a bond measure to join SCRAPS, which failed at the polls; and said that
commitment needs to be renewed so all participating entities understand who will be involved in such a
project; but they too are waiting for more final figures.
At 9:00 p.m. it was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to extend the
meeting for thirty minutes.
14. Council Budget Goals for 2011— Mavor Towey
Mayor Towey explained that the draft budget goals were discussed at the February retreat, but that this
will be an ongoing process, and the goals will probably change as council moves toward finalizing the
2011 budget. After brief discussion it was determined to omit the goal connected with the document
imaging, although that project will be ongoing it need not be a council budget goal; and to keep the goal
about the "living building" along with discussion of purchase of a city hall as opposed to continuing to
rent; promotion of economic development was mentioned as was solid waste and street maintenance
needs to address street capital and street preservation. Mr. Jackson said staff will re -work the draft goals
and submit again for further council review.
15. Advance Agenda
Mayor Towey reminded everyone that there will be no council meeting next week so everyone can
participate in National Night Out; and Councilmember Dempsey asked staff to supply council with a list
of parties.
INFORMATION ONLY: Department Reports, the Updated Transportation Improvement Plan Map,
Response to Permit Center Comments, and Response to Public Comments were for inforination only and
were not reported or discussed.
Council Regular Meeting 7 -27 -2010 Page 7 of 8
Approved by Council:
1 : �VW
It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting
adjourned at 9:15 p.m.
ATTEST:
Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk
Thomas E. Towey, Mayor
Council Regular Meeting 7 -27 -2010 Page 8 of 8
Approved by Council:
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: August 10, 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: Second Reading Proposed Ordinance amending SVMC 8.25 relating to
solicitation (panhandling).
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: US Constitution, First Amendment; Washington Constitution,
Article I, Section 5; SVMC 8.25.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Numerous meetings by the Council and the temporary
Panhandling Committee; Administrative Report July 14, 2009; Administrative Report August 11,
2009; Administrative Report February 23, 2010; Administrative Report June 15, 2010; first
reading July 13, 2010.
BACKGROUND: The City Council requested that staff continue looking at potential options for
changes to the City Code regarding reasonable restrictions on solicitation in close proximity to
busy arterials, state routes and on /off ramps to Interstate 90.
Staff provided a draft ordinance to Council on June 15, 2010. The City Council asked staff to
revise the proposed panhandling ordinance to include: 1) a definition of "median "; 2)
panhandling restrictions on state routes; and 3) other appropriate changes by the staff. These
were made and presented to the Council in the first reading on July 13, 2010. Subsequently,
staff has continued to refine the language, culminating in the proposed code changes attached.
In summary, the proposed ordinance prohibits pedestrians from (1) soliciting from occupants of
vehicles and (2) entering into or being in the roadway of a principal arterial, state route, or on-
ramp or off -ramp to Interstate 90, or on the roadway within 100 feet of an intersection to a
principal arterial, on /off ramp to Interstate 90, or state route. It contains other stipulations
consistent with that general approach. The areas in which the restrictions apply are those
roadways generally having the highest concentrations of vehicles, and on which the vehicles are
driving at higher speeds. A map of the state routes, Interstate 90 and on /off ramps, and
principal arterials would be filed with the Clerk's office with the adoption of this Ordinance, and
would have to be updated whenever there is a change to increase or decrease streets
designated as principal arterials.
As previously reported to Council, on June 9, 2010, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a
three -judge panel opinion upholding as constitutional under the federal Constitution, a city
ordinance making it unlawful "for any person to stand on a street or highway and solicit, or
attempt to solicit, employment, business, or contributions from an occupant of any motor
vehicle." Street or highway is defined in the Redondo Beach code to include sidewalks and
curbs. Comite de Jornaleros de Redondo Beach v. City of Redondo Beach _ F.3d _, WL
2293200 (2010).
After the decision was issued, a motion by the losing side was made for en banc review, which,
if granted, means the three -judge panel's decision would be further reviewed by an 11 -judge
panel. If the ordinance is upheld in an en banc opinion by the Ninth Circuit, then the only appeal
remaining could be to the United States Supreme Court.
Page 1 of 2
(Please note that staff incorrectly believed that the motion for en banc review had been
-granted already. It has not, and that decision may take 2 to 3 months. If review is
-granted, then the actual en banc decision could reasonably be expected within 12
additional months. If further review is not -granted by the Ninth Circuit, then it could only
be reviewed by the Supreme Court, which may take years.)
Staff is interested in this case because it expands the police power over prior appellate
decisions in terms of a city's ability to address panhandling. If the decision stands upon further
review, there may be an opportunity for additional code changes in the future.
As a result of the information staff provided to Council regarding the Redondo Beach case,
several Councilmembers requested that optional language be provided for consideration that
also precludes panhandling from sidewalks adjacent to those areas listed (principal arterials,
on /off -ramps and state routes). There have been a number of language changes since first
reading, particularly in relation to how the prohibited conduct now focuses on crossing the
vertical plane between the sidewalk /road edge and the traveled roadway. The proposed
language is our best effort to accomplish this in a manner consistent with the body of case law
existing to date.
Police Chief Van Leuven has reviewed the proposed Ordinance, and believes it would be an
effective tool in increasing public safety.
Even with the changes, staff is still of the opinion adoption of this code may pose some risk due
to the uncertainty surrounding this issue in the courts.
OPTIONS: (1) adopt the proposed ordinance with or without modifications; (2) request
additional changes and further direct staff; (3) do not adopt the ordinance.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: I move that we adopt the ordinance amending SVMC
8.25.020, and adding a new section SVMC 8.25.025, regulating solicitation activities.
BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: NA
STAFF CONTACT: Cary P. Driskell, Deputy City Attorney; Jandon Mitchell, Legal Intern
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Proposed change to SVMC 8.25
2. Copy of map showing principal arterials within the City
3. Legislative Record notebook on file with the City Clerk's Office
Pa -e 2 of 2
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. 10-***
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE (SVMC) 8.25.020 AND
ADOPTING NEW SECTION SVMC 8.25.025 REGULATING SOLICITATION ACTIVITIES IN
CERTAIN LOCATIONS WHICH POSE TRAFFIC FLOW AND SAFETY RISKS.
WHEREAS, the City has previously adopted WAC 308- 330 -415 into its municipal code,
incorporating by reference RCW 46.61.255(4), which prohibits any person from "stand[ing] in a roadway
for the purpose of soliciting employment or business from the occupant of any vehicle "; and
WHEREAS, the City has previously adopted SVMC 8.25.030.C, which prohibits a person from
" [i]ntentionally obstruct[ing] vehicular or pedestrian traffic without lawful authority"; and
WHEREAS, the Spokane Valley Chief of Police has provided his opinion and evidence that
pedestrian solicitation from vehicle occupants disrupts traffic flow, poses public safety risks, and has
harmful secondary effects; and
WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes, as evidenced by its prior adoption of Chapter 5.15
SVMC Special Events, and the Model Traffic Ordinance, that there are inherent traffic flow and safety
risks associated with pedestrian- vehicle interaction; and
WHEREAS, various federal and state appellate courts recognize that there are evident dangers of
physical injury and traffic disruption when individuals step into or stand in busy streets trying to engage
drivers, and
WHEREAS, traffic flow and safety risks are heightened on state routes, on -ramps or off -ramps to
Interstate 90, and principal arterials, due to traffic volume and speed; and
WHEREAS, roadways that feed into state routes, on -ramps or off -ramps to Interstate 90, and
principal arterials, directly impact traffic flow and safety; and
WHEREAS, motor vehicle drivers approached by pedestrians may become distracted, may stop
suddenly, or may linger at traffic control devices thereby causing significant traffic disruption, as well as
posing a significant risk of physical injury to themselves, other motorists, and pedestrians, and
WHEREAS, the distraction of motorists occasioned by solicitation not only threatens to impede
the orderly flow of traffic, but also raises serious concerns of traffic and public safety; and
WHEREAS, the City has a fundamental interest in traffic flow and safety; and
WHEREAS, the City Council seeks to promote the City's interest in traffic flow and safety by
implementing narrowly tailored time, place, and manner regulations on solicitations in specific public
places that are applicable to all people within the City.
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County,
Washington, ordains as follows:
Ordinance. 10 Solicitation (Panhandling) Page 1 of 4
It '
Section 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to regulate certain solicitation
activities in public places within the City.
Section 2. Amending Spokane Valley Municipal Code Chapter 8.25.020. Spokane Valley
Municipal Code Section 8.25.020 is amended as follows:
8.25.020 Aggressive begging (panhandling).
A. Any person who engages in aggressive begging in any public place in the City as those terms
are defined by this section is guilty of a misdemeanor.
B. As used in this section:
1. "Aggressive begging" means to beg with intent to intimidate another person into giving
money or goods.
2. "Begging" means to ask for money or goods as a charity, whether by words, bodily
gestures, signs or other means.
3. "Intimidate" means to coerce or frighten into submission or obedience.
4. "Public place," f ptifpas of this seet n means any road, alley, lane, parking area,
sidewalk or any place, private or otherwise, adopted to and fitted for vehicular or pedestrian travel
that is in common use by the public with the consent, expressed or implied, of the owner or owners;
and any public playground, school grounds, recreation grounds, parks, parkways, park drives, park
paths and rights -of -way open to the use of the public.
Section 3. Adopting Spokane Valley Municipal Code Chapter 8.25.025 as follows:
8.25.025 Solicitation from vehicle occupants prohibited.
A. The purpose of this section is to promote the City's fundamental interest in public peace,
health, and safety, by regulating acts of solicitation that occur at locations and under
circumstances specified herein which pose substantial risks to vehicular and pedestrian safety.
B. No person shall solicit from the occupants of any vehicle and be phvsicallTpresent within or
subsequently enter a prohibited roadway-
C. As used in this section:
1. "Enter" means to cross the vertical plane of the edge of a prohibited roadway. It includes
crossing the vertical plane by any part of a person's body or any extension thereof.
2. "Prohibited roadway" means a state route, on -ramp or off -ramp to Interstate 90, or
principal arterial, and also the first 100 feet of a road that intersects a state route, on -ramp or
off -ramp to Interstate 90, or principal arterial, as measured from the edge of the state route,
on -ramp or off -ramp to Interstate 90, or principal arterial.
a. Prohibited roadway:
i. includes any portion of a road traveled by vehicles,
ii. includes the first five feet beyond the edge of paved shoulder where there is no
sidewalk,
iii. includes medians, which may be denoted b-,, a physical barrier or solid yellow
pavement markings,
iv. excludes all sidewalks and curbs.
Ordinance, 10 Solicitation (Panhandling) Page 2 of 4
3. "Solicit' means:
a. either orally or in writing, directly or by implication, to ask, beg request or plead for
employment, goods, services, financial aid, monetary gifts, or any article representing
monetary value, for any _purpose,
b. either orallv or in writing, to sell or offer for immediate sale goods, services, or
publications,
c. to distribute without remuneration goods, services, or publications, or
d. to solicit signatures on a petition or opinions for a survey_
D. Prohibited roadways, with the exception of roadway within 100 feet of a state route, on -ramp
or off -ramp to Interstate 90, or principal arterial, established herein are delineated upon the
official map, entitled "Solicitation from Vehicle Occupants Prohibited," as adopted as part of this
code as if contained herein.
The official map shall be filed in the office of the city clerk. It shall be the duty of the city
attorney to cause the - official map to be updated and maintained by having ges entered that
the city council may approve.
E. Any person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor.
F. The following are not violations under this section:
1. Activity authorized pursuant to Chapter 5.15 Special Events or Chapter 6.05 Park
Regulations.
2. A person summoning aid in an emergency situation.
Section 4 Remainder of SVMC 8.25 Unchanged The remaining provisions of SVMC 8.25
are unchanged by this amendment.
Section 5 . Severability If any section, sentence, clause or phrase 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, sentence, clause or
phrase of this Ordinance.
Section 6 . Effective Date This Ordinance shall become effective five days after publication
of the Ordinance, or a summary thereof, in the official newspaper of the City.
Adopted this day of 1 2010
City of Spokane Valley
Thomas E. Towey, Mayor
ATTEST:
Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk
Ordinance, 10 Solicitation (Panhandling) Page 3 of 4
DRAFT
Approved as to Form:
Office of the City Attomey
Date of Publication:
Effective Date:
Ordinance, 10 Solicitation (Panhandling) Page 4 of 4
i -
I
City of Spokane Valley
i
4
.°r m
_ n
a , §
p �
—�
5
�E
a T
ood
-,
``
9
X iy
d
Y
— I �
_ F
C 4
,
JI
t
I —
L
r
F r
s ; Th
& j
x� 5
a .✓
el
IN
I ff°
,)
gl
A�
5
c .,
l
l
I
Section 8.25.025.1)
Solicitation from
Vehicle Occupants Prohibited
State or Federal N
Principal Arterial
Roads
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: August 10 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: Second reading proposed ordinance CTA 03 -10: Amendments to the
Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) and the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea
Plan (SARP) as follows:
Chapter 19.140 (Administrative Exceptions) -add language which gives the Community
Development Director authority to grant administrative exceptions for minor design
changes to the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan.
Chapter 2.2.2 (Building Use) Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan -allow Full
Service Restaurants as a permitted uses in the Mixed Use Avenue Retail zone.
Table 2.2.2 Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan -allow restricted access to
"Other Streets" in the Mixed Use Avenue zone.
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70B.170 -210
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: None
BACKGROUND: The Uniform Development Code was adopted in September of 2007 and was
effective October 28 2007. The Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan was adopted
on June 16 2009 and became effective on October 15 2009. Following the adoption of
these codes, a number of items were discovered which were incorrect, impractical, or omitted.
Earlier this year, the City Council requested that staff initiate a code amendment for the above
referenced items. The Planning Commission did not forward a recommendation on an
amendment to SARP Chapter 2.2.2 (Building Use) which would have allowed vehicle sales
within the Mixed Use Avenue Retail zone. The Planning Commission requested additional
information on this proposed amendment, which will be studied further at a public hearing on
July 22n 2010.
ANALYSIS: See attached Staff Report
OPTIONS: Approve ordinance with or without modifications or direct staff further
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve ordinance amending Spokane
Valley Municipal Code 19.140, and 19.110.020 Appendix D
BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None.
STAFF CONTACT: Christina Janssen — Assistant Planner
ATTACHMENTS:
Proposed Ordinance
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. 10-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY,
WASHINGTON AMENDING SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE (SVMC)
TITLE 19, ADDING LANGUAGE THAT GIVES THE COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR AUTHORITY TO GRANT ADMINISTRATIVE
EXCEPTIONS FOR MINOR DESIGN CHANGES TO THE SPRAGUE AND
APPLEWAY CORRIDORS SUBAREA PLAN, ALLOWING FULL SERVICE
RESTAURANTS AS A PERMITTED USE IN THE MIXED USE AVENUE RETAIL
ZONE, ALLOWING RESTRICTED ACCESS TO "OTHER STREETS" IN THE
MIXED USE AVENUE ZONE; AND PROVIDING FOR OTHER MATTERS
PROPERLY RELATING THERETO.
WHEREAS, on the 25 day of September, 2007, the City of Spokane Valley adopted the Uniform
Development Code (UDC) pursuant to Ordinance 07 -015; and
WHEREAS, the UDC became effective on the 28th day of October, 2007; and
WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley adopted the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan
pursuant to Ordinance 09 -021, on the 16 day of June, 2009; and
WHEREAS, the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan became effective on the 15th day of
October, 2009; and
WHEREAS, on the 24` day of June, 2010, the Spokane Valley Planning Commission held a public
hearing on these proposed amendments set forth below, and approved the same and made specific
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations, as set forth in Section One of this ordinance; and
WHEREAS, after reviewing the Environmental Checklists, the City issued a Detennination of non -
significance (DNS) for the proposals, 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 proposed amendments are consistent with the applicable goals and policies of the
Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Washington state law, the City notified the Washington State
Department of Community Trade and Economic Development of the proposed changes on June 10, 2010.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL SPECIFICALLY ORDAINS AS SET FORTH
BELOW:
Section One: The City Council hereby adopts the findings and conclusions of the Spokane Valley
Planning Commission set forth as follows:
Findings:
SVMC 17.80.150(F) states that the City may approve amendments to the UDC if it finds that:
(A) the proposed amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive
Plan, and
Ordinance Amending SVMC 19.140 Page 1 of 8
(B) the proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to the public health, safety, welfare, and
protection of the environment.
1. Goal LUG -3: Transform various commercial business areas into vital, attractive,
easily accessible mixed use areas that appeal to investors, consumers and residents
and enhance the community image and economic vitality. The Planning
Commission finds that the code amendments are consistent with this
provision.
Goal EDG -7: Maintain a regulatory environment that offers flexibility,
consistency, predictability, and clear direction. The Planning Commission finds
that the code amendments are consistent with this provision.
Conclusions:
The proposed amendments meet the applicable provisions of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code and
are consistent with appropriate goals and policies of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan
Section Two: Chapter 19.140 SVMC shall be amended as follows:
Chapter 19.140
ADMINISTRATIVE EXCEPTIONS
Sections:
19.140.010 Purpose.
19.140.020 Approval criteria.
19.140.030 Process.
19.140.010 Purpose.
An administrative exception may be considered only for adjustments necessary to correct errors
resulting from the inadvertent and unintentional placement of structures or incorrect identification of lot
boundaries in the following circumstances:
A. Any dimensional requirement which does not exceed one foot.
B. Under the following conditions:
1. A parcel established prior to March 31, 2003, that does not meet the buildable square footage
requirements for a parcel in a particular zoning district; or
2. A legally nonconforming dwelling with respect to setbacks, height and size which otherwise
could not be expanded or reconstructed, or
3. A duplex constructed prior to March 31, 2003, that does not meet the minimum parcel size,
which could not otherwise be reconstructed.
C. Yard setback requirements where the deviation is for 10 percent or less of the required yard.
D. Building height requirements where the deviation is for 25 percent or less of the maximum building
height. Additional building height may be granted to the equivalent height of adjacent buildings in areas
where the maximum building height is generally exceeded.
E. Minimum lot area requirements where the deviation is for 25 percent or less of the required lot area.
F. Maximum building coverage requirements where the deviation is for 25 percent or less of the
maximum building coverage.
G. Lot width under the following circumstances:
1. Lot width requirements where the deviation is for 10 percent or less than the required lot
width.
Ordinance Amending SVMC 19.140 Page 2 of 8
2. Lot width requirements where the deviation is greater than 10 percent; provided, that the
department may require notice to affected agencies resulting in conditions of approval.
H. Up to one -half of a private tower's "impact area" off of the applicant's property.
I. Flanking street yard setbacks; provided, that:
1. At the time the subject parcel was legally created the property was zoned under a zoning
classification of the pre - January 1, 1991, Spokane County zoning ordinance, and subsequently on January
1, 1991, a new zoning classification from the zoning code of Spokane County, Washington, was assigned
to the subject property; and
2. Any flanking yard setback deviation granted under this section shall not exceed the required
flanking street setback standards of the pre - January 1, 1991, zoning classification of the subj ect property.
J. Any improved property rendered nonconforming through voluntary dedication of right -of -way, the
exercise of eminent domain proceedings or purchase of right -of -way by the City, county, state or federal
agency. (Ord. 07 -015 § 4, 2007).
K. The Community Development Director may approve administrative exceptions for minor design
changes to the Sprague and Applewa - Corridors Subarea Plan
19.140.020 Approval criteria.
Criteria for approval or denial of applications shall be established by the director if it is shown that:
A. The administrative exception does not detract from the character and nature of the vicinity in which
it is proposed;
B. The administrative exception enhances or protects the character of the neighborhood or vicinity by
protecting natural features, historic sites, open space, or other resources;
C. The administrative exception does not interfere with or negatively impact the operations of existing
land uses and all legally permitted uses within the zoning district it occupies;
D. Granting the administrative exception does not constitute a threat to the public health, safety and
welfare within the City. (Ord. 07 -015 § 4, 2007).
19.140.030 Process.
An administrative exception is classified as a Type I permit and shall be processed pursuant to SVMC
17.80.070. (Ord. 07 -015 § 4, 2007).
Section Three: The Spokane Valley Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan, adopted pursuant to
SVMC 19.110.020 as appendix D is hereby amended as follows:
Book II — 2.2 Site Development Regulations Page 50 of 201
(1) May be free - standing building or incorporated into mixed -use building.
(2) Minimum interior height for ground level retail of all types is 14 ft. from floor to ceiling for new
buildings.
(3) Drive - through business are permitted subject to the following criteria:
(a) Drive - through facilities are permitted on sites adjacent to a principal arterial street. Access
and stacking lanes serving drive - through businesses shall not be located between a building
and any adjacent street, public sidewalk or pedestrian plaza. (See SVMC 22.50.030 for
stacking and queuing lane requirements.
(b) Stacking lanes shall be physically separated from the parking lot, sidewalk, and pedestrian
areas by landscaping and /or architectural element, or any combination therein.
c) Mixed Use Avenue Retail
Ordinance Amending SVMC 19.140 Page 3 of 8
DRAFT
i) Permitted Uses:
(1) "Medium Box" Commercial Sales & Services including the following:
(a) Establishments selling or servicing Large Scale Goods such as parry goods, art supplies,
sporting goods, auto parts, electronics or appliances, outdoor accessories, furniture, home
furnishings, hardware, and home improvements stores.
(b) Commercial services such as miscellaneous Repair Service uses with no outdoor storage,
including plumbing services, laundry services, cleaning and janitorial service and supplies,
vacuum cleaning and sewing repair and rental shops, etc.
(c) Print and Graphics Supply and Service, including typesetting, lithography, graphics and art
services, etc.
(d) Big Box and Medium Box Warehouse retail, restaurant supply retail, and warehouse scale
buying club retail.
(e) Warehousing is permitted as an accessory to retail or light industrial use. The total area of a
building to be used for warehousing may not exceed 30% of the total floor area.
(2) Drive -in / Drive -up Fast Food Restaurants and espresso stands.
(3) Gas stations and auto repair shops. (Gas station may be exempt from 2.2.3. Minimum Building
Height Regulations and 2.2.12. Frontage Coverage Regulations.)
(4) Convenience Stores
(5) Veterinary clinics and "doggy day care" facilities.
(6) Pawn shops, check cashing stores and casinos.
(7) Funeral homes.
(8) Full Service Restaurants
ii) Prohibited Uses:
(1) Full Sei-� Resta+tfaf4s
(2) Used vehicle sales.
Ordinance Amending SVMC 19.140 Page 4 of 8
DRAFT
Le
- -- : Not Permitted U: Upper Floors G: Ground Floor *: Full Service
Only Only Restaurants onlv
Permitted: These elements are allowed by right unless Required: These are Required elements of
otherwise specified in Section 2.2.2. Building Use all new development as indicated.
Limited: These frontages may only be applied to access lobbies for
upper floor uses that are different from the ground floor use
(A): For Anchor Stores:
(Al): larger than 25,000 sq. ft., 1 floor / 20 ft. is permitted, (A2): larger than 50,000 sq. ft.,
regulation does not apply, (A3): larger than 50,000 sq. ft., parking type is permitted
2.1.3 Mixed Use
Spragu Other
Ave. Streets
Avenue District Zone
e
2.2. Site
Development
Standards
Street/ Street
Other
Sprague Ave.
Category
Streets
2.2.1.Building
d
Orientation to
require
Streets and Public
Street
Open Spaces
d
required or not
required
required
required
2.2.2.Building Use
require
1) Retail
Configuration
d
a) City Center
5) Street Type
Retail
a) Core Street
N/A
b) Neighborhood
b) City Street
N/A
Center Retail
c) Neighborhood
N/A
c) Mixed -Use
permitted
restricted*
Avenue Retail
d) Neighborhood
N/A
d) Corner Store
- --
- --
Retail
e) Service Street
N/A
e) Gateway
f) Alley
N/A
Commercial Avenue
- --
- --
Retail
2.3.2.Open Space
f) Gateway
Standards
Commercial Center
- --
- --
Retail
2) Civic, Quasi- Civic,
permitted
permitted
& Cultural
3) Office
permitted
permitt ed
Light
permitted
permitted
I ndustrial
2.3. Street and Open Space
Spragu Other
Ave. Streets
Standards
e
2.3.1.Street
Standards
1) Street Provision
require
require
d
d
2) Pre - Located
require
require
Street
d
d
3) Maximum Block
5 acres
5 acres
Size
4) Street
require
require
Configuration
d
d
5) Street Type
a) Core Street
N/A
- --
b) City Street
N/A
- --
c) Neighborhood
N/A
permitt
Street
ed
d) Neighborhood
N/A
permitt
Green Street
ed
e) Service Street
N/A
- --
f) Alley
N/A
- --
g) Passage
N/A
- --
2.3.2.Open Space
Standards
Ordinance Amending SVMC 19.140 Page 5 of 8
DRAFT
5) Lodging
permitted
permitted
(w /common entry)
2A.1.Parking Types
require
6) Live -Work
permitted
permitted
7) Residential
- --
permitt
a) Multi- Family w/
permitted
permitted
Common Entr
permitt
permitt
b) Attached
ed
ed
Single - Family w/
- --
permitted
Individual Entr
ed
ed
c) Detached
Rearwall Increment
Single - Family
- --
- --
Housing
pennitt
pennitt
2.2.3.Building Height
ed
minimum height
1 floor/ 20 ft
1 floor/ 20 ft
maximum height
4 floors/ 53 ft
4 floors/ 53 ft
2.2.4.Relation to
c) Wrapped - All
Single Family Homes
permitt
required or not
required
required
applicable
permitt
permitt
2.2.5.Public Frontage
ed
Improvements
e) Underground
required or not
required
not required
required
ed
2.4.2.Parking
2.2.6.Private
Standards
Frontage
1) Shopfront
permitted
permitted
2) Corner Entry
permitted
permitted
3) Arcade
permitted
- --
4) Grand Portico
permitted
permitted
5) Forecourt
permitted
permitted
6) Grand Entry
permitted
permitted
7) Common Lobby
limited
limited
Entr
8) Stoop
permitted
permitted
9) Porch
- --
- --
10) Front Door
- --
- --
11) Parking
permitted
permitted
Structure Entr
see section 233
Parking
Spragu
Standards
e Ave. Streets
2A.1.Parking Types
require
1) Surface Parking
d
d
a) Front lot
- --
permitt
d
ed
b) Side lot
permitt
permitt
ed
ed
c) Rear lot
permitt
pennitt
ed
ed
2) Parking
Rearwall Increment
Structure
a) Exposed
pennitt
pennitt
ed
ed
b) Wrapped -
permitt
pennitt
Ground Level
ed
ed
c) Wrapped - All
pennitt
permitt
Levels
ed
ed
d) Partially
permitt
permitt
Submerged Podium
ed
ed
e) Underground
permitt
permitt
Parking
ed
ed
2.4.2.Parking
Standards
see section 2.4.2
Ordinance Amending SVMC 19.140 Page 6 of 8
Standards e Ave. Streets
2.5.2.Height Massing & Composition
Top
require
require
d
d
Base
require
require
d
d
2.5.3.Length Massing & Comp osition
Streetwall
150ft
80ft
Increment
Sidewall &
N/A
N/A
Rearwall Increment
Ordinance Amending SVMC 19.140 Page 6 of 8
DRAFT
12) Vehicle Display:
Option 1
13) Vehicle Display:
Option 2
14) Edge Treatment:
___
permitted
Fenced
13) Edge Treatment:
___
permitted
Terraced
14) Edge Treatment:
permitted
Flush
permitted
2.2.7.Front Street
Setback
minimum /
20 ft / 25 ft
10 ft / 20 ft
maximum
2.2.8.Side Street
Setback
minimum /
5ft / 15 ft
10 ft / 20 ft
maximum
2.2.9.Side Yard
Setback
minimum w/ living
10 ft
10 ft
space windows
minimum w /out
5 ft
5 ft
living space windows
2.2.10.Rear Yard
Setback
minimum setback
10 ft 10 ft
2.2.11.Alley Setback
minimum setback
5 ft 5 ft
2.2.12.Frontage
Coverage
minimum percentage
60%
no min.
covered
2.2.13.Build-to-
Corner
required or not
required
required
required
2.2.14.Maximum
Building Length
J
maximum building
240 ft
I
150 ft
T
length
Section Four Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase 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.
Ordinance Amending SVMC 19.140 Page 7 of 8
DRAFT
Section Five: 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.
Passed by the City Council this day of
1 2010.
Mayor, Thomas E. Towey
ATTEST:
City Clerk, Christine Bainbridge
Approved as to Form:
Office of the City Attorney
Date of Publication:
Effective Date:
Ordinance Amending SVMC 19.140 Page 8 of 8
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
S po ne
STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE
..;oO Valley PLANNING COMMISSION
CTA -03 -10
STAFF REPORT DATE: JUNE 17, 2010
HEARING DATE AND LOCATION: June 24, 2010, beginning at 6:00 p.m., Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers,
11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 101, Spokane Valley, Washington 99206.
PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: Zoning code text amendments to the following sections of the Spokane Valley Municipal
Code and the Sprague Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan: 1) Chapter 19.140 (Administrative Exceptions) Add language
which gives the Community Development Director authority to grant administrative exceptions for minor design changes
to the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan; 2) Chapter 2.2.2 (Building Use) Allow vehicles sales within the
Mixed Use Avenue Retail zone subject to a Conditional Use Permit and allow Full Service Restaurants as a permitted use;
3) Table 2.2.2 Allow restricted access to "Other Streets" in the Mixed Use Avenue zone.
This proposal is considered a non - project action under RCW 43.21C.
PROPOSAL LOCATION: The proposal affects the entire City of Spokane Valley.
APPLICANT: City of Spokane Valley
APPROVAL CRITERIA: Title 17 (General Provisions) and Title 21 (Environmental Controls) of the SVMC.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Division recommends that the Planning Commission approve the
proposed text amendment to the SVMC and the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan.
STAFF PLANNER: CHRISTINA JANSSEN, Assistant Planner, Community Development Department
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit 1: Draft Amendments
Exhibit 2: SEPA Determination
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. BACKGROUND INFO
The City Council has requested that the staff review the Sprague and Appleway Revitalization Plan (SARP) and
propose changes based on public input. The proposed changes will be processed in one of two ways. If the amendment
does not conflict with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan (PLAN) it will be sent to the Planning
Commission for a public hearing and recommended code change. If the proposed change would be in conflict with the
Comprehensive Plan, then the issue will be held until the city processes all the proposed changes to the PLAN during
the annual Comprehensive Plan Amendment process. The reason for this is that the PLAN can be changed no more
than once a year by state law.
Prior to engaging in the zone by zone review, the City Council heard from two citizens with problems with SARP. The
first was a citizen who opened a boat sales operation in the Mixed Use Zone and had been contacted by city staff that
vehicle sales are not permitted in the Mixed Use Avenue zone. The second citizen wished to open a small caf6 /coffee
shop but was advised that coffee shops are only permitted in the Mixed Use Center with direct access to Sprague
Avenue.
Staff Report to Planning Commission
CTA -03 -10
Page 1 of 5
The City Council directed staff to bring these two issues be sent to the Planning Commission in advance of the larger
study of SARP. Additionally, the Community Development Director asked the council to consider an amendment that
would give discretion to the Director to approve minor deviations to the design and architectural standards that would
allow approval of a project, but not jeopardize the intent of SARP. The council agreed to add this item to the other two
issues for proposed code amendments.
B. APPLICATION PROCESSING
Chapter 17.80 Permit Processing Procedures in the SVMC. The following summarizes key application procedures for
the proposal.
Date of Published Notice of Public Hearing:
June 4, 2010
Issuance of an Determination of Non - Significance (DNS):
June 4, 2010
End of Appeal Period for DNS:
June 18, 2010
C. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO SEPA
Findings:
Pursuant to Title 21 (Environmental Controls) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC), the lead agency has
determined that this proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030 (2) (c). The Planning Division issued
a Detennination of Non - Significance (DNS) on June 18, 2010, for the proposal. This decision was made after review
of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency.
Conclusion(s):
The procedural requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act and Title 21 of the SVMC have been fulfilled by
the submittal of the required SEPA Checklist, and the issuance of the City's threshold determination consisting of a
Determination of Non - Significance (DNS). No appeals have been received at the time of this report. The appeal
period will close June 18, 2010.
D. INTENT OF THE SPRAGUE AND APPLEWAY CORRIDORS SUBAREA PLAN (SARP)
Book L Community Intent
Book I sets forth what the community aspires to achieve and describes the physical outcomes that the SARP is
intended to orchestrate as new investment creates change. Book I is essentially the comprehensive plan policy
basis for the SARP and is considered a part of the PLAN.
Book II: Development Regulations
Book II is the implementation of the policy direction established in Book I and contains the Development
Regulations that govern all future public and private development actions in the area covered by the SARP.
Book III: City Actions
Book III outlines the City's role in the redevelopment of the Sprague and Appleway corridor by identifying
strategic public investments within the SARP area the implement policy direction from Book I of the SARP
Prior to the adoption of SARP, a market analysis was conducted that concluded that the Sprague Appleway corridor
had a surplus of commercial property. One of the strategies to address the surplus was change the commercial strip to
create centers and segments. The City Center and Neighborhood Center Retail zones would serve the needs of
neighborhoods within a short drive and create a dynamic pedestrian oriented city center. The segments portion would
be distinguished by cohesive building types. Specifically, the Mixed Use Avenue would focus on a mix of workplace,
commercial and high density residential uses. Two of the code amendments are proposed within the Mixed Use
Avenue zone.
Staff Report to Planning Commission
CTA -03 -10
Page 2 of 5
The Vehicle Sales use was not included in the Mixed Use Avenue primarily because the original thinking was that by
concentrating the vehicle and related sales to the Gateway Commercial areas, car and other vehicle sales would
become a destination area for consumers looking for that product. The proposed amendment would allow Vehicle
Sales in the Mixed Use Avenue zone with a Conditional Use Permit. The Conditional Use Permit process, which
includes a public hearing, ensures that the proposed use is compatible with the zoning and will not interfere with the
use of adjacent properties.
Full Service Restaurants were limited to the City Center and Neighborhood Centers so that the City Center could get a
jump start. The Mixed Use Avenue Zone permits drive -in and drive -up restaurants and espresso stands with direct
access to Sprague Avenue and Full Service Restaurants are prohibited.
E. STAFF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO THE CODE TEXT AMENDMENT
1. COMPLIANCE WITH TITLE 17 (GENERAL PROVISIONS) OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE
Findings:
Section 17.80.150(F) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) provides approval criteria that must be
considered when the City amends the SVMC or the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan. The criteria are
listed below along with staff comments.
1. The proposed text amendments are consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan;
Staff Response The City of Spokane Valley has adopted goals and policies consistent with the GMA and
the City of Spokane Valley's Comprehensive Plan. The proposed text amendments are consistent with the
City's adopted Comprehensive Plan.
a. Goal LUG -3: Transform various commercial business areas into vital, attractive, easily
accessible mixed use areas that appeal to investors, consumers and residents and enhance the
community image and economic vitality.
b. Goal EDG -7: Maintain a regulatory environment that offers flexibility, consistency,
predictability, and clear direction.
The amendment to add vehicle sales to the Mixed Use Avenue zone is in conflict with the original idea of
locating all vehicle sales to the Gateway area. The original draft of the SARP proposed all new vehicle
sales in the Gateway area and used vehicle sales in the Mixed Use Avenue. During deliberations, the legal
department advised the staff that we could not differentiate between the two. If it was allowed for new
vehicles, then used vehicles also have to be permitted. The Planning Commission recommended that the
vehicle sales be removed from the Mixed Use Avenue zone. By requiring a conditional use pen the
public will have the opportunity to comment on any proposal and the staff can recommend conditions to
mitigate any aesthetic impacts.
Restaurants were excluded from the Mixed Use Avenue to give the City Center the opportunity to develop
a city center core before considering them for other districts. Since that time, the economy has changed
and the City Council has discontinued the focus on the City Center. Therefore, the exclusion of
restaurants from other zoning districts is not a high priority.
The third amendment for the director discretion is to cover situations where a project is proposed and a
minor adjustment is not contemplated in the scope of the SARP. This provision will be used sparingly
where the proposal meets the intent of the SARP but can't satisfy the rigid application of the regulations.
The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the
environment;
Staff Response: The amendments bear substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare and
protection of the environment. The proposed amendments will expand the uses within the Mixed Use
Avenue Retail zone, allow Full Service Restaurants more options for access, and gives greater flexibility to
Staff Report to Planning Commission
CTA -03 -10
Page 3 of 5
new businesses locating in the Sprague and Appleway corridor through the use of Administrative
Exceptions.
Conclusion(s):
The proposed text amendments to the SVMC and the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan are consistent with
the approval criteria contained in the SVMC.
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Division after review and consideration of the proposed text amendment and applicable approval criteria
recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of CTA- 03 -10.
V. PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS
The Planning Commission is required to adopt findings of fact (Sections 17.80.140 & 17.80.150) when recommending
changes to the SVMC and the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan. At the conclusion of the hearing for the
text amendments to the SVMC and the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan, the Planning Commission, by
separate motion, should adopt findings of fact.
Background:
A. The Uniforin Development Code was adopted in September 2007 and became effective on October 28,
2007.
B. The Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan was adopted on June 16 2009 and became effective
on October 15 2009.
C. Chapter 19.30.040 SVMC allows code text amendments to be submitted at any time.
D. Following the adoption of the code a number of items were found to be either incorrect, impractical, or
omitted.
E. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on June 24 2010. The Planning Commission approved
the following amendments to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code, Title 19:
1. Chapter 19.140 (Administrative Exceptions) Add language with gives the Community Development
Director authority to grant administrative exceptions for minor design changes to the Sprague and
Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan
2. Chapter 2.2.2 (Building Use) Allow vehicles sales with the Mixed Use Avenue Retail zone subject to the
conditional use permit requirements and allow Full Service Restaurants as a permitted use
3. Table 2.2.2 —Allow restricted access to "Other Streets" in the Mixed Use Avenue zone.
Findings:
SVMC 17.80.150(F) states that the City may approve amendments to the UDC if it finds that:
(A) the proposed amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan; and
(B) the proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of
the environment.
1. Goal LUG -3: Transform various commercial business areas into vital, attractive, easily
accessible mixed use areas that appeal to investors, consumers and residents and enhance the
community image and economic vitality. The Planning Commission finds that the code
amendments are consistent with this provision.
2. Goal EDG -7: Maintain a regulatory environment that offers flexibility, consistency,
predictability, and clear direction. The Planning Commission finds that the code
amendments are consistent with this provision.
Staff Report to Planning Commission
CTA -03 -10
Page 4 of 5
Conclusions:
The proposed amendments meet the applicable provisions of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code and are consistent
with appropriate goals and policies of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan
Recommendations:
The Spokane Valley Planning Commission therefore recommends approval to the City Council of proposed
amendments to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code.
Staff Report to Planning Commission
CTA -03 -10
Page 5 of 5
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: August 10, 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: First reading on Ordinance Amending Ordinance 07 -015 and Spokane
Valley Municipal Code Section 19.20.060 Allowing the Expansion of Non - Conforming Uses in
Certain Circumstances.
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: SVMC 19.30.040, SVMC 19.20.060
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN See RCA from July 20, 2010 attached.
BACKGROUND: See RCA from July 20, 2010 attached. At that meeting Council voted to
reject the findings of the Planning Commission and instructed staff to modify the proposed
amendment then present the same to Council. The proposed Ordinance has alternative
language, the first option granting the Community Development Director the authority to allow
such an expansion if all criteria are met, and the second requiring a conditional use process
prior to granting such an expansion.
OPTIONS: The council may move to approve the ordinance with either option selected or
choose to not change the Code as it currently exists.
(1) Move to advance the ordinance amending SVMC 19.20.060 to a second reading, as
amended.
Or
(2) Move to suspend the rules and adopt the ordinance amending SVMC 19.20.060; as
amended.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Council Discretion
BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Not Determined.
STAFF CONTACT: Mike Connelly
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Draft Ordinance Amending Section 19.20.060
B. RCA dated July 20, 2010 with Attachments
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 AND SPOKANE VALLEY
MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 19.20.060 ALLOWING THE EXPANSION OF NOW
CONFORMING USES IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.
WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley (City) adopted the Uniform Development Code
(UDC) pursuant to Ordinance 07 -015, on September 25, 2007; and
WHEREAS, the UDC became effective on October 28, 2007; and
WHEREAS, after reviewing the Environmental Checklists, the City issued a Determination
of Non - significance (DNS) for the proposals, published the DNS in the Valley News Herald,
posted the DNS at City Hall and mailed the DNS to all affected public agencies; and
WHEREAS, on June 16, 2010, the City provided a copy of the proposed amendment to the
Washington State Department of Commerce (DOC) initiating a 60 day comment period
pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106; and
WHEREAS, the amendment as is set forth below bears a substantial relation to the public
health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment; and
WHEREAS, on June 24, 2010, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed
amendments; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission received evidence, information, public testimony and
a staff report and recommendation at a public hearing on June 24, 2010; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission deliberated on June 24, 2010; the Planning
Commission provided a recommendation; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission received no objection to the proposed amendment
from the public; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission is an advisory body to the City Council as is set forth
in SVMC 18.10.050 and RCW 35.63.060; and
WHEREAS, on July 20, 2010, City Council reviewed the proposed amendments, the
recommendations by the Planning Commission and the record before the Planning
Commission including the minutes of that meeting; and
WHEREAS,
The changes
to the
proposed amendment considered by the Planning
Commission
as is set forth
below
do not expand any use or potential impact not under
consideration
by that body
and in
fact, further limit the potential impact of the original
Ordinance Insert # Page I of 5
DRAFT
proposal on adjacent properties and the general health, safety, welfare and protection of the
environment; and
WHEREAS, on July 20, 2010 the City Council voted to not adopt the findings of the
Planning Commission and requested staff to provide alternative language that would, in
specific circumstances allow such an expansion of non - conforming uses, limit the scope of
the applicants proposal and be responsive to the concerns raised in the Planning
Commission findings; and
WHEREAS, the City Council determined that such an amendment would be consistent with
the comprehensive plan if restricted to the more intensive zones allowing commercial and
industrial uses and further limiting such an expansion to only properties with the same
zoning classification as the original non - conforming use; and
WHEREAS, the amendment as is set forth below is consistent with the Land Use
Commercial Goals and Policies Goal LUG -3, as well as the Economic Development Goals
set forth in Chapter 7 — Economic Development; and
WHEREAS, the provisions set forth below are also consistent with provisions contained
within land use codes of jurisdictions located in the greater Spokane region; and
WHEREAS, the amendment as is set forth below, is intended to limit such an expansion of a
non - conforming use to only those properties immediately adjacent to the original non-
conforming parcel, thus limiting any further expansion; and
WHEREAS, on August 10, 2010, City Council considered a first ordinance reading to adopt
the proposed amendment.
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL SPECIFICALLY ORDAINS AS SET FORTH
BELOW:
Section One SVMC Chapter 19 shall be amended as follows:
X19.20.060 Nonconforming uses and structures.
A. Applicability. Legal nonconforming uses and structures include:
1. Any use which does not conform with the present regulations of the zoning district
in which it is located shall be deemed a nonconforming use if it was in existence and in
continuous and lawful operation prior to the adoption of these regulations;
2. Any permanent structure in existence and lawfully constructed at the time of any
amendment to this code, which by such amendment is placed in a district wherein it is not
otherwise permitted and has since been in regular and continuous use;
3. Any permanent structure lawfully used or constructed that was in existence at the
time of annexation into the City and which has since been in regular and continuous use;
4. The provisions of this chapter do not apply to structures or uses deemed
nonconforming only pursuant to the Shoreline Management Act (Chapter 90.58 RCW) and
the Spokane Valley Shoreline Master Program (Chapter 21.50 SVMC).
Ordinance Insert # Page 2 of 5
DRAFT
B. Continuing Lawful Use of Property.
1. The lawful use of land at the time of passage of this code, or any amendments
hereto, may be continued, unless the use is discontinued or abandoned for a period of 12
consecutive months. The right to continue the nonconforming use shall inure to all
successive interests in the property. It is specifically provided, however, that any
nonconforming use discontinued as a result of foreclosure or judicial proceedings, including
probate, shall be permitted to continue for a period not to exceed 24 months.
Discontinuance of a nonconforming use shall commence on the actual act or date of
discontinuance.
2. A nonconforming use that is abandoned or discontinued shall not be replaced with
another nonconforming use.
3. A nonconforming use which has not been abandoned or discontinued may be
replaced with the following:
a. A conforming use;
b. Another nonconforming use; provided, that the new use is not less
conforming than the prior use. This determination will be made by the director based on the
NAICS codes;
c. The proposed use places no greater demand on transportation and other
public facilities than the original use; or
d. The proposed use does not adversely affect or interfere with the use of
neighboring property.
4. A nonconforming use in the residential zones, R -1, R -2, R -3, R -4, MF, MF -2
zones, may be expanded only within the boundaries of the original lot or tract and any
adjacent lot or tract that was under the same ownership as the lot or tract at the time the use
on the original lot or tract became nonconforming, if:
a. The expanded use does not degrade the transportation level of service
greater than the original use; and
b. The expanded use does not adversely affect or interfere with the use of
neighboring property; and
c. Any transfer of ownership or interest on adjacent lots or tracts was made
contemporaneously with the transfer of ownership of the lot or tract on which the
nonconforming use is located as part of a single transaction; and
d. The expansion does not create additional development opportunities on
adjacent tracts that would not otherwise exist.
5. A non - conforming use in the commercial and industrial zones, MUC, CMU, CC,
GO, O, NC, C, RC, 1 -1, 1 -2 zones may be expanded only within the boundaries of the original
lot or tract and any lot or tract immediately adjacent and contiguous to the original lot or
tract, if:
a. The original lot or tract and the "expansion" lot or track are in the same zone
classification; and
b. The property adjacent to the "expansion" tract or lot is within one of the
commercial or industrial zones listed above; and
c. The expanded use does not degrade the transportation level of service
greater than the original use; and
d. The expanded use does not adversely affect or interfere with the use of
neighboring property; and
Ordinance Insert # Page 3 of 5
DRAFT
e. The expansion does not create additional development opportunities on
adjacent tracts that would not otherwise exist.
f5. A non - conforming use in the commercial and industrial zones, MUC, CMU, CC,
GO, O, NC, C, RC, 1 -1, 1 -2 zones may be expanded only within the boundaries of the original
lot or tract and any lot or tract immediately adjacent and contiguous to the original lot or
tract, by application for a conditional use permit pursuant to SVMC 19.50 and upon findings
that:
a. The expanded use does not degrade the transportation level of service
greater than the original use; and
b. The expanded use does not adversely affect or interfere with the use of
neighboring property; and
c. The expansion does not create additional development opportunities on
adiacent tracts that would not otherwise exist.l
-9 Residential lots made nonconforming relative to lot size, lot depth, setbacks and
width shall be deemed in conformance with this code, as long as the use of the lot is allowed
in the respective district.
CD , 7 . Nonconforming uses that do not provide the required number of off - street
parking spaces pursuant to current standards shall not be considered as nonconforming.
- 8& Any nonconforming use damaged by fire, flood, neglect or act of nature may be
replaced if:
a. Restoration of the use is initiated within 12 months; and
b. The damage represents less than 80 percent of market value.
9 . Any nonconforming use changed to a conforming use shall not be permitted to
convert to a nonconforming use.
Section Two All other provisions of SVMC Title 19 and Appendix A (Definitions) not
specifically referenced hereto shall remain in full force and effect.
Section Three 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 Four 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 Insert # Page 4 of 5
DRAFT
Passed by the City Council this day 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:
Ordinance Insert # Page 5 of 5
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: July 20, 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: Motion consideration on CTA- 04 -10, a privately initiated amendment to
Title 19 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC), proposing to allow the expansion of
nonconforming uses onto adjacent property.
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: SVMC 19.30.040 - Development regulation text amendments.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: None.
BACKGROUND: The Applicant proposes to amend the nonconforming use provisions contained in
Section 19.20.060 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code. Current regulations allow nonconforming
uses to expand to adjacent properties under the same ownership at the time the use became
nonconforming. The proposed amendment would allow nonconforming uses to expand to adjacent
properties without regard to ownership.
On June 24, 2010, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on the proposed amendment.
By a 5 -2 vote, the Planning Commission recommends that the application be disapproved On July, 6,
2010, Council received an informational report on the proposal.
OPTIONS:
1. Accept the Planning Commission recommendation and disapprove the proposal.
2. Approve the proposal (must make findings to support approval).
3. Modify the proposal
4. Send proposal back to the Planning Commission for further consideration.
RECOMMENDED ACTION /MOTION:: Move to accept the Planning Commission findings and
recommendation and disapprove proposed text amendment CTA- 04 -10.
(Because this proposed action is the result of a public hearing, there will be no public comments on
this item)
BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None.
STAFF CONTACT:
Scott Kuhta, AICP, Senior Planner; Mike Connelly, City Attorney
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Planning Commission Findings
2. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
3. Application
4. Staff report to Planning Commission
5. Comparison chart of nonconforming regulations
6. PowerPoint Presentation
RCA CTA -04 -10 1 of 1
Spokane
,;,olOValley
Memorandum
11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 ♦ Spokane Vattey WA 99206
509.921.1000 ♦ Fax: 509.921.1008 ♦ cityhatt@spokanevattey.org
To: Mayor and City Council
From: John Carroll, Chair - Spokane Valley Planning Commission
Date: July 8, 2010
Re: Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation: CTA -04 -10
BACKGROUND
On June 24, 2010, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider a privately initiated text
amendment to Section 19.20.080 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) which addresses the expansion
of nonconforming uses. The current code allows expansion of nonconforming uses onto adjacent parcels but the
parcel must be under the same ownership at the time the use became nonconforming. The proposed text
amendment would allow the expansion of nonconforming uses onto adjoining property without regard to
ownership.
After considering public testimony and reviewing the staff report, the Planning Commission voted 5 -2 to
recommend disapproval of the proposed text amendment. The Planning Commission's findings and
recommendation on CTA -04 -10 are summarized below:
FINDINGS
1. Notice for the proposed text amendment was placed in the Spokane Valley News Herald on June 2, 2010.
2. Pursuant to the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA — RCW 43.21 C) an environmental checklist was
required for the proposed text amendment.
3. Staff reviewed the environmental checklist and a threshold determination was made for the proposed text
amendment. An Optional Determination of Non - significance (DNS) was issued for the proposed text
amendment on June 18, 2010.
4. The DNS was published in the city's official newspaper consistent with the City of Spokane Valley
Environmental Ordinance,
5. The Spokane Valley Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on June 24, 2010, to consider the
proposed text amendment. After hearing public testimony, the Commission made a recommendation on
CTA- 04 -10.
Section 17.80.150(F) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) provides approval criteria that must be
considered when the City amends the SVMC.
Planning Commission Findings;
Section 17.80.150(F) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) provides approval criteria that must be
considered when the City amends the SVMC.
1 of 3
The proposed text amendment must be consistent with applicable provisions of the
Comprehensive Plan;
Planning Commission Response The Comprehensive Plan does not provide specific policy direction
toward the treatment of nonconforming uses. However, the most basic principle of land use planning
is to separate incompatible uses, such as industrial from residential, by locating them in different parts
of the community or buffering them from each other. The following policies relate to this principal.
LUP -1.1 - Maintain the character of existing and future residential neighborhoods through the
development and enforcement of the City's land use regulations and joint planning.
LUP -1.2 - Protect residential areas from impacts of adjacent non - residential uses and/or higher
intensity uses through the development and enforcement of the City's land use regulations and
joint planning.
LUP -11.1 - Commercial, residential and recreational uses should be limited or not allowed in
areas designated for industry, except for small -scale ancillary commercial and recreational uses
intended to primarily serve the industrial area.
LUP -11.3 - Provide appropriate buffering, landscaping and other development standards for
industrial areas.
NP -2.1 - Maintain and protect the character of existing and future residential neighborhoods
through the development and enforcement of the City's land use regulations and joint planning.
NP -2.6 - Establish appropriate design guidelines with buffer zones and transition requirements
to protect residential neighborhoods from incompatible land uses and adverse impacts associated
with arterials, freeways and rail corridors.
Allowing nonconforming uses to expand onto adjacent properties without restriction is not consistent
with the overall intent of the Comprehensive Plan to protect neighborhoods from incompatible uses.
2. The proposed amendment must bear a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare,
and protection of the environment;
Planning Commission Response: Zoning is a police power that allows the City to exercise
reasonable control over the use of property in the interest of the health, safety and welfare of the
community at large. Zoning is also the regulatory means to implement the goals and policies of the
comprehensive plan. Zoning separates uses that are incompatible, thereby protecting the general
health, safety and welfare of the community.
Chapter 10.20.0606 (4), SVMC, currently allows the expansion of nonconforming uses to adjacent
property under the same ownership when the use became nonconforming, subject to certain criteria.
Compared to many other jurisdictions, this allowance is uncommon and extraordinary. This provision
is provided in the SVMC to avoid economic hardship to property owners who may have made plans
to expand a legal use onto adjacent property purchased for that purpose but was made
nonconforming by new zoning regulations.
The proposed amendment would expand this provision to land not under ownership at the time the
use became nonconforming. It would apply to existing nonconforming uses and nonconforming uses
that replace another nonconforming use. The concern is that if the proposed amendment is adopted,
incompatible uses may expand to adjacent properties without limit, thereby rendering the zoning code
somewhat meaningless.
For example, if a use that would otherwise be permitted only in the Heavy Industrial zone is allowed
to expand in the Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) zone, then it has the potential to negatively impact
adjacent uses, such as schools, residences and retail shops, all permitted uses in the CMU zone. If
2of3
the use is compatible with the zoning and does not interfere with the use of adjacent property, then
the appropriate mechanism to address the situation is to either allow the use outright, or require a
Conditional Use Permit, which then allows public scrutiny via a public hearing process.
A review of random zoning codes from cities and counties around Washington State and Idaho found
only one other jurisdiction that allows expansion onto adjacent property not under ownership at the
time the use became nonconforming by administrative approval. That jurisdiction, the City of
Spokane, allows expansion of nonconforming uses onto adjacent properties only in industrial and
higher intensity commercial zones. Spokane County allows expansion of nonconforming uses onto
adjacent property with a conditional use permit, subject to a public hearing before the Hearing
Examiner. Some jurisdictions only allow nonconforming uses only to expand within the structure it
occupies; most other jurisdictions allow that expansion restricts the expansion to the parcel the
nonconforming use occupies.
ADOPTION OF FINDINGS: The Planning Commission is required to adopt findings of fact when
recommending changes to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Planning
Commission, by motion to disapprove the proposal, adopted the findings of fact for CTA -04 -010.
Approved this July 8, 2010
n G. Carroll, Cha r
of Spokane Valley Planning Commission
3of3
Spokane Valley Planning Commission
DRAFT Minutes
Council Chambers — City Hall, 11707 E. Sprague Ave.
June 24, 2010
L CALL TO ORDER
Chair Carroll called the meeting to order at 6:00 pm.
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Commissioners, staff and audience stood for the pledge of allegiance
III. ROLL CALL
Commissioners Carroll, Eggleston (arrived at 6:02) Hall, Mann, Sands, Sharpe and Woodard
were present.
Staff attending the meeting: Kathy McClung, Community Development Director, Greg
McCormick, Planning Manager; Scott Kuhta, Senior Planner; Christina Janssen, Assistant
Planner; Deanna Griffith, Administrative Assistant, Dean Grafos, Councilmember.
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
It was moved by Commissioner Sands, seconded and unanimously agreed to approve the June
24, 2010 agenda as presented.
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
It was moved by Commissioner Woodard and seconded to approve the minutes from the May
13, 2010 as presented.
VI. PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no public comment.
VII. COMMISSION REPORTS
Commissioner Woodard stated he had been attending Council meetings, Commissioners Hall
and Sands reported they had attended the Mixed Use Avenue Community Meeting,
Commissioner Carroll reported he had attend the Council meetings as well as the Spokane
Valley Business Association meeting.
VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
Director McClung reported that on June 16, 2010 the City held its first Bike and Pedestrian
Master Plan workshop. She stated that it was well attended, approx. 45 people who were split
up into groups for an interactive exercise. Everyone was engaged and supportive. The
Director also reported that the Council retreat is scheduled for July 13, at CenterPlace from 10-
4 and will cover the budget.
06 -24 -2010 Planning Commission Minutes Page 1 of 10
IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS
A. New Business: Public Hearing —Code Text Amendment CTA -03 -10 Assistant Planner
Christina Janssen:
Commissioner Carroll opened the public hearing at 6:09 p.m. Assistant Planner Christina
Janssen gave a presentation to cover the three amendments that are being proposed in
CTA -03 -10.
• Chapter 19.140 (Administrative Exceptions)- Add language which gives the
Community Development Director authority to grant administrative
exceptions for minor design changes to the Sprague and Appleway
Corridors Subarea Plan.
• Chapter 2.2.2 (Building Use) Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea
Plan -Allow vehicle sales with the Mixed Use Avenue Retail zone with a
Conditional Use permit and allow Full Service Restaurants as a permitted
use.
• Table 2.2.2 Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan -Allow restricted
access to "Other Streets" in the Mixed Use Avenue zone.
Ms. Janssen explained that full service restaurants were limited to the City Center but a
shift in Council direction has made this restriction less critical. The proposed amendment
would all them as a permitted use in this zone. Secondly the prohibited uses section
would be removed and vehicle sales would be allowed in the Mixed Use Ave zone, with a
conditional use permit. Ms. Janssen also stated that after staff began to process this
amendment they also received a privately initiated amendment to allow all vehicle sales
in the Mixed Use Ave zone, and that the Commission could expect to see it at a future
meeting. The next amendment would allow restaurants to take access from other streets
where currently they are only allowed access from Sprague Ave. This amendment would
only apply to full service restaurants in this zone. The third amendment in CTA -03 -10 is
to 19.140. It has become noted that with the adoption of the Subarea Plan that in some
cases minor design changes to the plan would help business owners to locate within the
corridor while also meeting the intent of the plan. This amendment will add language to
the Administrative Exceptions section of the code to allow the Community Development
Director to make these kinds of changes.
Commissioners asked for a definition regarding a full service restaurant, for clarification
regarding the access issue in Table 2.2.2, this would mean all vehicle sales, would require
a conditional use permit.
Mr. McCormick clarified that vehicle sales in the Subarea Plan encompassed all types of
vehicles, including boats. It is an inclusive term. Commissioner Woodard asked if this
would take care of the issues we had in the Mixed Use with the Elephant Boys.
Commissioner Sands asked if that was the driver for this amendment, that one boat sales
place, if so could we not find another way to handle their problem. Commissioner
Eggleston questioned a `grandfather clause.' Director McClung clarifies the issues and
responds: Elephant Boys was the initial driver of the Council's direction to take this back
to the Planning Commission to have a look at it. It would be up to the Planning
Commission to determine if they think there is another way to handle the issue. In
reference to Commissioner Eggleston, Elephant Boys moved from their original location
to the lot next door, and that is what caused the issue. Commissioner Hall asked if this
06 -24 -2010 Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 of 10
would be a conditional use permit that would require a public hearing? Yes, that is
correct. Commissioner Carroll, would this not allow vehicle sales in almost every aspect
of Sprague, would there be any place they could not go? Ms Janssen answered it would
be the majority of the corridor. Director McClung stated that a conditional use permit is
not used to deny a use to go into a zone, it is a device to put restrictions or extra
conditions to help mitigate impacts to the community. Discussion of where the Mixed
Use zones are, what would be covered under the word vehicle.
Commissioner Hall asked for justification as to why this was considered during the
adoption of the plan and it was decided not to place this in the Mixed Use area and now
we are changing gears and adding it back in. Why this change in direction. Director
McClung car dealerships would be all focused in the Auto Row area. Only new car sales
would be allowed there, but then the determination became that if you were going to
allow new car sales you had to allow used car sales. Senior Planner Scott Kuhta stepped
up to the microphone to assist in the clarification. Mr. Kuhta stated that when the Public
Hearing draft of the Plan went before the Planning Commission, it was originally written
to allow used car sales in the Mixed Use areas to compensate for the fact that they would
not be allowed in the Gateway areas, only new car sales would be allowed there.
However through the process and the Planning Commission recommended that all the
vehicle sales would go in the Auto Row area and be prohibited in the other areas. A
conditional use would allow some mitigation factors like display of boats. Originally a
business owner complained about the boats that were blocking their business from being
seen and another business did not like the fact that there were boats being displayed
everywhere so one mitigating factor could be the way the boats are displayed. Maybe
you could limit the number of boats you could display. You could allow the business to
locate there but still make it more compatible with the adjacent land owners. Mr.
McCormick also added that before the Subarea Plan, the zoning was Corridor Mixed Use,
which did new and used vehicle sales. Commissioner Mann asked if a conditional use
permit could be used to deny a permit Director McClung stated she had never seen a
conditional use denied. Commissioner Sands then asked if restaurants would also be
appropriate for a conditional use permit and Director McClung stated she did not feel that
restaurants did not have the same impacts, also that the limitation for restaurants to the
City Center and Neighborhood Centers only was to be a temporary limitation in the Plan.
Commissioner Carroll opened the public testimony at 6:27 p.m.
Ben Goodmanson, Whipple Consulting Engineers: Mr. Goodmanson stated he was
attending to encourage approval of this amendment. Mr. Goodmanson also stated his
form also had an amendment that would be coming before the Commission soon and is
very similar to what is before the Commission now. He also stated that it was not just for
vehicle sales but it also allows for a conditional use where one did not apply before. Mr.
Goodmanson offered that the firm felt it was a ideal while the City goes through the
transition phase of the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan. This would allow
business to continue to operate Mr. Goodmanson said he would appreciate if the
Commission would approve this conditional use, and as such staff has recommended that
Whipple Consulting withdraw their request once the City sponsored text amendment is
approved.
Richard Behm, 9405 E Sprague Ave.: Mr. Behm stated he owns Behm Center. Mr.
Behm stated he was both a proponent and an opponent. Mr. Behm said that the
06 -24 -2010 Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 of 10
discussion on allowing auto sales in the Mixed Use Avenue area began as a effort to
resolve the problems with the Elephant Boys Marina and Boat Sales being non - compliant
under the Mixed Use zoning. At the present time, the City has auto sales and boat sales
under the same category, which does create this problem. Therefore it would seem a
simple solution to separate auto and boat sales into separate categories and allow boat
sales in Mixed Use zoning and not have to change the zoning requirement for auto sales
in the whole City. Mr. Behm stated he was confused as to why the City put boat and auto
sales in the same category, the state does not license them as the same. Mr. Behm said
that sometimes a hasty decision to resolve one problem can lead to many more down the
road and that this could have consequences in the Auto Row area that were not thought of
now. Mr. Behm said he has no interest in any auto or boat sales business, his only
concern is a reasonable implementation of the new zoning requirements. Mr. Behm said
he would rather be a neighbor to boat sales than car sales, he feels they would make a
better neighbor. Now Mr. Behm stated he would like to address the restaurant issue. Mr.
Behm has a restaurant on his property that is now non - compliant. He stated this fact does
not bother him, his creamery has been non - compliant for 30 years and has never bothered
him. Mr. Behm stated it would only be a problem if it was completely destroyed, the
insurance would not cover to relocate the restaurant. The only issue the restaurant has is
that the one -way street took away 40% of the business and it has ever come back. Mr.
Behm said that if the two -way street comes back between Argonne and University the
properties in between will begin to develop. Mr. Behm said there has to be a plan, there
has to be something that the builders, developers and property owners can hang their hats
on and know is going to be there.
Seeing no one else who wished to testify Commissioner Carroll closed the public
testimony at 6:35 p.m.
Commissioner Woodard made a motion to recommend approval of CTA- 03 -10, second
by Commissioner Sharpe.
Commissioner Sands asked staff for an opinion regarding Mr. Behm's suggestion about
separating the auto sales from the boat sales. Mr. McCormick addressed the question.
Mr. McCormick stated that he felt that it would further the intent of the Subarea Plan by
focusing auto sales in the Gateway Commercial area and address the issue that has been
brought up before Council related to the specific situation. Commissioner Sands also
asked if the Commission were to split the car sales from other kinds of vehicles, could it
still be considered as a conditional use so that conditions could be placed on the uses?
Mr. McCormick answered in the affirmative. Discussion began as to how far separating
out the vehicle categories would have to be broken out, ORVs, RVs, motorcycles, boats?
If these are not broken out and allowed or not allowed will this become an issue down the
road that will need to be addressed?
Commissioner Carroll stated what he understood was that the Commission is being asked
to open Sprague up to all vehicle sales, the alternative is to limit it to a specific type of
vehicle. One consideration that goes along is how big does the Commission want to open
this? Would allowing auto sales up and down Sprague, do a disservice to the Auto Row
people? Another thing to consider would be the service departments that need to be with
each dealership. There are vacant auto lots on Sprague already, do we want to open this
subj ect up a little bit or all the way? Commissioner Woodard commented that the motion
is all inclusive to all vehicle types, not being restrictive. Commissioner Woodard stated
06 -24 -2010 Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 of 10
that if it was all inclusive, it would allow the lots already in the Mixed Use Avenue to
become conforming instead of non - conforming. Mr. Woodard also stated he was
concerned about property rights and being able to use property as an owner wants. He
also stated he was concerned about the City's image. Commissioner Woodard said that
maybe the boat sales was driving the amendment but that all vehicle sales should be
considered. Commissioner Eggleston commented that amending to only allow boat sales
would in fact fix the current problem and not change the intent of the Plan in general.
Commissioner Mann stated he felt it would be better to deal with one business' issues as
a separate problem and not open the whole code so that another type of business could
not come back and say later, `you did it for them, now do it for me.'
Director McClung stated that this amendment is not just for one business, it would affect
the entire Mixed Use Avenue area of the Subarea Plan. The Commissioners stated that
they did understand that. Commissioner Sands also stated that all of the current auto
dealers we legal non - conforming uses and can stay and continue to do business without a
change for as long as they would like. Commissioner Hall stated he would like to see the
amendment for the vehicle sales returned to staff for further consideration and move
forward with the other two amendments which do not seem to be causing issue. Mr. Hall
stated he wondered what Auto Row's plans were for the area and Mr. Behm's suggestion
to split the boat sales out and what it would mean to the plan. Commissioner Eggleston
concurred with Commissioner Hall's suggestion. Mr. McCormick noted that in the
municipal /uniform development code auto sales were broken out from boat sales, so he
did not feel it would cause a problem to make that distinction in the Plan.
Commissioner Eggleston made a motion to amend vehicle sales to read boat sales.
Commissioner Sands second the motion. Vote by show of hands: In Favor: four.
Opposed: three, Sharpe, Mann and Woodard Abstentions: None. Motion passes
Commissioner Sands made a motion to remove item #2 regarding vehicle sales along
Sprague Ave for further discussion and research. Commissioner Eggleston seconded the
motion. Vote by show of hands: In Favor: four. Opposed: three Sharpe Mann and
Woodard Abstentions: None. Motion passes.
Commissioner Carroll asked if there was any further discussion on the original motion as
it had been amended. Vote by show of hands: In Favor: four. Opposed: three, Sharpe,
Mann and Woodard Abstentions: None. Motion passes
Director McClung requested that the Commission to give specific direction on what they
would like staff to come back with. Commissioner Carroll stated they would like staff to
come back with how to categorize vehicles, new vs. used, cars vs. others (all other
vehicles) Commissioner Sharpe stated he would like to go on the record that he is not
opposed to the amendment, what he is opposed to is the redefining, redefining,
redefining. Commissioner Mann stated he would concur with Commissioner Sharpe's
statement, every business deserves the right to conduct their business, but changing the
entire code and coming back and redoing and redoing, over and over again. Mr. Mann
stated he would rather deal with these issues on an individual basis. Commissioner Sands
asked if it was possible to deal with these things on an individual basis? Based on the
code the Hearing Examiner would look at black and white and say it came in after the
code and it is not allowed. Commissioner Carroll stated that the Commission's business
is not to look at the individual business it is to look at City wide uses in general. Mr.
06 -24 -2010 Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 of 10
Carroll also stated he agreed with Commissioners Sharpe and Mann that `we' cannot
keep redefining but it came up here as a suggestion, do we open it up a little, a lot or shut
it down completely. Commissioner Sands said she would like to have legal's opinion on
the ability to split car and boat sales.
Commissioner Carroll closed the public hearing at 7:00 p.m.
B. Public Hearing — Public Hearing Code Text Amendment CTA -04 -10 Sr. Planner
Scott Kuhta.
Commissioner Carroll opened the public hearing at 7:00 p.m. Senior Planner Scott Kuhta
introduced the amendment to the Commission. This is a privately imitated amendment
concerning the expansion of non - conforming uses to adjacent properties. The proposal is
to allow non - conforming uses to expand onto adjacent properties without regard to the
ownership of the adjacent property at the time the use became non - conforming. A non-
conforming use is a use that is not permitted in the current zone. There is a difference
between legal non - conforming use and a illegal non - conforming use. A legal non-
conforming use is a use that was permitted in the zone at the time it was established on
the property. Subsequently the zoning may have changed to make the use non-
conforming, but it is still a legal use but a legal non - conforming use. Another word for it
is grandfathered. Why do we care about non - conforming uses? Land uses change over
time, either by the nature of the changes in the area, for example an industrial use which
stayed around for a long time and then residential developed around it. Land transitions
over time and the zoning will transition with it. The new uses become incompatible with
some established uses and the new zoning regulations. The non - conforming provisions
allow for the continuation of that legal use. The City does have very liberal non-
conforming provisions. Over time the intent is for as those uses transition out, uses that
are more compatible and conforming would move into the area. Allow them to continue
on until such time that a conforming use becomes viable in that location. The current
rules for expanding a non - conforming use are as follows:
4. A nonconforming use may be expanded only within the boundaries of the original lot
or tract and any adjacent lot or tract that was under the same ownership as the lot or
tract at the time the use on the original lot or tract became non - conforming, if:
a. The expanded use does not degrade the transportation level of service greater than
the original use; and
b. The expanded use does not adversely affect or interfere with the use of
neighboring property; and
c. Any transfer of ownership or interest on adjacent lots or tracts was made
contemporaneously with the transfer of ownership of the lot or tract on which the
nonconforming use is located as part of a single transaction; and
d. The expansion does not create additional development opportunities on adjacent
tracts that would not otherwise exist.
This would be an administrative decision made by staff, not something that would go
before the hearing examiner. The proposal is a fairly simple one it is to remove the
ownership requirement. This proposal would allow the expansion of a non - conforming
use at any time onto adjacent property if it meets the other criteria. Mr. Kuhta did review
non - conforming regulations for other jurisditctions, knowing the City's regulations were
already liberal, this is the other city regulations that were found:
06 -24 -2010 Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 10
City
Expanding Nonconforming Use Provisions
Cheney
May not expand non - conforming use.
Clark County
Onlv within existing structure
Kennewick
No provision to expand non - conforming use.
Liberty Lake
May not expand use or structure. No additional structures. May not move use to a
p ortion of lot other than that occupied by such use.
Omak
May not enlarge, relocate or rearrange non - conforming uses unless CUP is granted by
Hearing Examiner.
Post Falls
May not be expanded or extended in any way.
Richland
May not expand use in any way, even in building where use occupies a portion of the
building.
Spokane
Some allowance for expanding onto adjacent property not under ownership, limited to
some commercial /industrial zones
Spokane County
Expansion discouraged but is possible with CUP approved by Hearing Examiner.
Vancouver
Cannot expand Use outside existing buildin
Walla Walla
May expand non - conforming use one time not to exceed 20% of floor area or land
area which it occupied when use became non - conforming with CUP. Expansion of an
enclosed non- confonning use to land outside the building is not pennitted.
Yakima
May expand non - conforming use outside of structure on existing lot w /admin
approval if strict criteria are met.
Some jurisdictions only allow expansion in the same building, some don't allow
expansion in the portion they are using, some allow expansion on the lot, very few
jurisdictions allow expansion on the lot adjacent. The exception is Spokane, there is
some exception for expanding to the adjacent property not under ownership, but they do
limit it to the more heavy commercial and industrial areas. They do not allow it in the
Mixed Use zones, or residential zones. Spokane County the expansion is discouraged,
which is what the language says in their code but it is possible with a conditional use
permit which is approved by the Hearing Examiner, it does not differentiate between
ownership. If you wanted to expand a non - conforming use in Spokane County, it does
not matter if you own the property, however it does require a conditional use permit that
needs approval from the Hearing Examiner.
Mr. Kuhta stated that staff believes that this proposal is inconsistent with the intent of the
Comprehensive Plan which speaks about protecting neighborhoods from incompatible
uses. Zoning is a police power that is afforded to cities and counties to protect the public
safety, health and welfare of its citizens. Zoning implements the Comprehensive Plan
and it separates incompatible uses staff believes that the proposed amendment goes too
far and does not further the public safety, health or welfare of the community. The
recommendation from staff is that this is an uncommon zoning practice based on staff's
experience and review of jurisdictions around this area, other parts of the state and in
Idaho, the change is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan to protect
neighborhoods, it begins to render zoning meaningless. There are other approaches
which could be taken, possibly a conditional use permit, maybe the use should be allowed
maybe the use chart should be changed. Based on these reasons and the more detailed
06 -24 -2010 Planning Commission Minutes Page 7 of 10
reasons in the staff report, Mr. Kuhta stated staff is recommending denial of this proposed
amendment to the municipal code.
Commissioners ask clarifying questions to make sure they understood the current code
and the proposal before they continued.
Commissioner Carroll opened the public testimony at 7:12 p.m.
Dwight Hume, 9101 Mt View Lane: Mr. Hume stated he was the applicant requesting
the change. Mr. Hume stated he has read the staff report and disagrees with it for the
following reasons:
• It is not inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Non - conforming uses by their
nature cannot be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, that is what makes
them non - conforming. If they were consistent with the Comprehensive Plan it
would not be non - conforming. Because it is there and you changed your
Comprehensive Plan it is a fact, not a fault. The statement by staff is that it is
inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan is overlooking the nature of the beast.
• We are trying to split hairs and broaden the benefit package. If I own parcel A,
and I don't own parcel B, and I acquire parcel B but I had a non - conforming right
on parcel A and I would like to expand it, that privilege exists today if I already
owned parcel B. However if I buy it now but did not own it before, that gives me
the privilege just like the guy who happen to have it, under the current formula.
That is only a distinction of who owned it when. It is not a land use issue. You
could have expanded, had you owned it, and therefore had an expanded non-
conforming use. You have a very finite number of people out there that would
have that benefit.
• Another aspect of the staff report is that the proposal does not meet criteria, and
we do. We left the other criteria in there except to take out the limitation of
ownership. The other criteria that is still in place. As long as you have already
met the criteria and can continue to exist, then you can expand.
• To address a comment that was made earlier which was that this was for only to
benefit is exclusively to the applicant. These types of changes come up in the
land use world when we find that the zoning code does not fit the circumstance.
Mr. Hume stated he does not bring them before the Commission if he does not see
benefit citywide. For example, Elephant Boys problem. The White Elephant is
non - conforming use now and boat sales are not permitted, and this amendment
would allow them to expand to the adjoining property. It could go from White
Elephant to Elephant Boys next door and be allowed as an expansion of a non-
conforming use and would not require and exclusive zoning code change for
boats.
Mr. Hume stated he did not feel this would open Pandora's Box because there was not a
lot of expansion of non - conforming uses. Non - conforming uses are allowed now, not
withstanding ownership type. Mr. Hume did state that he did think of a couple of things
that were triggered by the staff report and he is suggesting that additional criteria be
added:
06 -24 -2010 Planning Commission Minutes Page 8 of 10
• The expanded use must be located within the same zone, as the adjacent non-
conforming use.
Mr. Hume said that staff was talking about it going into any zone. Mr. Hume stated he
felt that the expansion should stay in the same zoning district and should not be allowed
to expand into a more restrictive zoning district. This could be a suggested addition.
Mr. Hume had a question for staff, he stated he did not understand the last criteria already
established in the code, 4) d) "the expansion does not create additional development
opportunities on adjacent tracts that would not otherwise exist. " Mr. Kuhta stated he
did not quite understand that requirement. Mr. Hume said he would like to suggest
language that everyone could understand.
• No additional expansion except within this combined parcel and subject to the
criteria of a -c above.
Mr. Hume would like to suggest removing criteria d and adding in his two additions as
well as striking the ownership language to the amendment. Mr. Hume stated that if
business went well and the business needed to expand more, it could do so, but only on
those two parcels, or site, but not onto any other additional parcels. This would keep you
from being able to expand to the next piece and the next piece, which we all agree is not
what we are trying to do.
Commissioner Sharpe asked Mr. Hume if he as proposing to change or alter `d'? Mr.
Hume said it was a suggestion to replace `d' with his earlier suggestion, "the expanded
use must be located within the same zone, as the adjacent non - conforming use. No
additional expansion will be permitted except within these combined parcels, subject to a-
c above."
Seeing no one else that wished to testify, Chair Carroll closed the public testimony at
7:22 p.m.
Commissioners had some clarifying questions regarding options other than changing the
non - conforming provisions, the ability to amend and add Mr. Hume's suggestions, the
reasoning behind the current non- conforming language.
Commissioner Sharpe made a motion to recommend approval to the City Council of the
proposed expansion of non - conforming rules under 19.20.060 (B). Commissioner
Woodard seconded the motion.
Commissioner Mann asked to clarify that Commissioner Sharpe was asking to not accept
staff s findings. C. Mann also asked for clarification regarding when you had to own the
adjacent parcel, or if the adjacent parcel had to be owned by the same owner of if it could
be owned by someone else. Commissioner Woodard stated he was in favor of
Commissioner Sharpe's motion, because he feels people should be able to expand if they
choose no matter when they bought property. Commissioner Hall stated that he felt that
the City's were already very liberal and that if we were not going to defend the zoning
code then we don't have much. If non - conforming doesn't mean much then why do we
have that term? C. Hall is concerned that someone could take advantage of this
amendment. Commissioner Eggleston stated that he is concerned this is that this will be
a City -wide issue. Commissioner Sharpe stated that as many people that could use this as
taking advantage, there are limiting criteria but there would be just as many people who
this could be a benefit to and allows their business to continue.
06 -24 -2010 Planning Commission Minutes Page 9 of 10
Commissioner Woodard stated he would like to amend the motion striking the current
language in item `d' and replace it with `the explanation could occur only in the same
zone as current non - conforming parcel is located in and it could only stay the original
adjacent property to that original property regardless of ownership. Motion fails for lack
of a second.
Commissioner Sharpe asked who makes the final determination on these decisions, Mr.
Kuhta answered that these are administrative decisions, made by the Community
Development Director. Commissioner Sands stated she felt it was wrong to make a
change that would affect 90,000 people to benefit one party and that if the business was
that viable where it was then maybe rezoning the area would be more appropriate.
Commissioner Sharpe countered with he felt that it was only one now but others would
benefit in the future. Commissioner Carroll stated he felt that at one time or another
through growth every parcel in the city could become non - conforming, and that non-
conforming was a way to ease though those changes. Good zoning protects the ethical
business man, therefore he would vote against the motion.
Commissioner Carroll called for the question. Vote by Show of Hands: In Favor: Two.
Sharpe, Woodard Opposed: Five, Abstentions: None. Motion fails
Commissioner Sands made a motion to recommend denial of CTA -04 -10 to the City
Council, second by Commissioner Mann. Vote by Show of Hands: In Favor: Five
Opposed: Two. Sharpe, Woodard, Abstentions: None. Motion fails
X. GOOD OF THE ORDER
There was nothing for the good of the order.
XL ADJOURNMENT
The being no other business the meeting was adj ourned at 7:44 p.m.
SUBMITTED:
Deanna Griffith, Administrative Assistant
APPROVED:
John G. Carroll, Chairperson
06 -24 -2010 Planning Commission Minutes Page 10 of 10
S Cill'OF k ue
alley
A+ 3 7 A u n . mmun(ty Development— Planning Division
S POKANE SAL 1703 E Sprague Ave Suite B -3 ♦ Spokane Valley WA 99206
QCPARTMENI f .720.5026 ♦ Fax: 509.688,0037 ♦ ptanning@spokanevalley.org
CUa:Jj�,1UNJJY DENELUP%B"41'
CrAI• I Icy f%kti v
DEVELOPMENT CODE TEXT
RECEIVEVENDMENT APPLICATION
SVMC 17.80.150
V IM1 I WV VI \V1
Date Submitted: Received by: Fee:
PLUS #: File #: �_ t i " ��' (
PART I - REQUIRED MATERIAL
N� HE PLANNING DIVISION WILL NOT ACCEPT YOUR APPLICATION IF THE REQUIRED MATERIALS ARE NOT PROVIDED`*
❑ Pre - Application Meeting Request (include copy of staff worksheet from meeting)
} �7< 1 Completed Application Form
1•❑ Application Fee
SEPA Checklist: One (1) copy of completed State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA)
Environmental Checklist, including option Non - Project Action supplemental form. (Nato: Any
previous environmental documents that are relevant to this project should be included and may
be adopted by reference.)
PART II - APPLICATION INFORMATION
APPLICANT NAME: Dwight J Hume
MAILING ADDRESS: 9101 IV Mt. View Lane
ITY: Spokan
STATE:` ' zip: 99218
P
FAX: 46 r -0229 CELL: 435-310
EMAIL: dhume @spokane- landusexom
SECTION(S) OF CODE PROPOSED TO BE AMENDED (INCLUDE CODE CITATION): See Attached
SUMMARY OF REQUESTED CODE; AMENDMENT(S): Sea Attached
REVISED 2126110 Page 1 of 2
Spok�.nk�
,,;.f Val ley TEXT AMENDMENT APPLICATION
REASON(S) FOR CODE AMENDMENT(S): See attached
IS THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT CONSISTENT WITH THE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
Yes, see attached
DOES THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT BEAR A SUBSTANTIAL RELATION TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY, WELFARE,
AND PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT:
Yes, see attached
PART III - AUTHORIZATION
(Signature of applicant)
Dwight J Hume
made t1uthf4lly and to the best of my
f
STATE OF WASHINGTON)
ss:
COUNTY OF SPOKANE )
( Date)
NOTARY
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this
NOTARY SEAL
NN��`IA� fill
(1 s
t u
0� r`
I 3 day of !)001 20 0�)
-r
NOTARY SIGNATURE
Notary Public in and for the State of Washington
Residing at: lc ajl 0
(print name) swear or affirm that the above responses are
My appointment expires: 4 — " U
REVISED 2126110 Page 2 of 2
L V HVi'.E
Land Use planning Services
9101 N. MT. VIEW LAME Spokane, WA 99218
549 - 435 -3108 (V) 509 - 467 -0229 (F)
5 -13 -10
Greg McCormick AICP
Community Development Department
E. 11707 Sprague Avenue Suite 106
Spokane Valley, WA 89206
Fief: Text Amendment Non - conforming Use
Dear Greg:
RECEIVED
SPOKANE VALLE-Y
DEPARTMEN F OF
COMMUNITY MUNIT'f D _r
Enclosed herewith is the completed Development Code text amendment for the
non - conforming use expansion. As you will see, it is changing the language of
the code to allow expansion onto adjacent property regardless of when it was
purchased.
As you or staff will see, there are several ways this can be written and/or
administered for protection against impacts. Personally, I feel that Spokane
Valley has the best approach to have it as an administrative review and approval
vs. a CUP process, since there is little benefit farm holding public hearings just to
determine what the criteria already requires. 14,m
ficer:Iy,
Dwigh J Hum
Enclosure: Application, Fee, SEPA Checklist
RECEIVED
Text Amendment
Felon - Conforming Use MAY
Supplement SPOKANE aN r OF
CO MiMUNIrr DEVELOPMENT
Sections of code to he amended:
Chapter 19.20.060 B 4 Non - Conforming Use Expansion Adjoining Parcel
Summary of Requested Code Amendment:
The current language restricts the expansion onto an adjoining parcel only when that
parcel was of the same ownership at the time non - conformity occurred. This request
would allow expansion under the same criteria on an adjacent property whenever it is
purchased, regardless of ownerships status at the time of non- conformity.
Accordingly, Chapter 19.20.060 B (4) would be amended as follows:
Existing:
4. A non- conforming use may be expanded only within the boundaries of the original lot
or tract and any adjacent lot or tract, that was under the same ownership as the lot or tract
at the time of the use on the original lot or tract became non - conforming if.
a) The expanded use does not degrade the transportation level of service greater
than the original use; and
b) The expanded use does not adversely affect or interfere with the use of
neighboring property; and
c) Any transfer of ownership or interest on adjacent lots or tracts was made
contemporaneously with the transfer of ownership of the lot or tract on which the non-
conforming use is located as pant of the single transaction; and
d) The expansion does not create additional development opportunities on
adjacent tracts that would not otherwise exist.
Proposed:
4. A non - conforming use may be expanded only within the boundaries of the original lot
or tract and any adjacent lot or tract, if:
a) The expanded use does not degrade the transportation level of service greater
than the original use; and
b) The expanded use does not adversely affect or interfere with the use of
neighboring property; and
c) The expansion does not create additional development opportunities on
adjacent tracts that would not otherwise exist.
Reasons for Code amendment
The Code currently allows expansion onto adjacent property within criteria intended to
protect neighboring property owners and does not lessen the transportation level, what
difference does it make when that property was purchased?
Spokane County allows expansion of non- conforming uses by Conditional Use Permit
and has, since 1986 without regard to purchase or ownership date, presumably without
adverse consequences since it remains as a zoning provision to this date.
The City of Spokane allows non - conforming use expansion within the commercial and
industrial zones but not the more restrictive office and residential zones.
Liberty Lake does not allow expansion onto other property.
As stated above, there are a variety of ways to regulate non - conforming uses within this
region. Either it becomes extremely restrictive so as to force the use into extinction, or
the regulations become generous in their accommodating the use. Spokane Valley chose
the latter approach of being somewhat accommodating and yet has language that only
allows one kind of ownership pattern the opportunity to expand, that being the one where
the owner of the non - conforming use somehow, had the foresight to purchase an adjoing
parcel for his future expansion and that is discriminating at best. I believe it is the
Iegislative will of this city to loosen the shackles on non - conformity and allow it a fair
chance to survive, so long as it doesn't create an adverse impact upon roads and
surrounding land use.
Is the_proposed amendment consistent with the applicable provisions of the
comprehensive plan ?:
To the extent that existing non- confon - ring use language is consistent with the
comprehensive plan, so is this. The amendment merely eliminates when you purchased
the adjoining property. To the extent that current language expansions are consistent, so
will these be.
Does the proposed amendment bear a substantial relation to the public health, safety,
welfare and protection of the environment?
Yes, the criteria for expansion requires adherence to the following criteria,
a) The expanded use does not degrade the transportation level of service greater
than the original use; and
b) The expanded use does not adversely affect or interfere with the use of
neighboring property; and
c) The expansion does not create additional development opportunities on
adjacent tracts that would not otherwise exist.
End ofsupplennent
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
PLANNING DIVISION
qH OF
d lne STAFF REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO THE
B
Valley PLANNING COMMISSION
CTA -04 -10 — NONCONFORMING USE EXPANSION TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES
STAFF REPORT DATE: JUNE 17, 2010
HEARING DATE AND LOCATION: June 24, 2010, beginning at 6:00 p.m., Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers,
11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 101, Spokane Valley, Washington 99206.
PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: A privately initiated amendment to Section 19.20.060 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code
(SVMC) proposing to allow the expansion of nonconforming uses onto adjoining property not under the same ownership
at the time the use became nonconforming.
This proposal is considered a non - project action under RCW 43.21C.
PROPOSAL LOCATION: The proposal affects the entire City of Spokane Valley.
APPLICANT: Dwight J. Hume
APPROVAL CRITERIA: Title 17 (General Provisions) and Title 21 (Environmental Controls) of the SVMC.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Division recommends that the Planning Commission disapprove the
proposed text amendment to the SVMC.
STAFF PLANNER: SCOTT KuHTA, AICP, Senior Planner, Community Development Department
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit 1: Draft Amendments
Exhibit 2: SEPA Determination
Exhibit 3: Nonconforming Use Comparison Chart
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. APPLICATION PROCESSING
Chapter 17.80 Permit Processing Procedures in the SVMC. The following summarizes key application procedures
for the proposal.
Notice of Application Issue Date
May 28, 2010
Date of Published Notice of Public Hearing:
June 4, 2010
Issuance of an Optional Determination of Non-Significance (DNS):
June 18, 2010
End of Appeal Period for DNS:
July 2, 2010
B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO SEPA
Findings:
Pursuant to Title 21 (Environmental Controls) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC), the lead agency has
detennined that this proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030 (2) (c). The Planning Division issued
Staff Report to Planning Commission
CTA -04 -10
Page 1 of 5
a Determination of Non - Significance (DNS) on June 18, 2010, for the proposal. This decision was made after review
of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency.
Conclusion(s):
The procedural requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act and Title 21 of the SVMC have been fulfilled by
the submittal of the required SEPA Checklist, and the issuance of the City's threshold determination consisting of a
Determination of Non - Significance (DNS). No appeals have been received at the time of this report. The appeal
period will close July 2, 2010.
C. STAFF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO THE CODE TEXT AMENDMENT
1. COMPLIANCE WITH TITLE 17 (GENERAL PROVISIONS) OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE
Findings:
Section 17.80.150(F) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) provides approval criteria that must be
considered when the City amends the SVMC. The criteria are listed below along with staff comments.
1. The proposed text amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan;
Staff Response The Comprehensive Plan does not provide specific policy direction towards the treatment
of nonconforming uses. However, the most basic principle of land use planning is to separate incompatible
uses, such as industrial from residential, by locating them in different parts of the community or buffering
them from each other. The following policies relate to this principal.
LUP -1.1 - Maintain the character of existing and future residential neighborhoods through the
development and enforcement of the City's land use regulations and oint planning.
LUP -1.2 - Protect residential areas from impacts of adjacent non - residential uses and /or higher
intensity uses through the development and enforcement of the City's land use regulations and joint
planning.
LUP -11.1 - Commercial, residential and recreational uses should be limited or not allowed in areas
designated for industry, except for small -scale ancillary commercial and recreational uses intended to
primarily serve the industrial area.
LUP -11.3 - Provide appropriate buffering, landscaping and other development standards for industrial
areas.
NP -2.1 - Maintain and protect the character of existing and future residential neighborhoods through
the development and enforcement of the City's land use regulations and joint planning.
NP -2.6 - Establish appropriate design guidelines with buffer zones and transition requirements to
protect residential neighborhoods from incompatible land uses and adverse impacts associated with
arterials, freeways and rail corridors.
Allowing nonconforming uses to expand onto adjacent properties without restriction is not consistent with
the overall intent of the Comprehensive Plan to protect neighborhoods from incompatible uses.
2. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the
environment;
Staff Report to Planning Commission
CTA -04 -10
Page 2 of 5
Staff Response: Zoning is a police power that allows the City to exercise reasonable control over the
use of property in the interest of the health, safety and welfare of the community at large. Zoning is also
the regulatory means to implement the goals and policies of the comprehensive plan. Zoning separates
uses that are incompatible, thereby protecting the general health, safety and welfare of the community.
Chapter 19.20.06013 (4), SVMC, currently allows the expansion of nonconforming uses to adjacent
property under the same ownership when the use became nonconforming, subject to certain criteria.
Compared to many other jurisdictions, this allowance is uncommon and extraordinary. This provision is
provided in the SVMC to avoid economic hardship to property owners who may have made plans to
expand a legal use onto adjacent property purchased for that purpose but was made nonconforming by new
zoning regulations.
The proposed amendment would expand this provision to land not under ownership at the time the use
became nonconforming. It would apply to existing nonconforming uses and nonconforming uses that
replace another nonconforming use. The concern is that if the proposed amendment is adopted,
incompatible uses may expanded to adjacent properties without limit, thereby rendering the zoning code
somewhat meaningless.
For example, if a use that would otherwise be permitted only in the Heavy Industrial zone is allowed to
expand in the Corridor Mixed Use (CMU) zone, then it has the potential to negatively impact adjacent
uses, such as schools, residences and retail shops, all permitted uses in the CMU zone. If the use is
compatible with the zoning and does not interfere with the use of adjacent property, then the appropriate
mechanism to address the situation is to either allow the use outright, or require a Conditional Use Permit,
which then allows public scrutiny via a public hearing process.
Upon review of random zoning codes from cities and counties around Washington State and Idaho, staff
has found only one other jurisdiction that allows expansion onto adjacent property not under ownership at
the time the use became nonconforming (see Exhibit 3, Nonconforming Comparison Chart) by
administrative approval. That jurisdiction, the City of Spokane, allows expansion of nonconforming uses
onto adjacent properties only in industrial and higher intensity commercial zones. Spokane County allows
expansion of nonconforming uses onto adjacent property with a conditional use permit, subject to a public
hearing before the Hearing Examiner. Some jurisdictions only allow nonconforming uses only to expand
within the structure it occupies, most other jurisdictions allow expansion on the parcel the nonconforming
use occupies.
Conclusion(s):
The proposed text amendment to the SVMC is not consistent with the approval criteria contained in the SVMC.
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
The Planning Division, after review and consideration of the proposed text amendment and applicable approval
criteria, recommends that the Planning Commission recommend denial of CTA- 04 -10.
V. PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS
The Planning Commission is required to adopt findings of fact (Sections 17.80.140 & 17.80.150) when making
recommendations to the City Council. At the conclusion of the hearing for the text amendment to the SVMC, the
Planning Commission, by separate motion, should adopt findings of fact.
Background:
A. The Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) was adopted in September 2007 and became effective on
October 28, 2007.
B. Chapter 19.30.040 of the SVMC allows code text amendments to be submitted at any time.
Staff Report to Planning Commission
CTA -04 -10
Page 3 of 5
C. The SVMC is permissive in its treatment of nonconforming uses by allowing nonconforming uses to be
replaced with another nonconforming use and by allowing expansion of nonconforming uses to adjacent
parcels under the same ownership at the time the use became nonconforming.
D. Allowing nonconforming uses to expand to any adjacent property in any zone is an extremely uncommon
zoning practice.
E. The text amendment is intended to address a site specific issue. The Planning Commission must consider
the text amendments potential affect on the entire community.
F. The Planning Commission conducted a study session on June 24, 2010, prior to the public hearing.
Findings: Staff has prepared the following findings for the Planning Commission in the event there is concurrence
with the recommended approval.
The Planning Commission finds the proposed text amendment to be consistent with the applicable
provisions of the Growth Management Act, Countywide Planning Policies (CUPP) and the City's
Comprehensive Plan;
GMA Policies
a. The Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) provides the following guidance applicable to
the Environment and Property Rights:
i. Protect the environment and enhance the state's high quality of life, including air and water
quality and the availability of water.
ii. Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation having been made.
The property rights of landowners shall be protected from arbitrary and discriminatory actions
pursuant to state and federal law.
b. The County Wide Planning Policies provide the following guidance applicable to the Environment and
services:
i. Policy Topic 3 — Promotion of contiguous and Orderly Development and Provisions of Urban
Services. — Policy 5 All jurisdictions shall coordinate plans that classify, designate and protect
natural resource lands and critical areas.
City of Spokane Valley Goals and Policies
c. The City of Spokane Valley has adopted goals and policies consistent with the GMA and adopted
CWPP.
i. LUP -1.1 - Maintain and character of existing and future residential neighborhoods through the
development and enforcement of the City's land use regulations and joint planning.
ii. LUP -1.2 - Protect residential areas from impacts of adjacent non - residential uses and /or higher
intensity uses through the development and enforcement of the City's land use regulations and
joint planning.
iii. LUP -11.1 - Commercial, residential and recreational uses should be limited or not allowed in
areas designated for industry, except for small -scale ancillary commercial and recreational uses
intended to primarily serve the industrial area.
iv. LUP -113 - Provide appropriate buffering, landscaping and other development standards for
industrial areas.
v. NP -2.1 - Maintain and protect the character of existing and future residential neighborhoods
through the development and enforcement of the City's land use regulations and joint planning.
Staff Report to Planning Commission
CTA -04 -10
Page 4 of 5
vi. NP -2.6 - Establish appropriate design guidelines with buffer zones and transition
requirements to protect residential neighborhoods from incompatible land uses and adverse
impacts associated with arterials, freeways and rail corridors.
2. The Planning Commission finds the proposed text amendment is detrimental to public health, safety,
welfare, and protection of the environment;
Supporting Statements
a. It is clear that the SVMC is exceptionally accommodating in its treatment of nonconforming uses.
The intent of zoning is to separate incompatible uses. Over time, nonconforming uses would ideally
relocate to appropriately zoned property. This code amendment allows nonconfonning situations to
expand without restriction if certain criteria are met. Zoning must be administered to protect the
community at large. This amendment is not consistent with the intent of zoning to separate
incompatible uses and is therefore considered detrimental to public health, safety, welfare and the
protection of the environment.
Recommended Motion: The Planning Commission adopts the findings in the staff report and
recommends denial of CTA- 04 -10, a code text amendments to allow nonconfonning uses to expand onto
adjacent property not under same ownership at the time the use became nonconforming.
Staff Report to Planning Commission
CTA -04 -10
Page 5 of 5
Exhibit 4: Nonconforming Use Expansion
Comparison Chart
Expanding Nonconforming Use Provisions
Cheney
May not expand nonconforming use.
Clark County
Only within existing structure
Kennewick
No provision to expand nonconforming use.
May not expand use or structure. No additional structures.
Liberty Lake
May not move use to a portion of lot other than that occupied
by such use.
May not enlarge, relocate or rearrange nonconforming uses
Omak
unless CUP is granted by Hearing Examiner.
Post Falls
May not be expanded or extended in any way.
May not expand use in any way, even in building where use
Richland
occupies a portion of the building.
Spokane
Some allowance for expanding onto adjacent property not
under ownership, limited to some commercial /industrial zones
Expansion discouraged but is possible with CUP approved by
Spokane County
Hearing Examiner.
Vancouver
Cannot expand Use outside existing building
May expand noncoforming use one time not to exceed 20% of
floor area or land area which it occupied when use became
Walla Walla
nonconforming with CUP. Expansion of an enclosed
nonconforming use to land outside the building is not
permitted.
May expand nonconforming use outside of structure on existing
Yakima
lot w /admin approval if strict criteria are met.
Department of Community Development
Planning Division
City Council Presentation
July 20, 2010
Text Amendment to the SVMC
CTA=04=1 0
rn «7Ir
'fall
�'TYHA<< ,i Department of Community Development
Planning Division
Proposed Amendment
• Allow nonconforming uses to expand
to adjacent property without regard to
ownership.
ne Department of Community DevelopmentD`
lle Planning Division
What is a Nonconforming Use?
• Use that is not permitted in current zone
— Commercial use in residential zone
• Legal nonconforming uses are uses that
were permitted at the time the use was
established
— Became nonconforming under subsequent
zoning
• "Grandfathered"
0, Department of Community Development D` k
Planning Division:
Why do we care about
nonconforming uses?
•Land uses transition over time
• New uses become incompatible with some
established uses and new zoning
regulations.
• Nonconforming rules allow continuation of
legal nonconforming uses.
• Overtime, nonconforming uses transition
to conforming uses.
rn
• C.
� 'TYHALL@Sl'�' Department of Community Development
'alle Planning Division
Current Nonconforming Expansion Rules
ii pter 1 }20.060 B (4)
4. A non- conforming use may b expanded only within the. l Mindaries of the or ;i irial lot
or tract a nd any adjacent lot or tract, that was under tine sam o ners ltip as the lot or Iract
at the time of the use on the original lot or tract b ecame non-conforming if.-
a The expanded use does not degrade the transportation level of service greater
than the original usc; and
b The expanded rise does not adversely affect or interfere with the LIse of
neighboring propcily and
e Any transfer of owner luip Or interest on a4jaeent lots or truts was lnade
contemporaneously with the transfer of ownership of'the lot or tract on which the. non-
conforming use iS IOCated as pail o the single tfallsaetlella and
d) The expansion does not create additional developmem opportimities on
adjacent tracts that wo not otherwise exist.
rn
• C.
� 'TYHALL@Sl'�' Department of Community Development
vaile � Planning Division
Proposed Nonconforming Expansion Rules
Chapter 1 .20.0 B (4)
non-conforniing use may be expanded only within the botindar•ies of the original lot
of tract and any adjacent lot or tract, U1 -�1- la"a's tlay- SQ'144ew*,��,t�, yap LIAO. l 04; +,' e t
r r r ti
l - y - r
1 *.
a The expanded use sloes not degrade the transportation level of service gretrter
than the original Lase; and
b The expanded use does not adversely affect or interfere with the Use of
neighboring propeily; and
/ 4 T .
e) -The expansion clues not create additional development opportunities on
adjacent tracts that would not otherwise exist.
Expanding Nonconforming Use Provisions
Cheney May not expand nonconforming use.
Clark County Only within existing structure
Kennewick No provision to expand nonconforming use.
Liberty Lake May not expand use or structure. No additional structures. May not move
use to a portion of lot other than that occupied by such use.
Omak May not enlarge, relocate or rearrange nonconforming uses unless CUP is
granted by Hearing Examiner.
Post Falls May not be expanded or extended in any way.
Richland May not expand use in any way, even in building where use occupies a
portion of the building.
Spokane Some allowance for expanding onto adjacent property not under ownership,
limited to some commercial /industrial zones
Spokane County Expansion discouraged but is possible with CUP approved by Hearing
Examiner.
Vancouver Cannot expand Use outside existing building
May expand nonconforming use one time not to exceed 20% of floor area
Walla Walla or land area which it occupied when use became nonconforming with CUP.
Expansion of an enclosed nonconforming use to land outside the building is
not permitted.
Yakima May expand nonconforming use outside of structure on existing lot w /admin
approval if strict criteria are met.
rn
• C.
� 'TYHALL@Sl'�' Department of Community Development
vaile � Planning Division
Proposed Findings
1.Cornp Plan Consistency
— Inconsistent with intent of Comprehensive Plan to
protect neighborhoods from incompatible uses.
2. Public Health, Safety and Welfare
— Zoning implements Comp Plan and separates
incompatible uses, thereby protecting the general
health, safety and welfare of the community. Propose
amendment does not accomplish this objective.
ne Department of Community DevelopmentD` _
Planning Division
Conclusion and
Recommendation
• Proposal is an uncommon zoning practice
• Change is not consistent with intent of comp
plan to protect neighborhoods
• Renders zoning somewhat meaningless
Therefore;
Planning Commission Recommends Denia
�'TY HALL@Sr r- , <4..F Department of Community Development
Planning Division
Questions?
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: August 10, 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: Motion Consideration: City Manager Selection
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 35A.13.050 "City Manager— Qualifications"
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: On May 4, 2010 Council requested Staff to begin
recruiting to fill the position of City Manager.
BACKGROUND: On June 15, 2010, July 7, 2010, July 14, 2010, July 20, 2010 and July 27,
2010, Council evaluated the qualifications of applicants for the City Manager position.
OPTIONS:
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to authorize Mayor Towey to enter into
contract negotiations with to fill the position of City Manager.
BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS:
STAFF CONTACT: Mayor Tom Towey
ATTACHMENTS: None
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: August 10, 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: Motion Consideration: Interlocal Agreement for Costs Incident to Law
Enforcement Services in the City of Spokane Valley
GOVERNING LEGISLATION:
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: No action to date. Administrative report was provided
to Council on July 20, 2010.
BACKGROUND: The City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, and the Spokane County
Sheriff's Office initiated contract discussions in January, 2010, and concluded negotiations with
a tentative agreement on July 2, 2010. The Interlocal Agreement came to City Council for
review on July 20, 2010 and eventual motion consideration. This agreement combines the Law
Enforcement and Communications Interlocal Agreements which were previously separate
documents.
The proposed agreement provides for greater communication and cooperation between the City
of Spokane Valley, Spokane County and the Spokane County Sheriff's Department. For
example, the City Manger and the Spokane County Sheriff will meet on a quarterly basis to
discuss contract issues of mutual interest. The contract also provides for the setting of
performance measures between the Spokane Valley Police Chief and the City Manager. The
calculation of costs is clearly defined and the city will routinely receive statistics which serve as
the basis of cost calculations. Also, should the City ever find it necessary to reduce law
enforcement costs, the contract clearly defines the processes available to the City to achieve
those reductions.
OPTIONS: 1) Authorize the City Manager to finalize and execute the negotiated law
enforcement and communications agreement, or 2) Direct staff otherwise.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to authorize the City Manager to finalize and
execute the Interlocal Law Enforcement Agreement with Spokane County.
BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The increase to the Law Enforcement Contract from 2009 to
2010 is $1,338,287. The Summary of Cost Increase is as follows Additions to Chargeable
Services $675,715; Cost of Living Allowance and Medical Inflation Escalator $684,078; Change
in Allocation Method ($21,506). The total estimated contract amount for 2010 is $16,540,021.
The City has budgeted $16,581,860 in 2010 for both law enforcement and communications.
STAFF CONTACT: Mike Jackson, Mike Connelly, Morgan Koudelka
ATTACHMENTS: Interlocal Agreement for Costs Incident to Law Enforcement Services in the
City of Spokane Valley
Return to: Daniela Erickson
Clerk of the Board
1115 W. Broadway
Spokane, WA 99260
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
FOR COSTS INCIDENT TO LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES
IN THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into among Spokane County, a political
subdivision of the state of Washington, having offices for the transaction of business at 1116
West Broadway Avenue, Spokane, Washington 99260, hereinafter referred to as
"COUNTY," the Spokane County Sheriff, a separate elected official of Spokane County
having offices for the transaction of business at 1100 West Mallon Avenue, Spokane,
Washington 99260, hereinafter referred to as "SHERIFF" and the City of Spokane Valley,
a municipal corporation of the state of Washington, having offices for the transaction of
business at the Redwood Plaza, 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 106, Spokane Valley,
Washington 99206, hereinafter referred to as "CITY," jointly hereinafter referred to as the
"Parties" and individually referred to as "Party".
COUNTY, SHERIFF and CITY agree as follows.
SECTION NO. 1: RECITALS AND FINDINGS
1.1 Under RCW 36.32.120(6), the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County,
acting on behalf of Spokane County, has the care of County property and the management
of County funds and business.
1.2 Under chapter 39.34 RCW ( "Interlocal Cooperation Act "), public agencies may contract
with each other to perform certain functions which each may legally perform.
1.3 Under chapter 36.28 RCW, the Spokane County Sheriff is the Chief Law Enforcement
Officer and Conservator of the Peace of Spokane County.
1.4 The City of Spokane Valley desires to utilize the services of the Spokane County
Sheriff s Office to provide law enforcement services.
Page 1 of 18
Return to: Daniela Erickson
Clerk of the Board
1115 W. Broadway
Spokane, WA 99260
1.5 The direct and indirect costs for law enforcement services will be set forth in the Law
Enforcement Cost Allocation plan ( "LECAP "), attached hereto as Exhibit "3" and
incorporated herein by this reference.
SECTION NO. 2: DEFINITIONS
2.1 Agreement: "Agreement" means this Interlocal Agreement among Sheriff, City and
County regarding law enforcement services.
2.2 City: "CITY" means the City of Spokane Valley.
2.3 County: " COUNTY' means Spokane County.
2.4 Services: "Services" means those services identified in Exhibit 1.
2.5 Sheriff: "SHERIFF" means the duly elected sheriff of Spokane County possessing
those general duties set forth in chapter 36.28 RCW.
2.6 Uncontrollable Circumstances: "Uncontrollable Circumstances" means the following
events: riots, wars, civil disturbances, insurrections, acts of terrorism, external fires and
floods, volcanic eruptions, lightning or earthquakes at or near where the Services are
performed and /or that directly affect providing of such services.
SECTION NO. 3: PURPOSE
The purpose of this Agreement is to reduce to writing the Parties' understanding as to the
terms and conditions under which SHERIFF will provide Services to CITY. The services
will be consistent with the City's council /manager form of management. RCW 35.A13
SECTION NO. 4: DURATION AND TERMINATION
4.1 Initial term and Renewal. The initial term of this Agreement shall commence as of
12:01 A.M. on January 1, 2010, and run through Midnight, December 31, 2013. Thereafter,
this Agreement shall automatically renew for four -year time frames, unless the termination
process outlined herein is invoked.
4.2 Process for Termination. This Agreement may be terminated by any parry by
providing written notice on or after June 30, 2012 to all other Parties. COUNTY shall
consult with SHERIFF prior to providing written notice of termination under this
subsection. SHERIFF shall consult with COUNTY prior to providing written notice of
termination under this subsection. This termination will be effective (18) eighteen months
Page 2 of 18
after written notice is provided as long as such written notice is provided prior to Midnight
December 31, 2013. The same time intervals for terminations shall apply to future terms if
the termination process is not invoked during the initial contract period.
4.3 Implementation of Termination. When notice of termination is given, SHERIFF and
CITY agree to jointly prepare a Transition Plan.
4.3.1 Transition Plan. The Transition Plan shall identify and address, among other
items (i) personnel issues; (ii) workload; and (iii) on going case assignments. If the
SHERIFF and CITY cannot mutually agree to the terms of the Transition Plan, either
Party can request arbitration as provided in Section No. 18. SHERIFF and CITY
shall equally share the cost of said arbitration
4.3.2 Implementation of Transition Plan. Parties agree to use all best efforts to
create and effectuate a mutual implementation of the Transition Plan.
4.4 Termination of the Agreement - Vehicles and Equipment. At the termination of this
Agreement, CITY shall have the option to purchase, subject to agreement of SHERIFF and
COUNTY, COUNTY -owned vehicles and /or equipment used to provide Services.
4.5 Waiver of Statutory Terms. To the extent that it is applicable to law enforcement
services, the Parties hereby waive the statutory termination rights of RCW 39.34.180(3)
and elect instead to follow these contractual termination procedures as the sole method of
terminating this Agreement, the terms of which are detailed in this subsection.
4.6 Termination of the Agreement and Settle and Adjust. The Parties recognize that
Cost for Services under the Agreement is calculated utilizing the LECAP. The LECAP is
based on actual costs from two years prior to the current contract year. As such, in the
event this Agreement is terminated as provided for in Sub - section 4.2 hereinabove, the
Agreement will be subject to a settle and adjust for the last two years of the term of the
Agreement based upon the LECAP for the two (2) subsequent years after termination. In
the event of termination, the Parties shall follow the process set forth in Section No. 6 to
determine the settle and adjust for each of the last two (2) years of the Agreement as well
as the process to object to the final adjustment determined for each of the last two (2)
years to include dispute resolution as set forth in Subsection 6.67 set forth hereinafter.
SECTION NO. 5: SERVICES
5.1 Services Provided and Service Levels. The Sheriff shall provide those Services set
forth in Exhibit "1" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. CITY may
unilaterally, on an annual basis, adjust the service level FTE's set forth in Category One
of Exhibit "1." Written notice of such an adjustment to Category One shall be provided
by CITY to COUNTY and SHERIFF no later than November 30 with the adjustments
Page 3 of 18
to be effective on Januaryl of the following year. If COUNTY fails to provide the third
quarterly report or changes to the LECAP allocation as set forth in Section 5.2 below,
said notice is required to occur 30 days after this information is provided. Any other
adjustments in Category One services may occur by mutual agreement as set forth in
Section 6.56.
CITY and SHERIFF, by mutual agreement may also adjust the level of service FTE's set
forth in Category Two of Exhibit "1." Such Agreement shall be executed no later than
November 30 preceding the contract year.
Any adjustments in services under this section shall only be operative after relevant
notice and impact bargaining negotiations for reductions in force are satisfied with the
relevant Collective Bargaining Units but in no event shall the delay in implementation
exceed 60 days.
Notwithstanding the above, SHERIFF'S ability to fulfill his statutory obligation to
provide law enforcement services to COUNTY and CITY shall not be limited.
5.2 Periodic Reporting Requirements. SHERIFF shall provide to CITY quarterly
reports, within 30 days from the end of each quarter, that identify statistics used to
calculate CITY'S cost in the LECAP referenced in Section No. 6 below. Those statistics
which are only available to COUNTY on an annual basis shall be provided annually
within 30 days of the end of each calendar year. However, records and property room
statistics shall be provided within 15 days after they are provided by CITY. These
reports will allow CITY to monitor service consumption and cost accrual throughout the
year.
COUNTY will fuf4wf�- provide to CITY any changes in the allocation of law enforcement
services set forth in the adopted LECAP " as
defined in Section 6.3
SECTION NO. 6: COST OF SERVICES
6.1 Basis. Cost for services shall be based upon the Law Enforcement Cost Allocation
Plan (LECAP) as previously identified and incorporated herein.
6.2 Methodology. Costs for Services will be calculated utilizing the Cost Calculation
Model (CCM) as shown in Exhibit "2" which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by
reference.
6.3 COCAP and LECAP. Once the Countywide Cost Allocation Plan (" COCAP" ) and
LECAP are finalized, no changes will be made to any department cost or allocation basis
until the following year other than as indicated in the MID -YEAR FULL TIME
Page 4 of 18
EQUIVALENT FTE ADJUSTMENTS defined in sub - section 6.7 Each year,
departments within the Sheriff's Office will be reviewed to determine if the costs are
being appropriately allocated. Each allocation basis will be reviewed to determine if it is
the best basis for allocating the costs. Any changes in allocating department costs or
changes in allocation basis will be provided to CITY with explanations for any deviation
from the initial plan no later than the end of the third quarter. Both the COCAP and the
LECAP will be prepared in accordance with OMB—U.S. Office of Management and
Budget Circular A -87. 14oweve-F, t, The LECAP referenced herein shall not contain
COUNTY costs as set forth in 'Category Four of Exhibit "1" and further the
COCAP shall not contain COUNTY costs for treasurer tax collections.
The COCAP and the LECAP will be completed by September 30th of each year for
determining the actual costs for the prior year. For example, the actual cost for the
calendar year 2009 would be completed by September 30, 2010.
6.4 CCM. Costs for Services shall be calculated utilizing the LECAP. The LECAP will be
based on actual costs.
1..00 —_e— _ J e__ two J e__ _ _____e_ _— _ to the J e__ of _ the __— .
The model based on the LECAP costs from two years prior will estimate costs for the
current agreement year. The Per Commissioned Officer Rate as well as the dollar amount
for Other Allocations for the contract year will be multiplied by (1) any cost of living or
wage change(s) granted commissioned deputies under any collective bargaining agreement
for the calendar year immediately following the LECAP year; and by (2) a 1.25%
multiplier for the calendar year immediately following the LECAP year; and by (3) any cost
of living or wage change(s) granted commissioned deputies under any collective bargaining
agreement for the calendar year two years subsequent to the LECAP year; and by (4) a
1.25% multiplier for the calendar year two years subsequent to the LECAP year.
After generating the Per Commissioned Officer rate for the interlocal agreement year using
the Commissioned Officer Worksheet (Exhibit "1 "), the number of Category One and
Category tTwo officers will be updated to reflect current year staffmg levels. The total
contract costs then will be automatically calculated. This model can also be used for any
MID -YEAR FULL TIME EQUIVALENT (FTE) ADJUSTMENTS. The CCM shall be
provided by COUNTY to CITY by September 30 for the following year.
6.5 Retro- Active Salary Adjustments. Should any applicable bargaining agreement not
be settled in time to include any salary adjustments granted commissioned deputies under
any collective bargaining agreement in the contract calculation model for a given year, and
that collective bargaining agreement is settled during that year, and the settlement contains a
retroactive salary adjustment, COUNTY will bill CITY for the full amount of CITY'Ss
portion of the retroactive payment. CITY will be responsible for paying COUNTY within
thirty (30) days of the billing date. Additionally, COUNTY will recalculate the estimated
Page 5 of 18
Interlocal Agreement amount employing the cost of living or wage increase(s) granted
commissioned deputies under any collective bargaining agreement and adjust the remaining
monthly payments.
6.6 Mid -Year Full Time Equivalent (FTE) Adjustments. In the event the Parties
negotiate a change in full time positions, mid -year, such change, for purposes of
calculating costs under the LECAP, can occur only once during any interlocal agreement
year and in any event no later than August 30th of such year. Additionally, COUNTY
will recalculate the estimated interlocal agreement amount and adjust the remaining
monthly payments. Any reduction would become operative only after the relevant notice
and impact bargaining obligations for reductions in force are satisfied with the effected
Collective Bargaining unit but in no event shall the delay in implementation exceed 60
days.
6.7 Settle and Adjust. The LECAP will be used to reconcile the
een actual Agreement cost for the year for which it is calculated to the
amount the CITY paid the County during that same year as set forth in Section 6.9 After
completing the Cost Calculation Model for the current aAgreement year, any overage or
underage from the settle and adjust will be applied to the total amount. This combined
figure will follow the billing procedure.
COUNTY shall provide CITY with its final adjustment in writing no later than September
30th of any calendar year. The adjustment will include a copy of the full LECAP. CITY
will have thirty (30) calendar days from its receipt of the written adjustment to provide
COUNTY with any written objections to the amounts set forth therein. COUNTY agrees to
consider all written objections received from CITY and reply to CITY no later than fifteen
(15) calendar days of receipt of CITY'S objections. In the event that the Parties cannot
mutually resolve any written objections(s) submitted by CITY within an additional fifteen
(15) calendar day time frame, or such other time frame as the Parties may mutually agree to,
the objections shall be resolved pursuant to the Dispute Resolution provisions set forth in
Section No. 18.
6.8 Capital Purchases. Capital items deemed necessary for all commissioned officers,
excluding vehicles, with a cost greater than COUNTY capital threshold (currently
$2,000) and less than $10,000, as well as capital items with a cost equal to or greater than
$50,000, will be billed to CITY at the time of purchase contingent upon prior CITY
authorization. CITY will be billed according to CITY'S current usage percentage of the
items. COUNTY will bill CITY for this cost at the time of the purchase and payment
will be due within 30 days of the billing date. After the LECAP is completed for the year
of the purchase(s), COUNTY will give CITY credit for the full amount paid in that year.
All capital items purchased will become the property of COUNTY. Capital items that
have been purchased with grant funds by either CITY or COUNTY, or other funding
Page 6 of 18
sources, and capital items that are not utilized in providing law enforcement service to
CITY, will not be charged to CITY. All capital items that are utilized in providing law
enforcement service to CITY and that were not purchased with other funding sources will
be incorporated as fixed assets in the COCAP4 and
reimbursed through depreciation. The COCAP is a cost within the LECAP.
6.9 Billing Procedure. COUNTY will bill CITY for one - twelfth of COUNTY'S calculated
contract amount as determined in contract calculation model during the first week of the
month. Regular monthly payments by CITY will be due by the end of the month in which
they are billed.
6.10 Penalty. At the sole option of COUNTY, a penalty may be assessed on any late
payment of the monthly calculated contract amount owed by CITY in an amount equal to
lost interest earnings had the payment been timely paid and invested in the Spokane County
Treasurer's Investment Pool.
Any resolution of a disputed amount through use of the arbitration process identified in
Section No. 18 shall include at the request of any Party, a determination of whether
interest is appropriate, including the amount.
SECTION NO. 7: MUNICIPAL POLICE AUTHORITY
CITY shall retain all police powers and by virtue of this Agreement CITY confers
municipal police authority on the SHERIFF.
SECTION NO. 8:
HIRING.
OFFICER ASSIGNMENT, RETENTION, DISCIPLINE AND
COUNTY is acting hereunder as an independent contractor as to:
8.1 Hiring. The SHERIFF shall hire, assign, retain and discipline all employees /deputies
according to the collective bargaining agreement, civil service rules, and state and federal
laws.
8.2 Standards of Performance Governed by the SHERIFF. Control of personnel,
standards of performance, discipline and all other aspects of performance shall be governed
by the SHERIFF. Provided, however that only qualified, trained personnel meeting all of
the requirements of applicable state laws or regulations shall be utilized in the performance
of Services.
8.3 Assignment of Deputies. SHERIFF shall use, whenever possible, deputies who
volunteer for duty within CITY. In those instances where there are an insufficient number
of deputies who volunteer for duty within CITY, then SHERIFF shall determine who shall
Page 7 of 18
be assigned for duty. SHERIFF and CITY will work together to encourage deputy retention
to provide continuity of service.
8.4 Patrol Districts. CITY' ,Ss Police Chief will establish patrol districts within CITY in
order to assure accurate collection of data related to criminal traffic activity. The patrol
districts will coincide within CITY limits as closely as possible without compromising
efficient use of reactive patrol deputies. A patrol district is a geographical area of a size and
configuration designed to minimize response times to citizen's calls for services. Response
is typically measured from the time a call is received to the time the unit arrives on the
scene.
8.5 Dedicated Patrol Units. SHERIFF recognizes that it is providing sworn police
services dedicated to CITY. In so doing, the law enforcement services shall be dedicated
to CITY and shall not be used elsewhere within COUNTY. Provided however, in the
event of an emergency or a call by a deputy for assistance, mutual aid may be rendered.
SECTION NO. 9: CITY POLICE CHIEF AND PRECINCT COMMANDER
SELECTION, REMOVAL AND DUTIES, AS WELL AS CITY MANAGER'S
RESPONSIBILITIES THERETO.
9.1 Selection of Police Chief or Precinct Commander. When, for any reason, there
occurs a vacancy in the position of Police Chief or Precinct Commander, the SHERIFF
shall designate three or more SHERIFF Deputies of the rank of Lieutenant or higher, or
as otherwise agreed by the parties, as candidates for each of the positions of CITY Police
Chief or Precinct Commander. The positions of Police Chief or Precinct Commander
shall be appointed from said lists of qualified candidates by the City Manager.
9.2 Removal of Police Chief or Precinct Commander.
9.2.1 Removal by SHERIFF. The SHERIFF may remove the Police Chief or
Precinct Commander at any time after consultation with the City Manager.
9.2.2 Removal By City Manager. The SHERIFF shall remove the Police Chief
or Precinct Commander at any time after the written request and consultation of
the City Manager.
9.2.3 Reduction of Precinct Commander's Rank Due to Economic Conditions.
A reduction in Sheriff's Office Civil Service Rank due to economic necessity shall
not be the sole basis for the removal of the appointed Precinct Commander by
either the City Manager or the SHERIFF.
9.3 Duties of Police Chief. The Police Chief shall report to the City Manager or his /her
designee and to the existing command structure within SHERIFF's O ffice .
Page 8 of 18
The duties of the Police Chief shall include:
9.3.1 Working with the City Manager or his /her designee to establish goals,
objectives and performance measures for CITY police services which reflect specific
needs within CITY;
9.3.2 Coordinating police activities within CITY, including hours of operation and
CITY specific protocols and procedures, attending meetings and providing reports as
requested by the City Manager and such other duties common to a City Police Chief
including enforcement of CITY codes and ordinances;
9.3.3 Reviewing the performance of deputies assigned to CITY. Reporting to CITY
Manager or his /her designee and SHERIFF any serious recommendations for
performance improvement;
9.3.4 Identify duties of deputies assigned to CITY as specific needs arise or as
requested by the City Manager or his/her designee within the context of established
policies and procedures. Reporting to SHERIFF any changes in duty of CITY
assigned deputies;
9.3.5 Overseeing implementation within CITY of all SHERIFF policies and
procedures. Maintaining a copy of SHERIFF procedures on file at City Hall for
CITY'S reference. SHERIFF shall be notified of any public disclosure requests to
view or obtain a copy of the policies and procedures on file.
9.3.6 Notifying the City Manager or his /her designee of any change in SHERIFF
procedures or policies, or resource as permitted by this agreement;
9.3.7 Identifying areas of supplemental training for deputies assigned to CITY.
Making recommendations to SHERIFF for supplemental training. Making
recommendations to the City Manager or his /her designee for training not provided
by SHERIFF;
9.3.8 Providing supervision and direction to the Precinct Commander, Lieutenants
and Sergeants assigned to CITY as well as other assigned personnel, and acting as
liaison with SHERIFF Command Staff,
9.3.9 Maintaining communication between the City Manager and SHERIFF
command structures to ensure that changes in SHERIFF policies are agreeable to
CITY and that change in CITY policies are agreeable to SHERIFF. In the event a
CITY procedure, policy, goal or operation differs from the SHERIFF'S, CITY
Page 9 of 18
Manager or his /her designee, SHERIFF and COUNTY shall meet and mutually
determine which policy will prevail; and
9.3.10 Notifying the City Manager or his /her designee of any significant criminal
occurrence or civil emergency within CITY or Region that would impact the public
safety or operations of CITY.
9.4 Duties of the Precinct Commander. The Precinct Commander shall act as Chief in
his/her absence and under the Chief as CITY Police Department's primary administrative
assistant.
9.5 Duties of the City Manager. The City Manager or his/her designee shall have the
responsibility of providing general direction and supervision to the assigned Police Chief
relative to the furnishing of law enforcement services to CITY as set forth in chapter 35A.13
RCW and the terms of this Agreement.
9.6 Quarterly Meetings - Sheriff and City Manager. The SHERIFF and the City
Manager shall meet on a quarterly basis to ensure regular communication and to seek
joint consideration of all matters of concern regarding the law enforcement Agreement.
Either party may invite representatives from their respective organizations to attend. It is
intended that the Parties in these meetings review the Interlocal Agreement and discuss
matters of mutual interest; monitor cost trends, work jointly on potential cost savings,
revenue sources and other budgetary matters that may impact service levels; seek long-
term sustainability of contract terms; consider changes in labor contracts, allocation of
resources or other potential cost changes and changes to the cost allocation plan that may
impact either parry. The dates of these meetings will be determined by mutual agreement
but should coincide with the budget cycles of each party.
9.7 Quarterly meeting — Financial Representatives. Representatives for CITY and
COUNTY shall meet quarterly to discuss potential cost changes and changes to the
COCAP, the LECAP or the CCM.
SECTION NO. 10: OBSERVATION OF LABOR NEGOTIATIONS
CITY may participate with other cities that contract with COUNTY for law enforcement
services to select no more than two (2) representatives from the contracting cities to observe
labor negotiations between COUNTY, SHERIFF and the Collective Bargaining units
representing the employees of the SHERIFF, provided that such observers adhere to rules
established by COUNTY, the SHERIFF and the bargaining units for the negotiations.
SECTION NO. 11: PROPERTY, EQUIPMENT AND TRAINING
Page 10 of 18
11.1 Ownership of Property and Equipment. The ownership of all property and
equipment utilized in association with either SHERIFF or CITY meeting their
responsibilities under the terms of this Agreement, shall remain with the original owner at
all times to include termination, unless otherwise specifically and mutually agreed upon in
writing by the Parties to this Agreement.
11.2 Stationery, Notices and Forms. CITY shall supply at its own cost and expense
any special supplies, logos or patches, stationery, notices, forms where such must be
issued in the name of CITY.
11.3 Additional Technology. CITY desires to maintain a police force that is trained
and equipped with the latest technology. SHERIFF agrees to provide police service
personnel providing services under this agreement that are trained and equipped with
such technology as is customarily provided to deputies providing law enforcement
services in the unincorporated areas of Spokane County. Any technology not currently in
use or not customarily provided to patrol deputies, may be requested by CITY or
SHERIFF. Parties agree to meet and confer over the need for the acquisition, training, or
use of new technology with the final decision regarding the acquisition and use of new
technology resting solely with the SHERIFF so long as CITY and COUNTY have the
necessary financial resources to acquire such technology and train deputies in its use.
Such costs shall be incorporated into the LECAP.
11.4 Training. CITY has indicated that it may desire to have the deputies providing
Services to CITY under the terms of this Agreement attend additional or supplemental
training. The SHERIFF agrees not to unreasonably withhold approval of any written
request(s) by CITY for deputies providing Services under the terms of this Agreement to
attend additional or supplemental training. The SHERIFF may also require staff assigned
to provide Services to CITY under the terms of this Agreement to participate in necessary
state and federal training and conferences that focus on the prevention of crime and the
protection of CITY'S citizens. The costs of any additional or supplemental training
requested by CITY under this section and approved by the SHERIFF, or determined
necessary by the SHERIFF shall be born solely by CITY.
11.5 Police Department Building, Maintenance, and Janitorial. CITY will provide
offices, to include sufficient parking, for the City of Spokane Valley Police Department
located at 12710 E. Sprague Avenue, City of Spokane Valley, 99216 or at such other
location mutually agreed to between the CITY and SHERIFF. CITY shall provide all
operation, maintenance and janitorial services for said offices.
SECTION NO. 12: COMMUNITY IDENTITY
12.1 Patrol Vehicles. Patrol vehicles that are assigned to CITY may display the color,
identification and other logo of CITY at CITY' ,Ss sole expense. Additionally, the vehicles
Page 11 of 18
will indicate that they are SHERIFF vehicles. SHERIFF and CITY will determine the form
of identification jointly.
12.2 Uniform. SHERIFF maintains a uniform directed by state law. It is a uniform that
carries a great deal of pride. CITY recognizes that the assigned personnel will retain the
uniform of the Spokane County Sheriff's Office; however, SHERIFF agrees that assigned
personnel may wear additional identification in the nature of a pin, patch, uniform items, or
other like identification indicating affiliation with CITY. The nature and design of any
additional identification will be determined jointly by SHERIFF and CITY and provided to
SHERIFF by CITY at CITY' -Ss sole expense.
SECTION NO. 13: RECORDS
All records prepared, owned, used or retained by COUNTY or SHERIFF in conjunction
with providing Services under the terms of this Agreement shall be deemed COUNTY
property and shall be made available to CITY upon request by the City Manager subject to
the records retention schedule set forth by the Washington State Secretary of State, the
attorney client and attorney work product privileges set forth in statute, court rule or case
law. The Parties agree to cooperate in complying with the provisions of Chapter 42.56
RCW.
SECTION NO. 14: UNCONTROLLABLE CIRCUMSTANCES /IMPOSSIBILITY
A delay or interruption in or failure of performance of all or any part of this Agreement
resulting from uncontrollable circumstances shall be deemed not a default under this
Agreement.
A delay or interruption in or failure of performance of all or any part of this Agreement
resulting from any change in or new law, order, rule or regulation of any nature which
renders providing of services in accordance with the terms of this Agreement legally
impossible, and any other circumstances beyond the control of the SHERIFF, which
render legally impossible the performance by the SHERIFF of its obligations under this
Agreement, shall be deemed not a default under this Agreement.
SECTION NO. 15: RELATIONSHIP OF THE PARTIES
For the purpose of this section, the terminology "COUNTY" shall also include SHERIFF.
The Parties intend that an independent contractor relationship will be created by this
Agreement. COUNTY shall be an independent contractor and not the agent or employee of
CITY, that CITY is interested only in the results to be achieved and that the right to control
the particular manner, method and means in which the Services are performed is solely
within the discretion of the SHERIFF. Any and all employees who provide services to
CITY under this Agreement shall be deemed employees solely of the SHERIFF. The
Page 12 of 18
SHERIFF shall be solely responsible for the conduct and actions of all employees under this
Agreement and any liability that may attach thereto. Likewise, no agent, employee, servant
or representative of CITY shall be deemed to be an employee, agent, servant or
representative of the SHERIFF or COUNTY for any purpose.
SECTION NO. 16: LIABILITY
For the purpose of this Section, the tenninology "COUNTY" shall also include the
"PROSECUTING ATTORNEY."
(a) COUNTY shall indemnify and hold harmless CITY and its officers, agents, and
employees, from any and all claims, actions, suits, liability, loss, costs, expenses, and
damages of any nature whatsoever, by any reason of or arising out of any negligent act or
omission of COUNTY, its officers, agents and employees, relating to or arising out of
performing services pursuant to this Agreement. In the event that any suit based upon such
claim, action, loss, or damages is brought against CITY, COUNTY shall defend the same at
its sole cost and expense and if final judgment in said suit be rendered against CITY, and its
officers, agents, and employees, or jointly against CITY and COUNTY and their respective
officers, agents, and employees, COUNTY shall satisfy the same.
(b) CITY shall indemnify and hold harmless COUNTY and its officers, agents, and
employees, from any and all claims, actions, suits, liability, loss, costs, expenses, and
damages of any nature whatsoever, by any reason of or arising out of any negligent act or
omission of CITY, its officers, agents and employees, relating to or arising out of
performing Services pursuant to this Agreement. In the event that any suit based upon such
claim, action, loss, or damages is brought against COUNTY, CITY shall defend the same at
its sole cost and expense and if final judgment in said suit be rendered against COUNTY,
and its officers, agents, and employees, or jointly against COUNTY and CITY and their
respective officers, agents, and employees, CITY shall satisfy the same.
(c) If the comparative negligence of the Parties and their officers and employees is a
cause of such damage or injury, the liability, loss, cost, or expense shall be shared
between the Parties in proportion to their relative degree of negligence and the right of
indemnity shall apply to such proportion.
(d) Where an officer or employee of a Party is acting under the direction and control of
the other Party, the Party directing and controlling the officer or employee in the activity
and /or omission giving rise to liability shall accept all liability for the other Party's
officer or employee's negligence.
(e) Each Party's duty to nidemify shall survive the termination or expiration of the
Agreement.
Page 13 of 18
(f) The foregoing indemnity is specifically intended to constitute a waiver of each Party's
immunity under Washington's Industrial Insurance Act, chapter 51 RCW, respecting the
other party only, and only to the extent necessary to provide the indemnified Party with a
full and complete indemnity of claims made by the indemnitor's employees. The Parties
acknowledge that these provisions were specifically negotiated and agreed upon by them.
(g) COUNTY and CITY agree to either self insure or purchase polices of insurance
covering the matters contained in this Agreement with coverages of not less than
$5,000,000 per occurrence with $5,000,000 aggregate limits including professional liability
and auto.
SECTION NO. 17: INITIATIVES AND LOCAL BUDGET REDUCTIONS
The Parties recognize that revenue - reducing initiative(s) passed by the voters of Washington
and /or local revenue reductions (i.e. loss of sales tax) and/or local government mandates
may substantially reduce local operating revenue for CITY, COUNTY or both Parties. The
Parties agree that it is necessary to have flexibility to reduce the contracted amount(s) in this
Agreement in response to budget constraints resulting from the passage of State -wide
revenue - reducing initiative(s) and /or local revenue reductions and /or local government
mandates. If such an event occurs, the Parties agree to negotiate in good faith to achieve a
mutually agreeable resolution in a timely fashion.
SECTION NO. 18: DISPUTE RESOLUTION
Any dispute regarding the interpretation of, failure to perform, or the costs for services
assessed under the terms of this agreement between the SHERIFF, COUNTY or CITY
which cannot be resolved between the respective parties shall be subject to arbitration.
Except as provided for to the contrary herein, such dispute shall first be reduced to writing
and considered by the COUNTY CEO ( "Chief Executive Officer ") and the City Manager if
it is a monetary dispute. If it is a non - monetary dispute, it shall be reduced to writing and
considered by the SHERIFF and City Manager. If the COUNTY CEO or SHERIFF
respectively and the City Manager cannot resolve the dispute it will be submitted to
arbitration.
COUNTY or SHERIFF, respectively, and CITY shall have the right to designate one person
each to act as an arbitrator. The two selected arbitrators shall then jointly select a third
arbitrator. The decision of the arbitration panel shall be binding on the Parties and shall be
subject to judicial review as provided for in chapter 7.04A RCW.
The costs of the arbitration panel shall be equally split between the respective Parties.
Page 14 of 18
SECTION NO. 19: ASSIGNMENT
No party may assign in whole or part its interest in this Agreement without the written
approval of the other Parties. Nothing in this section shall prohibit COUNTY or SHERIFF
from contracting with third parties for services provided for in this Agreement.
SECTION NO. 20: NOTICES
All notices called for or provided for in this Agreement shall be in writing and must be
served on any of the Parties either personally or by certified mail, return- receipt requested,
sent to the Parties at their respective addresses herein above given. Notices sent by certified
mail shall be deemed served when deposited in the United States mail, postage prepaid.
SECTION NO. 21: VENUE STIPULATION
This Agreement has been and shall be construed as having been made and delivered
within the State of Washington and it is mutually understood and agreed by each Party
that this Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Washington, both as to
interpretation and performance. Any action at law, suit in equity or judicial proceeding for
the enforcement of this Agreement, or any provision hereto, shall be instituted only in courts
of competent jurisdiction within Spokane County, Washington.
SECTION NO. 22: COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS
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.
SECTION NO. 23: DISCLAIMER
Except as otherwise provided, this Agreement shall not be construed in any manner that
would limit either Party's authority or powers under law.
SECTION NO. 24: HEADINGS
The Section and subsection headings appearing in this Agreement have been inserted solely
for the purpose of convenience and ready reference. In no way do they purport to, and shall
not be deemed to, define, limit or extend the scope or intent of the sections to which they
pertain.
SECTION NO. 25: ALL WRITINGS CONTAINED HEREIN
This Agreement contains all the terins and conditions agreed upon by the Parties. No other
understandings, oral or otherwise, regarding the subject matter of this Agreement shall be
Page 15 of 18
deemed to exist or to bind any of the Parties. Parties have read and understand the whole of
the above Agreement and now state that no representations, promises or agreements not
expressed in this Agreement have been made to induce either to execute the same.
SECTION NO. 26: COUNTERPARTS
This Agreement may be executed in any number of multiple signed originals, each of
which, when so executed and delivered, shall be an original, but such counterparts shall
together constitute but one and the same.
SECTION NO. 27: AGREEMENT TO BE FILED
COUNTY shall file this Agreement with such offices or agencies as required by chapter
3 9.3 4 RCW.
SECTION NO. 28: TIME OF ESSENCE OF AGREEMENT
Time is of the essence of this Agreement and in case any Party fails to perform the
obligations on its part to be performed at the time fixed for the performance of the
respective obligation by the terms of this Agreement, the other respective Party may, at
its election, hold the other Party liable for all costs and damages caused by such delay.
SECTION NO. 29: CHAPTER 39.34 RCW REQUIRED CLAUSES
A. Purpose See Section No. 3 above.
B. Agreement to be Filed. See Section No. 27 above.
C. Duration. See Section No. 4 above.
D. Termination See Section No. 4 above.
E. Organization of Separate Entity and Its Powers No new or separate legal or
administrative entity is created to administer the provisions of this
Agreement.
F. Responsibilities of the Parties. See applicable Sections within Agreement.
G. Property upon Termination. See Section Nos. 4.4 and I I above.
Page 16 of 18
SECTION NO. 30: SEVERABILITY
The Parties agree that if any parts, terms or provisions of this Agreement are held by the
courts to be illegal, the validity of the remaining portions or provisions shall not be affected
and the rights and obligations of the Parties shall not be affected in regard to the remainder
of the Agreement. If it should appear that any part, term or provision of this Agreement is
in conflict with any statutory provision of the State of Washington, then the part, term or
provision thereof that may be in conflict shall be deemed inoperative and null and void
insofar as it may be in conflict therewith and this Agreement shall be deemed to modify to
conform to such statutory provision.
SECTION NO. 31: THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES.
This Agreement is intended for the benefit of COUNTY, CITY and SHERIFF and not for
the benefit of any third parties.
SECTION NO. 32. SURVIVAL
Without being exclusive, Section 16, 20, and 21 of this Agreement shall survive any
termination, expiration or determination of invalidity of this Agreement in whole or in
part. Any other Sections of this Agreement which, by their sense and context, are
intended to survive shall also survive.
SECTION NO. 33. MEDIA RELEASES
Media releases concerning law enforcement activities covered under this Agreement will
be prepared by the SHERIFF'S Public Information Officer. Any such release of
information to the media that is deemed to be sensitive or likely to cause concern or
alarm shall be provided to the City Manager before its release. CITY shall not issue any
media releases regarding law enforcement activities covered under this Agreement
without prior approval of the SHERIFF unless otherwise agreed by the Parties.
SECTION NO. 34: MODIFICATION
This Agreement may only be modified in writing by the mutual written agreement of the
Parties.
(This space intentionally left blank.)
Page 17 of 18
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Agreement to be executed on the
date and year opposite their respective signatures.
DATED:
ATTEST:
CLERK OF THE BOARD
:•
DANIELA ERICKSON
DATED:
DATED:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
MARK RICHARD, Chair
BONNIE MAGER, Vice -Chair
TODD MIELKE, Commissioner
SPOKANE COUNTY SHERIFF:
OZZIE KNEZOVICH
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY:
MIKE JACKSON, Interim City Manager
Attest:
Truer r 7-140 PSWn CHRISTINE BAINBRIDGE
City Fi .,,.° Pifee. E) Clerk
Approved as to form only:
MIKE ("lIATNE 7 vOffice of the
City Attorney
Page 18 of 18
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: August 10, 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 : Motion Consideration: Set Public Hearings for 2011 Budget
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: State budget law
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: None
BACKGROUND: State law requires the city council to set two public hearings to review the
2011 City Budget.
OPTIONS: The City usually schedules public hearings on regular council meeting nights
(second and fourth Tuesdays). Staff suggests September 14 and September 28 as the two
nights for 2011 budget hearings. Other dates could be selected but these two would keep us on
schedule to adopt our budget on October 12.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to set the 2011 Budget hearings for
September 14 and September 28, 2010.
BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Once the budget is adopted, this will be the city budget for
2011.
STAFF CONTACT: Ken Thompson, Finance Director
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: August 10, 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: Estimated 2011 revenues and expenses.
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: State budget law
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: No formal council action has been taken on the 2011
budget. A proposed budget is being reviewed by the City Manager. The City Manager is
expected to present his preliminary budget to the council on August 31.
BACKGROUND: This is a first touch towards three public hearings beginning on August 24,
2010. Three public hearings are planned to gather input from citizens
Each year staff prepares estimates of proposed revenues and expenditures for the coming year.
These estimates will be presented to the City Council at a public hearing on Aug. 24. State
budget law requires we make our projections known and conduct a public hearing to consider
input from the public. Special mention is required of the property tax levy. The comparison
below reflects the 2010, and estimated 2011 property tax levies. The tax rate is expected to be
near $1.54 /thousand dollars of assessed value with an assessed value near $7.1 billion.
2010 2011
Prop. tax levy $10,799,500 $10,700,000
These 2011 estimates reflect a decrease in the dollars levied of $99,500 (1 %) below 2010. The
City's actual 2011 levy may be more or less than shown. Other significant changes in General
Fund budgeted revenue estimates include an estimated decrease in sales tax receipts of
$400,000. State shared revenue and fines and forfeitures are projected to increase $200,000
each.
Total General fund expenditures are expected to be down in 2011 because of reductions in
most departments brought about by a 3% reduction in the 2010 operating budget and the
removal of funding in the 2011 budget for vacant positions. Additional details will be available at
the August 24 public hearing.
OPTIONS: State law requires a hearing on 2011 estimated revenues and expenditures. The
hearing is scheduled for August 24.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: No action is needed at this time.
BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: This information will be incorporated into the 2011 city
budget and may be modified prior to budget adoption
STAFF CONTACT: Ken Thompson, Finance Director
City of Spokane Valley
Proposed Budget - Draft
2011
001 - General Fund
General Fund Resources:
Beginning Balance
Property Tax
Sales Tax
Gambling Tax
Franchise Fees /Business Registration
Service Revenues
State Shared Revenues
Fines and Forfeitures
Recreation Program Fees
Miscellaneous & Investment Interest
Transfers
Total General Fund Resources
2011
2009 2010 Proposed
Actuals * Budget Budget
$ 21.672,870
$ 19,375.000
$ 24,600,000
10, 475, 751
10, 969, 500
10, 875, 000
16,317,067
16,600,000
16,200,000
735,712
425,000
425,000
1.054,275
1,100.000
1.111,000
1,638,876
1,500,000
1,600,000
1,705,156
1,450,000
1,665,625
1,841,894
1,600,000
1,800,000
625,290
650,000
555,500
372,754
561,350
200,000
429,300
310,000
55,000
$ 56,868,944 $ 54,540,850 $ 59,087,125
Legislative Branch
$
295,392
$
322,120 $
Executive and Legislative Support
$
969,576
$
1,063,842 $
Public Safety
$
20,538,206
$
22,062,268 $
Deputy City Manager
$
574,654
$
620,574 $
Finance
$
1.016,222
$
1,023.373 $
Human Resources
$
179,971
$
248,435 $
Public Works
$
672.267
$
893,793 $
Community Development Admin
$
355,268
$
323,205 $
Engineering
$
663,210
$
791,719 $
Planning
$
1,026,461
$
1,124,206 $
Building
$
1,058,714
$
1,313,320 $
Library
$
1,910
$
- $
Parks & Rec. Admin. & Maint.
$
899,851
$
987,556 $
Recreation
$
181,217
$
237,846 $
Aquatics
$
352,518
$
422,550 $
Senior Center
$
74,902
$
85,503 $
CenterPlace
$
1.135,822
$
1,192.578 $
General Government
$
2,265.659
$
2,664,244 $
Subtotal Expenditures
$
32,261,819
$
35,377,132 $
Add Ending Fund Balance
$
24,462,207
$
19,163,718 $
Total General Fund Expenditures $ 56,724.026 $ 54,540,850 $
324,298
954,907
22,179,879
624,771
950,261
240,500
899,830
324,550
672,269
1,068,529
1,219,845
951,829
246,628
429,250
89,653
1,098,912
2,599,750
34,875,661
24,211,464
59,087,125
8/5/2010 2:52 PM 1
101 - Street Fund Beginning Fund Balance
Street Fund Revenues
Property Taxes
Motor Fuel (Gas) Tax
Interfund Interest
Investment Interest
Interfund Transfers
Insurance Premiums & Recoveries
Utility Tax
Miscellaneous Revenue
Total Street Fund Revenues
Street Fund Expenditures
Salaries, Wages, & Benefits
Supplies
Services & Charges
Intergovernmental Payments
Interfund Transfers
Capital Outlay
Ending Fund Balance
Total Street Fund Expenditures
Street Fund Estimated Fund Balance
102 - Arterial Street Fund Beginning Fund Balance
Arterial Street Fund Revenues
Motor Fuel (Gas) Tax
Investment Interest
Transfer from CDBG Fund
Total Arterial Street Revenues
Arterial Street Fund Expenditures
Capital Outlay
Interfund Transfers
Total Arterial Street Fund Expenditures
Arterial Street Estimated Fund Balance
City of Spokane Valley
Proposed Budget - Draft
2011
2011
2009 2010 Proposed
Actuals * Budget Budget
$ 1.617,254 $ 1,777.000 $ 2.155,050
$ 36 $ -
$ 2,018,694 $ 1,900,000 1,875,000
$ 10,895 $ 10,000 12,000
$ - $ 200,000
$ 3,054,472 $ 2,800,000 3,000,000
$ 122,076 $ 712,050 -
$ 5,206,173 $ 5,622,050 4,887,000
$ 345,839
$
455,868
358,358
$ 45,939
$
69,200
72,200
$ 2,324,994
$
3,822,296
3,804,697
$ 1,487,599
$
947,000
947,000
$ 414,300
$
77,900
33,300
$ 294,193
$
762,050
10,604
$ 4.912,864
$
6,134,314
5,226,159
$ 1,910,563
$
1,264,736 $
1,815,891
$ 360,806 $
310,704
310,704
$ 50,102 $ $
8/5/2010 2:52 PM 2
City of Spokane Valley
Proposed Budget - Draft
2011
103 - Trails & Paths Beginning Fund Balance
Trails & Paths Revenues
Motor Fuel (Gas) Tax - Street Transfer
Transfer from Street Fund
Investment Interest
Total Trails & Paths Revenues
Trails & Paths Expenditures
IF Transfer for Trails /Paths Cap Prj
Capital Outlay
Total Trails & Paths Expenditures
Trails & Paths Estimated Fund Balance
105 - Hotel /Motel Beginning Fund Balance
Hotel /Motel Revenues
Hotel /Motel Tax
Investment Interest
Total Hotel /Motel Revenues
Hotel /Motel Expenditures
Interfund Transfers
Tourism Promotion
Total Hotel /Motel Expenditures
Hotel /Motel Estimated Fund Balance
2011
2009 2010 Proposed
Actuals Budget Budget
$ 32,420 $ 40,000
8,246 8,000 8,000
8,246 8,000 8,000
8,000 20,000
- 8,000 20,000
$ 40,666 $ - $ 28,000
$ 258,891 $
19,000 $
19,000
$ 423,978
380,000
400,000
$ 1,893
1,000
1,000
2,391
3,000
3,000
$ 425,871
381,000
401,000
$ 462,165 400,000 420,000
462,165 400,000 420,000
$ 222,597 $ - $ -
120 - CenterPlace Operating Reserve Beg Fund Balance
$ 346.794 $
347,000 $
350,000
CenterPlace Operating Reserve Revenues
Investment Interest
2,391
3,000
3,000
Interfund Transfer
-
-
-
Total CenterPlace Operating Reserve Revenues
2,391
3,000
3,000
CenterPlace Operating Reserve Expenditures
Reserve for CenterPlace Operations
-
Total CenterPlace Operating Reserve Expenditures
-
-
-
CenterPlace Operating Reserve Estimated Fund Balance
$ 349,185 $
350,000 $
353,000
8/5/2010 2:52 PM 3
City of Spokane Valley
Proposed Budget - Draft
2011
121 - Service Level Stabilization Reserve Beg Fund Balance
Service Level Stabilization Reserve Revenues
Investment Interest
Interfund Transfer
Total Service Level Stabilization Reserve Revenues
Service Level Stabilization Reserve Expenditures
Transfers to Gen. Fund
Total Service Level Stabilization Reserve Expenditures
Service Level Stabilization Reserve Est. Fund Balance
122 - Winter Weather Reserve Beg Fund Balance
Winter Weather Reserve Revenues
Investment Interest
Interfund Transfer
Total Winter Weather Reserve Revenues
Winter Weather Reserve Expenditures
Reserve for Winter Weather
Total Winter Weather Reserve Expenditures
Winter Weather Reserve Estimated Fund Balance
123 - Civic Facilities Replacement Fund
Civic Facilities Replacement Revenues
Investment Interest
Interfund Transfer
Total Civic Facilities Replacement Fund
Civic Facilities Replacement Fund Expenditures
Total Civic Facilities Replacement Fund Expenditures
Civic Facilities Replacement Estimated Fund Balance
2011
2009 2010 Proposed
Actuals Budget Budget
$ 5.369,979 $ 5,350.000 $ 5.410,000
37,022 50,000 54,000
37,022 50,000 54,000
- 5,464,000
- - 5.464,000
$ 5,407,001 $ 5,400,000 $ -
$ 145,037
$
500.000
5,000
5,000
355,000
500,000
-
355,000
505,000
5,000
$
505,000
505,000
-
-
505,000
$ 500,037 $
505,000 $
-
$ 807,983 $ 825,000 $ 1,210,000
3,065 8,000 12,000
397,000 407,000 407,000
400,065 415,000 419,000
$ 1,208,048 $ 1,240,000 $ 1,629,000
8/5/2010 2:52 PM 4
204 - Debt Service Beginning Fund Balance
Debt Service Revenues
Facilities District Payment
Interfund Transfers
Total Debt Service Revenues
Debt Service Expenditures
Debt Service Payments
Total Debt Service Expenditures
Debt Service Estimated Fund Balance
City of Spokane Valley
Proposed Budget - Draft
2011
2011
2009 2010 Proposed
Actuals Budget Budget
419,670 440,000 460,000
186,503 210,000 225,000
606,173 650,000 685,000
650,000 685,000
606,077 650,000 685,000
$ 96 $ - $ -
8/5/2010 2:52 PM 5
301 - Capital Projects Unreserved Fund Balance
Capital Projects Revenues
REET 1 - Taxes
Investment Interest
Total Capital Projects Revenues
Capital Projects Expenditures
Intergovernmental Services
Capital Outlay
Interfund Transfers
Total Capital Projects Expenditures
Capital Projects Estimated Fund Balance
302 - Spec Capital Projects Unreserved Fund Balance
Spec Capital Projects Revenues
REET 2 - Taxes
Investment Interest
Total Spec Capital Projects Revenues
Spec Capital Projects Expenditures
Capital Outlays
Interfund Transfers
Total Spec Capital Projects Expenditures
Spec Capital Projects Estimated Fund Balance
City of Spokane Valley
Proposed Budget - Draft
2011
2011
2009 2010 Proposed
Actuals Budget Budget
$ 2.553,389 $ 1,553,000 $ 598,598
544,303 380,000 400,000
15,144 15,000 15,000
559,447 395,000 415,000
1,954,189 1,948,000 1,013,598
1,954,189 1,948.000 1,013,598
$ 1,158,647 $ - $ -
$ 4,787,253 $
230,000 $
606,069
$ 543,919
380,000
400,000
$ 16,886
2,000
15,000
$ 560,805
382,000
415,000
$ 2,908,057 612,000 1,021,069
$ 2,908,057 612,000 1,021,069
$ 2,440,001 $ - $ -
8/5/2010 2:52 PM 6
303 - Street Capital Projects Unreserved Fund Balance
Street Capital Projects Revenues
Investment Interest
Developer Contribution
Contributions - Grants
Misc. Revenues
Interfund Transfer
Total Street Capital Projects Revenues
Street Capital Projects Expenditures
16th & Bettman Stormwater Drainage
24th Avenue - Sullivan to 22nd
Argonne Rd Corridor Upgrade SRTC 06 -31
Broadway @ Argonne & Mullan PCC, (PE, RW)
Broadway Ave. Rehabilitation Proj # 2
Broadway Avenue Safety Project Pines- Park
Broadway /Sullivan PCC Intersection
STEP Projects
Contingency
Evergreen /Sprague Intersection PCC
Indiana /Sullivan Intersection PCC
Indiana Ave. Extension - 3600
Misc. Road Paveback Projects
Rockwell 11
Misc. Road Projects
Other Preservation Projects
Park Rd- Proj 2 , 8th to Appleway
Park Road - #2 (PE Only) - Broadway to Indiana
Pines (SR27) ITS Improvement SRTC 06 -26
Pines /Mansfield, Wilbur Rd. to Pines
Sullivan' Euclid PCC PE, ROW
Mission -Flora to Barker PE
South Greenacres (STEP)
Pines /Sprague Intersection PCC
Sprague Ave Resurfacing- Evergreen to Sullivan
Sprague Resurface - E'green to University
Sprague /Conklin Signal
Sprague /McDonald PCCP Intersection
Sprague /Sullivan PCC Intersection
WSDOT Urban Ramp Projects
Total Street Capital Projects Expenditures
Estimated Fund Balance at yr end
City of Spokane Valley
Proposed Budget - Draft
2011
2011
2009 2010 Proposed
Actuals Budget Budget
$ 73,456 $ - $
45,519 200,000
6,945,548 8,079,000 4,738,160
1,764 - -
3,937,369 2,293,000 2,669,947
10,930,200 10,572,000 7,408,107
13,885
8,461
797
576,000
581,886
271,000
637,149
857
834,000
834,000
39,555
1,230.000
2,877,287
300,000
250,000
700,613
3,262
1,342,000
1,171,200
61,641
1,874,000
200,000
22,243
-
750,000
234.681
-
11,495
298,000
500,000
39,743
123,639
246,000
35000
841
1,843,221
1,581,541
-
450,000
163,000
488,000
120,800
881,570
56,021
1,944,000
2,610,278
5,255
659,716
36,220
1,678,000
323,449
10,930,200
10,572,000
7,408,107
$ 73,456
$ - $
-
8/5/2010 2:52 PM 7
City of Spokane Valley
Proposed Budget - Draft
2011
2011
2009 2010 Proposed
Actuals Budget Budget
304 - Mirabeau Projects Beginning Fund Balance
Mirabeau Projects Revenues
Donations
Proceeds from LT Debt
Insurance Recoveries
Other Miscellaneous Revenue
Investment Interest
405,370
2,655
Total Mirabeau Projects Revenues
Mirabeau Projects Expenditures
Capital Outlays
Transfers
Total Mirabeau Projects Expenditures
Mirabeau Projects Estimated Fund Balance
2,655
363,722
363,722
$ 44,303 $ - $
8/5/2010 2:52 PM
306 - CDBG Fund Beginning Fund Balance
CDBG Fund Revenues
Grant Proceeds
Miscellaneous Revenue
Interfund Transfer
Investment Interest
Total CDBG Fund Revenues
CDBG Fund Expenditures
Services & Charges
Capital Outlay
Total CDBG Fund Expenditures
CDBG Fund Estimated Fund Balance
307 - Capital Grants Fund Beginning Fund Balance
Capital Grants Fund Revenues
Grant Proceeds
Misc. Revenue
Interfund Transfer
Total Capital Grants Fund Revenues
Capital Grants Fund Expenditures
44th Ave Pathway: Woodruff Rd. to Sands Rd.
Appleway Blvd - Tschirley Road to Hodges
Appleway /Sprague / Dishman ITS 190 - Dishman -066
Argonne Road Overlay - Indiana to Montgomery
Broadway Avenue Inlay: 1 -90 EB Ramps to Park Rd.
Broadway Fancher PCC -067
Broadway - Moore to Flora
Contingency
Park Road - Project 2: Broadway to Indiana
Signal Controller Upgrades (SRTC 06 -22)
Sprague Ave ADA
Sprague /Bowdish PCC Intersection
Sullivan Road PCC: Mission to 1 -90 EB Ramps
Total Capital Grants Fund Expenditures
Capital Grants Fund Estimated Fund Balance
City of Spokane Valley
Proposed Budget - Draft
2011
2011
2009 2010 Proposed
Actuals Budget Budget
300,000
300,000
300,000
300,000
$ 50 $ $
1,103,772
1,749,000
43,824
-
648,000
328,490
68,000
11,176
1,432,262
2,465,000
55,000
29,932
-
5,000
129,736
155,916
59,364
634,979
-
319,790
2,465,000
50,000
46,950
55,930
(415)
1,432,182
2,465,000
55,000
$ 129 $ - $
8/5/2010 2:52 PM 9
City of Spokane Valley
Proposed Budget - Draft
2011
308 - Barker Bridge Fund Beginning Fund Balance
Barker Bridge Fund Revenues
Grant Proceeds
Transfer from Special Capital Proj Fund
Developer Contribution
Total Barker Bridge Fund Revenues
Barker Bridge Fund Expenditures
Bridge Reconstruction
Total Barker Bridge Fund Expenditures
Barker Bridge Fund Estimated Fund Balance
309 - Parks Capital Projects Fund Beginning Fund Balance
Parks Capital Projects Fund Revenues
Parks Grant
State Rec & Conservation Grant Rev
Misc Revenue
Contribution from Spokane County
Transfer from the General Fund
Interfund Transfers
Investment Interest
Total Parks Capital Projects Fund Revenues
Parks Capital Projects Fund Expenditures
Park Land Acquisition
Terrace View Shelter
Greenacres
Contingency
Swimming Pools
Various Improvements
Greenacres
Valley Mission Park
Discovery (Universal) Park
Total Parks Capital Projects Fund Expenditures
Parks Capital Projects Fund Estimated Fund Balance
2011
2009 2010 Proposed
Actuals Budget Budget
6,631,363 1,470.000
- 239,000
286,370 58,000
6,917.733 1,767.000
6,917.733 1,767.000
6.917,733 1,767.000
$ 1,346,036 $ 518,000 $ 1,346,036
790,000 200,000 500,000
800 518,000
100,000
1,617,762 97,000
716 5,000 13,000
$ 2,409,278 $ 820,000 $ 613,000
225,000
80,000
300,000 1,880,000
15,000
706,792 -
5,409
232,857
1,463,504 200,000
2,408,562 820,000 1,880,000
$ 1.346,752 $ 518,000 $ 79,036
8/5/2010 2:52 PM 10
City of Spokane Valley
Proposed Budget - Draft
2011
310 - Civic Facilities Capital Projects Beginning Fund Balance
Civic Buildings Capital Projects Fund Revenues
Interfund Transfers
Investment Interest
2011
2009 2010 Proposed
Actuals Budget Budget
5.792,118 $ 5,770,000 4.000,000
39,845 57,000 40,000
Total Civic Buildings Capital Projects Fund Revenues $ 39,845 $ 5,827.000 $ 40,000
Civic Buildings Capital Projects Fund Expenditures
Transfers to other funds 770,800
Facilities 3,363 -
Total Civic Buildings Capital Projects Fund Expenditures 3,363 - 770,800
Civic Buildings Capital Projects Estimated Fund Balance $ 5,828.600 $ 5,827,000 $ 3,269.200
402 - Stormwater Beginning Fund Balance
Stormwater Fund Revenues
Dept Ecology
State Grants
County Reimbursement
Stormwater Management Fees
Investment Interest
Total Stormwater Fund Revenues
Stormwater Fund Expenditures
Salaries & Benefits
Supplies
Services & Charges
Intergovernmental Payments
Capital Outlays
Transfers
Ending Balance
Total Stormwater Fund Expenditures
Stormwater Estimated Fund Balance
$ 2,381,156 $ 2,771,015 $ 1,900,000
26,586
1,706,429
1,600,000
1,710,000
14,295
27,000
22,000
747,262
1,498,405
1,403,546
1,747,310
1,627,000
1,732,000
277,630
402,590
490,134
22,086
29,980
43,100
747,262
1,498,405
1,403,546
27,676
46,640
51,100
33,773
403,600
25,000
752,807
2,016,800
100,000
-
-
1,519,120
1,861,234
4,398,015
3,632,000
$ 2,267,232 $
- $
-
8/5/2010 2:52 PM 11
501 - ER &R Beginning Fund Balance
ER &R Fund Revenues
Interfund Transfers from General Fund
Investment Interest
Total ER &R Fund Revenues
ER &R Fund Expenditures
Computer replacement lease
Software /Hardware replacement
Vehicle Replacement
All other
Depreciation Expense
Capital Outlay
Total ER &R Fund Expenditures
ER &R Estimated Fund Balance
502 - Risk Management Unreserved Fund Balance
Risk Management Fund Revenues
Investment Interest
Interfund Transfer
Total Risk Management Fund Revenues
Risk Management Fund Expenditures
Services & Charges
Total Risk Management Fund Expenditures
Risk Management Estimated Fund Balance
unaudited
City of Spokane Valley
Proposed Budget - Draft
2011
2011
2009 2010 Proposed
Actuals Budget Budget
900,805 900,000 900,000
5,273 19,000 9,000
$ 5,273 $ 19,000 $ 9,000
919,000 209,000
- 919,000 209,000
$ 906,078 $ - $ 700,000
16,734 28,000 -
107 8,000
230,000 250,000 319,000
$ 230,107 $ 258,000 $ 319,000
234,748 286,000 319,000
234,748 286,000 319,000
$ 12,093 $ - $ -
8/5/2010 2:52 PM 12
Preview of 2011 Budget Hearing
Total City Budget is $62 million —down from
2010
+Significant decrease in capital projects
+ Prop.Tax down $100,000, rate near
$1.54 of assessed value
+Gen. Fund operating costs down
$500,000 to $1,000,000
8/5/2010 1
Preview of 2011 ... ...............................
General Fund:
REVENUES:
Sales Tax down $400,000
Property Tax down $100,000 (1 %)
State Shared Taxes up $200,000 (liquor ?)
Fines & Forfeitures up $200,000
EXPENSES:
Records Management down $200,000
City Mgr. Div. down $100,000
Finance down $75,000
Building down $100,000
Development Eng. down $120,000
Centerplace down $100,000
8/5/2010 2
Preview of 2011 .... ............................... .
Most vacant positions were dropped from
budget resulting in savings ($350,000)
Broadcasting of Council meetings was added
at a new cost
$46
Set aside for future increases in state retiremt
costs added a new cost
$100,000
Depts are expecting to save (3 %) in the
current years budget — savings ($1,000,000)
8/5/2010 3
Preview of 2011 .... ...............................
Expect numbers to change as we fine -tune
' Two additional public hearings in Sept.
Large savings in multi -yr financial projections.
+Exp projections reduced from 7% to 4%
+Deleted vacant positions
+2010 reductions in expenses
+2014 shows $10 million+ Fund Balance
+No decrease of Serv. Level Stab. Reserve
8/5/2010 4
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: August 10, 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: Report back to Council — Neighborhood Center (NC) District Zone
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: N/A
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: N/A
BACKGROUND: The Council has requested that the Sprague /Appleway Sub -area Plan be
revisited zone by zone with property owners involved in the process. On July 20, 2010, staff
presented Council an overview of the Neighborhood Center District zone. On July 22, 2010, a
community meeting was conducted at 8:00 a.m. in Council Chambers to gather public input on
the NC zone regulations.
OPTIONS: Comments from the public outreach effort are attached for Council's consideration.
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
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Direct Staff further on how to proceed
BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The project will use existing staff; however, this will take a
significant amount of staff time that may place other projects on hold.
STAFF CONTACT: Kathy McClung, Community Development Director; Mike Basinger, Senior
Planner
ATTACHMENTS
Report and PowerPoint Presentation
Written Public Comments
July 22, 2010 Meeting Sign -in Sheet and Meeting Transcript
7oW,11A1Ra
orhood Center District Zc
ISSUES �i p r a ue � a
AND ,�
CONCERNS
e way Y'
SUMMARY
. i �� - .
0
------------ ----- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------
•Notices sent to ALL property
owners and Business operators
Email notice to recipients
• Notice Published in Newspaper
• Attended by 20 people
6 Meeting Format
Presentation
Question and Answer
• Purpose
v Provide Information to public
Receive comments
Tice stations
uses conforming is to
permit the use in the zone
• Adding service stations as
a permitted use is
consistent with the intent
of the Subarea Plan
Process to consider
change: CTA
im
Issue #1 Nonconforming Uses
f Main Concerns:
Tl, P NTC lone does not
Non- conforming uses The only way to make
Issue *2 Setbacks and Parking
r ----
Ivlin/ Max selDacKs
required in NC zone
w No parking between
building and sidewalk
Main Concerns:
Engineering difficulties
associated with
stormwater treatment
Side /rear parking is key
component of SARP
Integral to making
corridor pedestrian
friendly
Process to consider
change: Comp
Change
Issue # 3 One -Way vs. Two -Way
Future Street Network
f Main Concerns
Concerns about impacts to
business resulting from
chancing Sprague to one-
The street network is an
essential component of
the Subarea Plan
t Process to consider
change: CPA
Issue # 4 District Zone Map
District Zone Map
Main Concerns
Including the property
located at the intersection
of Sprague and Progress in
the NC zone
The boundaries of the NC
designation at the
intersection of Argonne
and Sprague
Including these areas in
the NC zone would be
consistent with the
Subarea Plan
Process to consider
change: CPA
Issue # 5 Permitted Uses
7n&�l
District Zone Mapes
f Main Concerns
Many uses are no longer
permitted in the NC zone
and the newly permitted
uses are inappropriate
The NC zone is designed
to serve the surrounding
neighborhood with
convenience uses
Process to consider
change: CTA and /or
CPA
Issue # 6 Architectural Standards
EI PW
- Architectural I
Regulations
t Main Concerns
Meeting new architectural
standards is too costly
Standards do not provide
flexibility
The new standards respond
to the community's desire
to improve the look of the
corridor
Standards are general and
provide design flexibility
Process to consider
change: CTA
Issue # 7 Conditional Use Permits
Conditional Use Permits
Incorporate more flexibility
by allowing any use in
existing buildings through a
conditional use permit
The current conditional
use provisions are
consistent with the intent
of the Subarea Plan
Process to consider
change: CPA
Options: Consider the
comments received and direct
staff on how to proceed.
• Options:
o Select issues to forward to Planning
Commission for Code Amendments
Select all issues, except those that
require a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment
Take No Action
Other — Direct Staff otherwise
Transcript: July 22, 2010 Community Meeting, Neighborhood Center
Comments from the July 22 Neighborhood Center Community Meeting:
Director McClung welcomed the attendees (there was a head count of 16) and introduced staff. Senior
Planner Mike Basinger gave a presentation giving the background, intent and design of the Sprague and
Appleway Corridor Subarea Plan.
This is the discussion that came after the presentation:
Kirk Owsley: What is the procedure for changing the structure of the items that are allowed in the
Neighborhood Center zone?
Mike Basinger: There are two ways we can change things in this process. We refer to the Comprehensive
Plan amendment process because in order for us to make a change to the regulations, it has to be
consistent with the Subarea Plan's design. If a regulation change is still consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan we can change it today. In other words we can start processing a text amendment,
if Council is inclined to approve that text amendment, that change occurs prior to the November Is'
deadline for Comprehensive Plan amendments. I process the Comprehensive Plan amendments here in
the City, so what we are saying is if a substantial change is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, we
do not have to wait until we start processing those in November.
Kirk: I am here representing HiCo Village, P and T Partners owns that. To change the war against autos,
part of the concept here, I am understanding, is for convenience, for community convenience and I
believe that the HiCo's were designed for that fact. People like to have their cars taken care of, like to get
gas before and after they go to work and that kind of thing and that is a major route that they go to work
from. I think it is a flaw in, I understand we are under the 80% deal and that kind of thing, but when you
have gas and everything else is there a chance that you could damage 80 %, probably. Obviously we
would have to leave 20% up to keep under that rule. I think it is a major flaw there. You said you can
only put signs on the first floor. In a strip mall situation, something like that, where a lot of signs are in
the second level in the top element, sort of speak, that would not be allowed?
Mike: no, that is not true. What we are talking about, is that in a two story building, we would not allow
it on the second floor. What we are trying to do is keep the signs more on a ground level, is the idea in
the plan.
Kathy: I would like to mention that this is the third district that we are looking at within plan. We have
already gone through two. There are already some zoning changes in the works. One of them is that the
sign restriction of all signs being on the first floor. When those changes are made, some of them will
impact all of the districts. We already do have some changes that are in the works. Also in answer to
your question about uses, we can add some uses or change some uses, within each zone. We are also
doing that for some of the zones we have looked at already. But we cannot make wholesale changes. So
as long we are tweaking it, then we are within that realm of not being in conflict with the Comprehensive
Plan, but tfwe make wholesale changes then it would be a Comp Plan change.
Kirk: In the example of HiCo Village what is a wholesale change as opposed to a tweak?
Kathy: If you are suggesting adding auto related uses, that would be a tweak, but adding every, in this
particular zone, it is not as big an issue. For other zones it is a bigger deal. Adding ten new uses would
probably be more of a wholesale change.
Carlos Landa: I have a bunch of different questions but one of them is on a macro level. In the build -up
to the past, to the SARP, it was my understanding that the basic premise is that there is a whole lot of
retail out here in this City and in fact the absorption rates have been very slow to absorb anything along
the Sprague Avenue Corridor, now that the Valley Mall, the Sullivan Corridor, the Broadway Corridor
have all been expanded into retail uses. So we are looking at an extremely high vacancies especially in
the one -ways. I think we are up in the 30 and 40 %. Even the neighborhood Centers as I am looking at
down here at the vacancy rates Argonne. Especially now that we are in a redevelopment phase at the
Opportunity Shopping Center. I don't know that Sprague and McDonald are exactly viable right now. I
Page 1 of 9
Transcript: July 22, 2010 Community Meeting, Neighborhood Center
have heard issues going each way. If we keep allowing more uses in each category are we going to get
into the same situation where we are, where we have a 15 mile corridor that has, that anybody gets to
anything, and the oversupply situation just doesn't go away and in fact if we go with the couplet, we are
going to be forced with a lot of property owners along Appleway that are going to be pushing for more
retail and more use. This supply situation just won't go away, we just won't grow our way out of this
situation. The projected growth in this area is 1.5% a year, maybe 2% per year. So on a macro level that
is my concern. I do not agree with having to move my 60,000 sf building up to the street in the event of
an 80% loss but if that is the game then let's play it in every category.
The other question I got and I understand the auto use, this is an example, I think. It seemed to me that in
the meetings, Auto Row was something that was going to be built by the community or going to be
supported by the community as an area and destination for people to go and deal with an auto area within
our City. While I most certainly concede that a car wash and a gas station should be allowed along
multiple areas along the area because that's separate from an auto sales situation, but that is a perfect
example situation of opening up auto sales instead of protecting a particular area in Auto Row. Suddenly
that use and that supply situation just suddenly gets opened up. Now in relation to that about the
Neighborhood Centers, what zoning do we have that the Mixed Use areas and the other areas aren't going
to have'? It seems to me that it is getting more and more diluted between what the different zonings are by
the tweaking I guess is what I am saying. Everything should be tweaked but the intent was to change the
supply and demand matrix along Sprague Avenue and I am concerned that what is being done is the
opposite. That we are going back to the `good old days' when we didn't have the Valley Mall and we
didn't have the Sullivan Corridor and Sprague Avenue was king, well those days aren't ever coming back.
Unless we change this corridor and the uses we are just going to have a dead stretch and I think it is just
exemplified in what is going on.
Finally, and everybody has heard this from me and I am just going to say this again. You don't have retail
without traffic. I think we need to reiterate to the property owners along the corridor that their traffic is
going to be there. The only way you can reiterate that is to say that is to say that Sprague Avenue is
affirmed to be a two -way street. Now I understand that to be in the Comprehensive Plan at this time but
there is also the question that maybe we should put it up to the vote of the citizenry `Do we want a
commuter corridor or do we want a retail corridor ?" I think it is again, if you simply just walk down and
look at Sprague and Argonne the most viable uses the northeast corner is the most active corner there.
Every retail use in that area is pretty much washed up and gone away. I think we are experiencing the
same thing because of the uncertainty that we have with the traffic situation. I am very much concerned
with that. People do not shop on their way to work, and if they are not going by your place on the way
home they are not going to stop and that has been proven with all the fast food along Sprague Avenue on
the one -ways, it is all gone, except for the mom and pop restaurant. There isn't a national franchise
looking at that area.
Mike: Thank you and I will try and answer all of your questions or at least touch on them. Obviously the
first question was if we continue to allow retail to go everywhere will we be in the same situation we are
now. It is a 20 year plan and the idea was to concentrate retail to certain places, and it is not that
uncommon to have strip development throughout United States and when malls and other things popped
up that drew people away from that corridor it did affect it. We did have ECONorthwest come in and do
some analysis on the commercial and retail type uses along Sprague and they said we had too much. The
consultant's plan was to concentrate retail at major nodes. That is the Neighborhood Centers that I am
talking about. All of the major intersections along Sprague. It is somewhat of a philosophical question in
some ways because we never know how these plans are going to play out, they're 20 year plans. It does
take community commitment to support the plan in order to be successful. Even at that, it is a 20 year
plan for it to play out. We are in a recession right now, businesses are hurting, so it is not the best
environment for these types of concepts.
In regards to the traffic in the street, that is another question that is open for debate. A lot of folks like
traveling on Appleway, it is convenient, it is quick, but there are a lot of businesses that are impacted by
Page 2 of 9
Transcript: July 22, 2010 Community Meeting, Neighborhood Center
Appleway and Sprague couplet. Those types of questions really go back to the community, and what is
important to the community and how they feel about it. The plan was structured to be more business
friendly with the traffic circulation, bring back folks that would travel not just on their way in on
Appleway and their way home on, let's just say, Sprague, it was supposed to open it up so folks would
travel both ways and see your business. If you have a donut shop on Sprague now and people are
traveling Appleway in the morning, they may not see your business. That is another question that I can
particularly answer. I can just say that the plan was trying to support two -way traffic. It was also trying
isolating retail on the major intersections.
In regards to the form based zoning. True form based zoning is that you want the buildings to look a little
different. Starbucks comes into the community, Starbucks has three plans, maybe even four, but the first
plan see is the cheapest. Because that is all we ask-for. If that is all we ask for, if we ask-for something
greater, a little brick bottom on the base, for more windows, and a top element, Starbucks will build it.
We got the ADT at Pines and Sprague to support that Starbucks. They will build whatever we want. So
that is the idea behind the form based zoning. It isn't to hurt the mom and pop business that is putting up
a structure and having to say do the top, base and 20 80% glazing or windows, keep in mind that, it can
be really creative as well. I show a couple examples, one was Monique's on the corner of Sprague and
Evergreen and the other one was Tracy Jewelers. Those are examples of folks who just decided to build a
budding that meets our architectural standards. Ifyou look at them they are nice buildings. That was the
idea behind the form based. Now typically with form based zoning you wouldn't necessary with form
based zoning you wouldn't necessarily restrict uses, but with our issues with retail and commercial
development along Sprague and Appleway, that is why there was sort of a restriction of retail uses
outside of those Neighborhood Centers or intersections. In relation to Auto Row, we did want to focus
auto sales down there. The purpose in that was we did not want to see those auto businesses go to I -90 or
out_ further maybe past Liberty Lake or further maybe into Idaho, for more exposure. And the idea is that
Auto Row has been very successful, a lot of businesses there , that I think will continue to be successful.
We just wanted to say that if you are going to have an auto related business we would really like to see it
down there. Not the business you have today that is functioning and working, that can stay. But if you
want to open a new business that is auto related, we would like to see it down there, to focus the
concentration. I hope I answered all the questions, you had quite a few, I was trying to hit on them all,
and trying not be too subjective either, because I do believe that there are elements in the plan that could
help the City a lot but there also some issues, and that is why we are here today.
Carlos: Mike, I was just wondering if you could explain ECONorthwest and they made the statement that
there was too much retail.
Mike: Essentially there were two studies done. One was done by a gentleman named Bob Gibbs. He
came in and looked at retail in the region. What he did was he analyzed all the retail going on in the
region, that is the City ofSpokane, City ofLiberty Lake, Spokane Valley all the metropolitan areas. What
he came to in his conclusions was that there was just entirely too much retail everywhere. That was his
opinion. Prior to that we had a consultant, ECONorthwest that said that we just had too much retail
along this corridor, `the ideal' would be that you slowly transition the retail. We even had a study done
comparing multifamily and commercial. They were showing that the differences in value oj'multifamily
properties and commercial They were showing not so much of a difference in those properties. The
reason I mention multifamily because it is one of the things you are allowed to do in more places along
the corridor.
Carlos: How much oversupply is there?
Mike: I don't know the number of the top of my head, Scott may, I don't mean to put you on the spot,
Scott.
Scott Kuhta: Essentially over the next 20 years, it is really a matter of demand that we have too much
retail, it is that we don't have enough demand to absorb the retail over the projections over the next 20
years. We have more land zoned for retail than we can fall. We have more vacancy space, existing
Page 3 of 9
Transcript: July 22, 2010 Community Meeting, Neighborhood Center
vacancies, than demand, than we can support for the next 20 years that does not include developing
vacant properties. That is what our studies show.
Mike: What Scott is saying is that we are competing for space and that competition is creating some
areas along Sprague that we are able to see as we drive down the corridor.
Carlos: So the study says there are certain properties that will not be filled in the next 20 years along
Sprague Ave.
Mike: That is correct, sir.
Carlos: We have over 20 years worth of vacancies, even though it is scattered right now.
Mike: that is correct even though we are not different than most suburban type cities, like ourselves. A lot
of communities are in the same situation.
Question from a man in the back of the room I could not identify: Was this one man's opinion or was
there a council or committee involved?
Mike: it was a consulting firm ECONorthwest that came in, the other gentleman was his opinion, he is a
renowned...
Greg McCormick: Just to clarify, it wasn't Bob Gibbs' opinion; it was based upon average family
incomes, how much taxable sales that had happened over a number of years. So it wasn't his opinion it
was based on the research and it was plain that we had millions of square feet of retail regionally too
much zoned commercial and retail and locally here it is in the hundreds of thousands. We only have a
finite amount of income, or discretionary dollars given the population, and what their study showed was
that we could accommodate a population two or three times the size of the existing population and still
have more retail than we could ever fill. So it wasn't just Bob Gibbs' opinion but it was his opinion
based on a study of the numbers not just driving around and looking at stuff. It was based on hard
numbers of sales, average income, population and the market areas and he looked at three different
market areas and still came up with the same determination.
Carlos: Wasn't that a pre- recession study?
Mike: correct.
Carlos: So theoretically it would worse, it wouldn't be any better?
Mike King: As I am understanding, the idea of the Neighborhood Center is to create more of a small
town village type concept. So we have a village of Dishman, a village of Opportunity, the village of
Progress and so on, and to break up the long strip mall. Five miles of strip mall basically. So the question
becomes on that village concept on the village of Dishman, you have Argonne going through, going out
to the Dishman Road but the properties immediately to the west, you zoned into Gateway. Where the
Gateway, physically the railroad breaks up the Gateway from that particular Neighborhood Center. So
you've got starting at Sprague and at Argonne, a larger retail strip mall, you have an auto parts retailer,
but a retailer again. You have a Ruby Street Motors, which is a very small car lot, then you have the
railroad land which is leased by a Fresh Fruit guy, then you have a banking institution right on the corner
of Appleway. So the question becomes how could you zone that Neighborhood Center be zoned
Gateway'? You have two leased properties, and you have three ownership properties. Part of the
ownership properties is a banking concept, that big bank is not going to move, and you have a big strip
mall. If you are creating a neighborhood concept how did we ever get a Gateway to come across the
railroad into what is a natural corridor for a Neighborhood Center?
Mike B: The actual structure for the boundaries for the zoning classifications is something we can
always work on. The reason why I say that is hard to necessarily identify what is going on in every place.
That is why we have a Comprehensive Plan process. Typically when we identify (a place that) this isn't
right, this should have been designated something else, that is what that process is for. We cannot get
everything together the first time. Obviously this plan is an evolving plan that will take work overtime. I
Page 4 of 9
Transcript: July 22, 2010 Community Meeting, Neighborhood Center
have dealt with lots of Comprehensive Plan amendments that we have looked at that didn't quite make
sense to have that particular property designated what it is.
Scott: Mike (King) are you talking about the properties east of the railroad right -of- -way that are zoned
Gateway Commercial? (The answer was "right') The original plan had those properties zoned in the
Mixed Use Avenue or the Neighborhood Center, I think they were...
Mike King: It was Neighborhood Center
Scott: And some of it was Mixed Use Avenue, during the process those property owners had requested to
be zoned Gateway Commercial. So the Council when they made their final adoption they adjusted some
of those zonings east of the railroad bridge. The original concept was that the Gateway Commercial
would be west of the railroad. Through the process there were some adjustments that made to those
Gateway zones.
Mike K I would ask that you review that one strip. Because it is an unnatural fit, as I remember the
former mayor is the one that brought up Ruby Street Motors and that is how it was converted, which is a
very small building and a very small area.
Mike B: That would be a Comprehensive Plan amendment. That is a prime example of the difference
between where we can change the regulations and where we can tweak them a little as long as they are
consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, that one we would have to go through the Comp Plan
amendment process.
Jennifer Johnson: (Jennifer would not go to the microphone making it difficult to hear her all of the
time) Why isn't Progress and Sprague a Neighborhood Center? Because beside me there are little tiny
businesses that are around there fonning a shoe shine shop, a little tiny restaurant, and all that, already on
the front with parking in the rear, with housing and a work out place and all these things that seem to fit.
Why is it not now part of this plan?
Mike B: that is a good question. I was out and took-pictures of the new INB bank,
Jennifer: which could have been on my property but it has been zoned out and I can't have it any more.
Mike B: which is a nice building by the way, but when I was out there I was thinking the same thing, why
isn't this particular intersection in the Neighborhood Center?
Jennifer: That beautiful Chuck E Cheese could have been on my property but I can't have it anymore.
Mike B: That would be something we would look at as part of a Comprehensive Plan amendment.
Jennifer: I want to know why it wasn't selected, just give me an answer. I never got a (can't understand)
[There was some discussion between Carlos Landa and Jennifer regarding having a discussion with staff
at the time the plan was done. Hard to hear all of it.]
Scott: This goes to the concept of the plan. When we were laying out the Neighborhood Centers one of
the things, that area was just starting to develop, I think that Oz Fitness was the only thing there at the
time. There were some plans to start developing it. (Jennifer mentions the small strip at the intersection)
I understand the smaller shops were there for sure. But the concept for the Neighborhood Centers they
were already at major intersections that had some strong anchors. If you look at the Neighborhood
Centers there are existing anchors, Target, Shopko, Fred Meyer and then the other thing that we looked
at is if you have too many centers on the corridor you start competing for that type of retail. In fact it was
our consultant's opinion that the Neighborhood Centers that we have identified, we have too many. But
they were already fairly fully armed with good anchors and we should keep those anchors strong and they
were at good intersections, so that was part of the overall concept. You draw the lines fairly tight around
the Neighborhood Centers and you have them spaced a mile or so apart. That is the concept, and it was
felt that there would be too many if we allowed them at each intersection. Those uses are evident in
Neighborhood Centers and as they developed and permitted prior to the Subarea Plan being adopted so
through the amendment process those are some of the things we can take a look at changing. Again, as
Page 5 of 9
Transcript: July 22, 2010 Community Meeting, Neighborhood Center
we have said, this plan will evolve over time and we can make changes. Whatever comes out of this
process and whatever the Council decides through the Comp Plan amendment process, we can make
changes.
Chuck Simpson: My name is Chuck Simpson and what I have to say doesn't have any effect on anything
going on, but I have a concern about all the buildings being built to the roadway. My main concern is the
safety. Like buildings being up front, like the Winco, if it was built up front, I think it is supposed to
occupy 60% of the frontage. My concern is the safety and welfare of the people who work there. You
have a building that blocks it. With the crimes and drugs and everything, what is the safety factor of the
people who work there, if you have a big blockade that blocks what's going on in the back? It would be a
great place for drug trafficking and I am just concerned about bringing all those buildings to the front is
creating a barrier and it is going to be harder for the police to check it. The old saying is `how do you
know what is a good restaurant?' A good restaurant by who's in the parking lot. Well if the parking lot is
in the back where are you going to stop'? I have another concern as an engineer, drainage water flows
downhill. Like Winco is the perfect site. The drainage swales are in the front. If you have your building
in the front then you either have to water around to the front or you have to have a parking lot, a swale,
your building and another swale. Well anytime you try and get your water in the front, you can't run it on
surface, you gota put it in a pipe. Therefore your swale is gonna be two or three feet deeper than it needs
to be. So I know it's gonna have an affect but that is my personal opinion. I am really concerned about
the safety with the parking lots behind the buildings.
Mike: I don't really have an answer to that particular question. It's a different type of development
concept and I know in the Valley and Spokane County we are used to having the parking lots in the front
and a lot of engineering is designed that way. So the concepts and drainage and everything else are
designed to be in the front With the on -site stormwater treatment that is occurring these days, you can
have the swales just about anywhere, so it is more about a different way of looking at it and designing it.
Chuck: it has to be downhill from the parking lot otherwise (something about pumps) Water runs down
hill.
Mike: So I guess essentially it would take some different designing and engineering. The concept of the
building being up front is to bring a more pedestrian friendly environment idea.
Arne Woodard: Arne Woodard, Woodard Properties, resident lifelong in the Valley. I think a lot of
points are being missed on the whole concept, the whole SARP plan, the whole zoning that has taken
place in Spokane Valley. Chuck, you just hit part of it. Part of it comes down to the cost. Therefore no
competition because this Ma and Pa guy is going to have a hard time competing with a Starbucks that has
two billion dollars to work with or whatever the amount of money they make a year. I don't care if it's
two billion or two hundred million or whatever, the Ma and Pa guy just wants to make a living and stay
in his home and raise his kids and keep `um here. Pretty much everybody has had great points today. It
is a competition of business is why Sprague has died. It is competition. We have made it less competitive
friendly, whatever you want to call it, for our businesses to stay here. I know the one -way when the
County did that, did some damage to some areas of the Valley, and I am not for extending the rest of the
couplet. First off the Spokane Valley does have the money to buy that land and the County doesn't want
to sell it, at least not now. So the competition is a big issue, and the competition comes from the cost of
your window treatments and all the rest.
You made a statement and then everything goes against it. Was it you? Someone made a statement, yea,
it was you (Mike B) because you said Monique's and Tracy's have voluntarily met those codes of the
now SARP Plan on their own. But that was their decision, not yours. It was good for their business to
have the windows or be set back or set forward or not move a building or whatever it was and so when we
start talking about the vacancies I think we have to start talking about a number of things the least of
which is not what we require a number of our businesses to do swales, building treatments, windows,
sidewalks, 12 foot sidewalk? I understand the purpose of it but you know what Spokane Valley I choose
cars. They are not walking. There are some that walk and they are going to continue to use our 5 -6 -3
Page 6 of 9
Transcript: July 22, 2010 Community Meeting, Neighborhood Center
foot sidewalks and so on. And yes I want to make the disability people available to move around in their
wheelchairs, I may end up in one soon. I am definitely for those kinds of things that allow all of our
citizens to use those things. I go to Federal Way, my son lived there for a number of years, and I can't
find their businesses. The ones that have done the form based. They got the trees growing, the strips and
whatnot. You can't see their signs, you go around the block, you go around this block, you can't get back
to where you started. Go to San Francisco, same thing, that is where the first consultants came from, this
looks like San Francisco. I don't want to live in San Francisco, I don't think most of Spokanites, Spokane
Valleyites want to either. I am not against codes or regulations, within reason, but when you take a look
at this trying to drive back to the good old days of what started Peter's Hardware, what started Donna's
and the shoe repair shop down on Progress and whatnot, you got to eliminate regulations not create more
to get that effect. Let the competition work to let people buy land and buy buildings because somebody
else has failed in the marketplace for a number of reasons, or they have succeeded in a marketplace for a
number of reasons. One of the things I suggested when all the zoning started, when we first incorporated,
was why not do a zone overlay on how the current properties are being used. Do you realize there are
hundreds of duplexes in neighborhoods that are non - conforming now because there was no zone overlay
done? I look at Auto Row and I go down to Auto Row because they are there. They will stay there
because they are there or they will leave because they can no longer meet the requirements and the
competition required to stay in Spokane Valley. I was visiting a friend in Post Falls the other day, who
has a business there and I do business with him because that is where I get certain products that are hard
to get in the Valley and he said you guys are our best friends because you are just driving your businesses
right here. That is what I am against, as a person, as a business, as a lifelong resident. I got a whole list
of things but I am not going to go through them because I think you get what I am talking about. I think
most Spokane Valleyites feel the same way I feel personally. Because I talk to a lot of them, I hear
varieties of different things from people who spoke here who hit the same thing.
It really comes down to the cost factors we impose on our building regulations and what not. I don't want
a shanty and I don't think most people are trying to put up a shanty. But I will tell you when you start
having to require brick and all these changes and whatnot on a building that can be built for maybe a third
less, 20% less or whatever it is, brick is expensive. All those fancy treatments and architectural and
engineering designs and I know Chuck can tell ya, you start designing water to flow up hill and having to
use pumps and stuff it is going to get expensive. It is a maintenance issue too. There is a lot to do on this
thing and I think we are trying to become something we are not and most of us don't want to be.
Mike B: I think you hit on something that just dawned on me as you were going through this, and that is
predictability for Valley businesses and Valley residents. Predictability hasn't been there and that is
because we went from an adopted Comp Plan to a Subarea Plan and now to changing that Subarea Plan.
Without predictability it makes it hard for a business owner to know what they can do on their property.
You are exactly right sir, and that is why we need to hurry and fix whatever we need to do and we need
the community to tell come out and tell us what needs to be fixed. Staff supports whatever policy
decisions are made at this City. Whatever policy decisions are made, that is what we will do. Right now
we have been implementing a Subarea Plan that is what we were directed to do. We also got very
involved in the Subarea Plan. When you work with something for awhile, you start to get involved with it
and you start to be passionate about what you are doing. We want to do what is good for the Valley
residents. That is what is important. Thank you very much sir.
Dwight Hume: Mike, I am not pointing fingers at any of you on this stuff, but as I have attended these
meetings on this process it occurs to me that this whole process is being driven by the fact that many
people don't want SARP. What we are dealing with are the symptoms and not the cause. We are trying to
tweak the plan where we can tweak it, with text amendments and leave the rest for Comp Plan overhaul. I
think it is beginning to send back the message that it is kind of futile to mess around with the uses. I do
have a question for clarification for me. You have Fred Meyer in this and yet department stores are not
allowed so it is a non- confonming use'?
Page 7 of 9
Transcript: July 22, 2010 Community Meeting, Neighborhood Center
Mike B: With Fred Meyer's it is a large medium box store. When we looked at Neighborhood Centers
we identified Target, Shopko and Fred Meyer and businesses like that to be consistent with the
Neighborhood Center zoning classification. Obviously when you look at the Neighborhood Centers and
you start dissecting it, it is not completely clear on, it says, 65, 000 sf, and if you start looking at some of
the businesses along Sprague, especially Target and Shopko, they do exceed 65,000 sf, but the intention
in the code was to have anchors at major intersections to draw in business for the small Ma and Pop
business. So the idea that Fred Meyer is consistent with the intention of the Neighborhood Centers.
Dwight: one of the concerns about what SARP and the Neighborhood Centers has done is consume
major controlled intersections along Sprague. Here before the real estate world and the marketing
response has always been that those are the most valuable areas for commercial use and now we have said
well, yea as long as you are not any bigger than a Fred Meyer. Yea, we really want to concentrate it for
residential growth and maybe create some purchasing power. It is a nodal point of traffic that is regional
in nature and as I look at your use list of those things that are allowed and those things that aren't, it can't
put the mindset that the old classic zoning codes had about neighborhoods being local services and local
needs and walk to. Yea the bakery and the coffee shop and the wine /liquor store, something like that, but
then you start saying you can have funeral parlors and various things that don't really fit, except that
maybe they are already out there and you don't want to make them non - conforming, I don't know. If
anything I looked through the list and see a lot of things that ought to come out of it. I don't like to say
that. If it is going to be Neighborhood Center, the major issue to me is that we've taken a plan, that
generally a lot of people are opposed to, and we have taken major intersections and effectively down
zoned them to limit them to Neighborhood uses. Seems like Mixed Use would have been a better category
if we have to live with SARP, to me. That is my general comment.
Also, did the green dot of non - conformity on HiCo not get taken off the map from the County? It was
zoned B -3, it wasn't non - conforming was it. You just forgot to take it off?
Mike: Actually the green dots identify non - conforming uses in the Neighborhood zones and because it is a
service, auto lube station, car wash, and a gas station, it would not be allowed under the Neighborhood
zoning district. It was allowed under the County's interim and it was allowed under our pre -SARP
regulations.
Dwight: By having it there I just thought you were saying it was non - conforming then as well.
Mike: no, sorry sir. To get back to your question on the intersections, there is obviously a lot ofADT on
those intersections. And that is why Rite Aid and Walgreens and Targets and Shopkos locate there. We
are not saying those uses in this particular plan would not be allowed, but they did take the really large
box stores and concentrate them at City Center. That was the concept of the plan.
Dick Behm: I am Dick Behm, own Behm Center, been there since 1950 and I have owned it since 1973.
I have no problem with a non - conforming use. My light manufacturing has been non - conforming for the
last 35 years. Did not bother me a bit. Under the new plan nose, it is confonning but the restaurant is non-
conforming. That is a good deal, no one can build competition next to me. I cannot see the problems
with non - conforming use because you are allowed to stay there, it does not affect your banking ability, or
you're insurance. I have checked on all of them. There is no problem to stay there, unless you don't.
Unless you want to burn it down or something. We have been there years, we have been there since 1932.
I get a little concerned when I hear all this argument about the non-conforming use, it is not a determent
to your business or your property. You can stay there and use it as long as you want. We have never had
a problem with it. What I am concerned with is that we are the only vibrant retail center left in that
section of Sprague. Between Argonne and University has died. Every week there is something else that
has closed up or has disappeared. I have less than half the traffic I did in 1973 on that section of Sprague,
because of the one -way street of Argonne and Mullen and Appleway and Sprague. It was a logical place
to stop it, that is where the county originally intended to stop the one -way system until they decided to go
all the way out. It siphons off all that traffic especially between Argonne and University. It is hard
because everyone goes north and south on Argonne and Mullen from Dishman-Mica. That is the only
Page 8 of 9
Transcript: July 22, 2010 Community Meeting, Neighborhood Center
thing that has been planned in the last 10 -12 years. Falco's remodeled and went out of the nursery
business because he could not sell shrubs and flowers to people going to work in the morning. It just
didn't work. If you look at Sprague Avenue now I get tears in my eyes. We had a vibrant retail
community in there. Between University City and 1 -90, it was thriving, and now it is dead and it is getting
worse every day.
You made the Neighborhood Center there only two blocks wide. Why didn't you extend it to Farr Road?
Which would give incentive to somebody to come in and develop that area. A Neighborhood Center is a
plus in that area. I like the SARP plan; there are lots of things I don't like in it, but I know that zoning
controls the development of a City. You have to have it in order to send development where you need it,
where you want it. Some of the zoning we don't like and it relates to our own personal uses and property
but I can understand where it goes. We had 63 meetings on this. Hundreds and hundreds of Valley
residents attended those meetings, not just business people, but citizens who came in and many came in
and said we don't want to change the one -way. They changed their mind. Bill Gothmann, we worked
with him for several years when he first came on council. He was dead set on having that one -way
system, but he carne to realize that it was a determent to the businesses on the street. If in fact you have a
Valley vote, they vote on the one -way traffic, and the commuters probably will, then are you going to go
back to the old county plan? Then the future plan will be one -way all the way out to Greenacres? That is
what the original County plan was. If you vote to have one -way, and it comes through, the eventual result
of that will be one -way Sprague all the way out to Greenacres and one -way Appleway all the way out to
Greenacres and the rest of Sprague Avenue is going to suffer as we have in the Dishman area and that
would be a horrible, horrible thing to have happen for this new city. We need to restore the vibrant retail
community and the way to do that is the way we are headed. Changing this one by one for each individual
doesn't really work. It destroys the intent and the ability of the City to control where growth goes. Thank
you.
Mike B: I think that was more of a comment Dick, so I don't really have a response, necessarily. I think,
like I was hitting on earlier, we just need some predictability and the sooner we find out what we want to
do the better.
Kathy: I want to thank you again for coming today and make sure that if you want a copy of what we
send to the council, make sure we have your contact information and if you want to meet with us
individually later about a particular property, then we are happy to arrange that as well. So thank you.
Page 9 of 9
sl
fir✓ ,�
� LO � / // "�I She"
T9 /!
D
O a
rr
Apmig
aSlf
soda S
Gc)av a� �nnr a xl
—
�
/
u11 x4 I -
a
Neighborhood Center Zoning District Zoning District
Summary of Issues and Concerns
City Council has directed the Community Development Department to conduct a thorough review
of the Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan (SARP) regulations with community input
through a series of public meetings. This report provides Council a summary of public comments
received during the Neighborhood Center (NC) District Zone review process, and highlights
specific concerns of business and property owners. Comments received will inform Council of
possible changes that could be made to make the SARP regulations more acceptable to business
and property owners.
Background
A community meeting was conducted at 8am on Thursday, July 22, 2010. Notice of the meeting
was mailed to all property and business owners located within the Neighborhood Center district
zones as identified on the Spokane County Assessor's Office property records and current business
registration information. Additionally, notice was distributed to approximately 800 e -mail
addresses, and notice was published in the newspaper and posted on the City website.
Primarily business and property owners attended the meeting with 20 people signing the meeting
sign -in sheet (attached). At the meeting, staff presented an overview of the Neighborhood Center
regulations, followed by questions from the audience. Comments were recorded on a flip chart
and the meeting was recorded. A transcript of the recording is attached for Council's review. The
purpose of the meeting was to provide information to the public to further their understanding of
the regulations and to receive comments regarding issues and concerns for Council's
consideration.
Amendment Process
As Council is aware, it is possible to change the SARP regulations through a text amendment
process as long as the changes are consistent with the goals, policies and intent of the Subarea
Plan and the City's Comprehensive Plan. Text amendments are first considered by the Planning
Commission which conducts a public hearing on the proposal. The Planning Commission then
makes a recommendation to Council to either approve or disapprove the proposal.
If the desired amendment is not consistent with Subarea Plan, then a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment would be required to address the change. The Comprehensive Plan can be amended
one time per year with applications due November 1st.
Neighborhood Centers Report to Council Page 2
August 10, 2010
Meeting Summary
Following staff's overview of the NC zone, the audience asked questions related to the NC zone. In
general, not many concerns were raised during the meeting. The issues that were raised were
similar to the concerns voiced at the previous district zone meetings, including nonconforming
uses, parking lot locations and building design. Questions and comments were recorded on a flip
chart, summarized as follows:
1. Nonconforming uses (service stations).
2. Concerns about development /design standards.
3. One -way streets negatively impact businesses.
4. Concerns about diluting the plan by allowing too many uses.
5. Concerns about the loss of permitted uses and new uses permitted in the NC zone.
6. Properties along Argonne may be zoned incorrectly.
7. Architectural standards are too costly.
8. Progress and Sprague should be designated a Neighborhood Center.
9. Property owners need predictability.
10. Allow the reuse of existing buildings through a conditional use permit.
Following is a list of issues and concerns that surfaced during the NC community meeting and in
comment letters received by the Department which are attached for Council's review.
Issues and Concerns
Nonconforming Uses - The NC zone created very few non - conforming uses.
Staff Response: If service stations were added back as permitted uses it would eliminate
most of the non - conforming uses in the NC zone. The remaining non - conforming use is a
single- family home located south of Sprague Avenue on Evergreen Road. Staff would not
recommend allowing single- family uses in the NC zone.
Process Required: Code Text Amendment
2. Setbacks and Parking - Concern was raised about the SARP regulations requiring buildings
to be constructed closer to the street with parking only permitted on the side and rear of
the building. The concern is that retailers do not like this requirement, they like parking to
be in front of the building, especially national retailers. One commenter at the public
meeting stated that there are engineering constraints with providing parking in the rear.
Furthermore, he stated that the constraints are associated with the topography along
Sprague Avenue and stormwater drainage.
Staff Response: The requirement to locate parking lots to the side and rear of buildings is a
key component of the desired NC form. It is also integral to redeveloping the corridor into
a pedestrian friendly and attractive environment where residential and non - residential
uses can be compatible. The NC zone requires no minimum setback and a maximum
setback of 10' from the back of sidewalk for buildings oriented to Sprague Avenue.
Process required: Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Neighborhood Centers Review Report Page 3
August 10, 2010
3. One -way vs. Two -way - Concern about the impacts of one -way roads on businesses.
Staff Response The Subarea Plan clearly establishes the intended future street network.
Any changes to the future design of Sprague Avenue and Appleway Boulevard must be
considered during the annual Comprehensive Plan Amendment process.
Process Required: Comprehensive Plan Amendment
4. District Zone Map - Concerns about the NC zone not including properties west of Argonne
Road north and south of Sprague Avenue. In addition, there were concerns about the
intersection of Progress Road and Sprague Avenue not being included in the NC zone.
Staff Response: Including these areas in the NC zone meets the intent of the Subarea Plan.
Any changes to the zoning of property must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan
designation. This change would need to be considered during the annual Comprehensive
Plan Amendment process.
Process Required: Comprehensive Plan Amendment
S. Permitted Uses -Concerns about 36 uses no longer permitted in the NC zone and the newly
permitted uses, such as catalog mail order house, bed and breakfast, and various forms of
living for the elderly.
StaffResponse: The NC zone is designed for supermarkets and neighborhood serving
convenience uses. The NC zone encourages upper floor housing and office over retail.
Changes to uses allowed in the NC zone may be made through the code text amendment
process as long as the changes meet the intent of the Subarea Plan. If the changes do not
meet the intent of the Subarea Plan, they would need to be considered during the annual
Comprehensive Plan Amendment process.
Process Required: Code Text Amendment and /or Comprehensive Plan Amendment
6. Architectural Standards - Concern that architectural standards are too costly.
StaffResponse: The architectural standards can be met with minimal expense to the
property owner. The basic components include a building base, which can be met by
simply changing the color of the siding, and a top cap. Long, blank walls must be broken up
with an architectural element. These standards respond to the community's desire to
improve the aesthetics of Sprague Avenue. During previous Subarea Plan discussions, City
Council decided to not take action on architectural standards.
Process Required: Code Text Amendment
7. Conditional Use Permits -Concern that there needs to be added flexibility to ensure more
properties do not fall into disrepair and a blighted condition. The suggestion was to
incorporate more flexibility by allowing any use in existing buildings through a conditional
use permit.
Staff Response: The Neighborhood Center zone has a provision for conditional uses relating
to square footage exceptions for supermarkets, neighborhood serving retail, and
unanchored stores. The current conditional use provisions are consistent with the intent of
the Subarea Plan. This change would need to be considered during the annual
Comprehensive Plan Amendment process.
Process Required: Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Neighborhood Centers Review Report Page 4
August 10, 2010
Council Options
Comments received as a result of the public outreach effort are included for Council consideration.
Council may consider the following actions and direct staff accordingly:
1. Identify issues and general language to forward to the Planning Commission for Code
Amendments.
2. Identify specific issues to be addressed by Comprehensive Plan Amendments.
3. Take no action.
4. Other direction.
Neighborhood Centers Review Report Page 5
Angnst 10, 2010
DRAFT
ADVANCE AGENDA
For Planning Discussion Purposes Only
as of August 4, 2010; 10:30 a.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
August 17, 2010, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. [due date Mon, Aug 9]
Action Item:
1. Motion to Consider Adopting 2011 Legislative Agenda - Mike Jackson (20 minutes)
Non - Action Items:
2. Subarea Plan (SARP) Zone Discussion: City Center - Scott Kuhta (30 minutes)
3. 2011 Budget - Property Tax Levies - Ken Thompson (15 minutes)
4. Admin Report: CTA -07 -10 Code Text Amendment (Vehicle Sales in Mixed Use Zone) - C. Janssen (10 minutes)
5. Street Preservation Program - Neil Kersten (30 minutes)
6. Admin Report: City Transportation Benefit District- Cary Driskell (15 minutes)
7. Advance Agenda [ *estimated meeting: 120 minutes]
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 adopting 2011 Property Tax Levy- Ken Thompson (15 minutes)
3. First Reading Proposed Ordinance property tax confirmation - Ken Thompson (10 minutes)
4. First Read Proposed Ordinance CTA -07 -10 Code Text Amdmt (Vehicle Sales in Mixed Use zone)- C.Janssen (15 min)
5. Motion Consideration: SRTC Interlocal - Cary Driskell (10 minutes)
6. Admin Report: Outside Agency Presentations - Ken Thompson (60 minutes)
7. Admin Report: Advance Agenda (5 minutes)
8. Info Only: Department Reports [ *estimated meeting: 125 minutes]
August 31, 2010, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m.
1. Advance Agenda
2. Info Only: Preliminary Budget
September 7, 2010, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m.
1. Code text amendments (GCA & GCC Zone) - Lori Barlow
2. Presentation of Preliminary Budget - Mike Jackson
3. Advance Agenda
[due date Mon, Aug 23]
[ *estimated meeting: minutes]
[due date Mon, Aug 30]
(25 minutes)
(30 minutes)
(5 minutes)
[ *estimated meeting: minutes]
September 14, 2010 Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. jdue date Fri Sept 3]
1. PUBLIC HEARING: 2011 budget - Ken Thompson (5 minutes)
2. Second Read Ordinance CTA -07 -10 Code Text Aindmnt (Vehicle Sales in Mixed use Zone) - C. Janssen (15 minutes)
3. First Reading Ordinance Code Text Amendments (GCA & GCC Zone) - Lori Barlow (15 minutes)
4. Proposed Resolution Accepting Shoreline Inventory Report - Scott Kuhta (15 minutes)
5. Motion Consideration: Allocation of Funds to Outside Agencies - Ken Thompson (25 minutes)
6. Subarea Plan (SARP) Plan) - Update to Council - Scott Kuhta (30 minutes)
[ *estimated meeting: 105 minutes]
September 21, 2010, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m.
1. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)- Greg McConnick
2. Advance Agenda
[due date Mon, Sept 13]
(15 minutes)
[ *estimated meeting: minutes]
Draft Advance Agenda 8/5/2010 2:53:43 PM Page 1 of 3
September 28, 2010, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. [due date Mon, Sept 20]
1. PUBLIC HEARING: 2011 budget — Ken Thompson (5 minutes)
2. Second Reading Ordinance Code Text Amendments (GCA & GCC Zone) — Lori Barlow (10 minutes)
3. Second Reading Ordinance adopting 2011 Property tax Levy — Ken Thompson (15 minutes)
4. Second Reading Ordinance property tax confirmation — Ken Thompson (5 minutes)
5. First Reading Ordinance to adopt 2011 Budget — Ken Thompson (15 minutes)
6. Subarea Plan (SARP) Zone Comm. Blvd — Lori Barlow (45 minutes)
7. Info Only: Department Reports [*estimated meeting: 90 minutes]
October 5. 2010. Studv Session Format. 6:00 D.M.
1. Advance Agenda
2. Spokane Transit Authority Presentation — Susan Meyer
3. Legislative Agenda Update — Mayor Towey
October 12, 2010 Formal Meeting Format. 6:00 D.M.
1. Consent Agenda (Claims, minutes, payroll)
2. Second Reading Ordinance to adopt 2011 Budget — Ken Thompson
3. Admin Report: Fee Resolution Proposed Changes — Mike Jackson
4. Advance Agenda
(A WC Regional Meeting, Spokane: October 13, 2010)
October 19, 2010, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m.
1. SARP Report to Council — Kathy McClung
2. Advance Agenda
October 26.2010. Formal Meeting Format. 6:00 D.M.
1. Consent Agenda (Claims, minutes, payroll)
2. Proposed Resolution Amending Fee Resolution — Mike Jackson
3. Advance Agenda
4. Info Only: Department Reports
November 2, 2010, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m.
1. Advance Agenda
November 9, 2010 Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m.
1. Consent Agenda (Claims, minutes, payroll)
2. Advance Agenda
November 16, 2010, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m.
1. Advance Agenda
2. Hotel /Motel Grant Proposals for 2011
November 23, 2010 Thanksgiving Week (tentative, no meeting)
[due date Mon, Sept 27]
(5 minutes)
(30 minutes)
(15 minutes)
[*estimated meeting: minutes]
jdue date Mon Oct 4]
(5 minutes)
(30 minutes)
(15 minutes)
(5 minutes)
[*estimated meeting: 55 minutes]
[due date Mon, Oct 11]
(45 minutes)
['estimated meeting: minutes]
[due date Mon, Oct 18]
(15 minutes)
[*estimated meeting: minutes]
[due date Mon, Oct 25]
(5 minutes)
[*estimated meeting: minutes]
jdue date Mon Nov 1]
(5 minutes)
(5 minutes)
[ *estimated meeting: minutes]
[due date Mon, Nov 8]
[ *estimated meeting: minutes]
November 30, 2010, Tentative No Meeting: Council attends NLC in Colorado (Nov 30 -Dec 4)
December 7, 2010, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m.
1. Advance Agenda
[due date Mon, Nov 29]
Draft Advance Agenda 8/5/2010 2:53:43 PM Page 2 of 3
December 14, 2010, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m
1. Consent Agenda: Minutes, Claims, Payroll
2. Motion Consideration: Allocation of Hotel /Motel Grant Proposals for 2011
3. Motion Consideration: Mayoral Appointments (Planning Commission, etc.)
December 21, 2010, Christmas Week (tentative, no meeting)
December 28, 2010, Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m.
January 4, 2011, Studv Session Format, 6:00 p.m.
[due date Mon, Dec 6]
— Ken Thompson (15 min)
(15 minutes)
[due date Mon, Dec 20]
[due date Mon, Dec 27]
OTHER PENDING AND /OR UPCOMING ISSUES /MEETINGS
Affordable Housing Participation
Alternative Analysis (contracts) ■ = request for Council's early consideration
Area Agency on Aging 4 = Awaiting action by others
Bidding Contracts (SVMC 3. — bidding exceptions) * = doesn't include time for public or
Broadcasting comments
Business Registration Ordinance Amendments
Capital Projects Funding
Cattlemen
Clean Air Agency
Code Amendments (Kathy McClung)
Collaborative Planning
Concurrency
Contract Ordinance Amendment
East Gateway Monument Structure 4
Industrial Pre - treatment Interlocal w /City of Spokane
Jail Update
Maint /Construction Inspector Mechanic Position
Milwaukee Right -of -way ■
Overweight /over size vehicle ordinance
Paving Options
Planned Action Ordinance
Public Records Policy (Ordinance) Amendments
Solid Waste Amended Interlocal
Speed Limits
Sprague Appleway Corridor Environ. Assessment
Sprague Avenue: One -way vs. two -way
Street Maintenance Facility
Street Superintendent Position
Transportation Benefit District Interlocal
Transportation Benefit District: (a). Establish ord.;
(b) set public hearing; (c) draft resolution; (d) ballot
language
Transportation Impacts
Wastewater Treatment Plant
WIRA, Water Protection Commitment, public
education
council
Draft Advance Agenda 8/5/2010 2:53:43 PM Page 3 of 3
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: August 10, 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: Wheel Sport Helmets
GOVERNING LEGISLATION:
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN:
BACKGROUND:
See attached previous information.
OPTIONS:
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION:
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS:
STAFF CONTACT:
ATTACHMENTS:
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
- Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: 1 -10 -06 City Manager Sign -off;
Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent [] old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing
❑ Information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Helmet Use Education
GOVERNING LEGISLATION:
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Council heard and discussed information pertiucut to
helmet safety during five previous council meetings:
(1) During the June ,1, 2004 Council Study Session, Ana Matthews of the Health District pave a
presentation of their campaign for a helmet ordinance, and went through a list of reasons to enact a helmet
law and added that the Traffic Safety Commission has pledged free helmets to those in need. Brief
discussion concluded with Council wanting to review several model ordintuices for further discussion and
consideration.
(2) Daring the June 29, 2004 Council Study Session, Deputy City Attorney Driskell and Police Chief Cal
Walker gave a presentation explaitung the legal issues relating to the proposed helmet law, with Mr,
Driskell voicing a concern about issuing citations to children. Police Chief Walker added that he is
concerned changing from an educational to an enforcement format because in the latter case, laws must
be clear and concise. Council determined that staff will revioxv the ordinance recently enacted by the City
J of Spokane, will check with MRSC for possible other examples, and will bring that information back at
another council meeting.
(3) At the May 10, 2005 Council Meeting, Michelle 1Volkey, legal council for the Spokane Regional
Health District, updated Council on the status of tfte helmet safety issue, stressing the importance of this
issue as she sees many bicycle riders without lielmets; and spoke of several recent accidents leaving
people in critical condition. She urged that helmets be required for bicycle riders, scooter operators, and
skateboard riders, and discussed different penalties proposed for the different ages (flive to fifteen; and
sixteen and over); the need for education; how to get helmets if the rider could not afford one; and that
guardians could be cited if their charge were riding a bike without a helutet while in the presence of the
guardian. There was discussion concerning tile, penally of civil infraction; die enforceability of such an
ordinance; discretionmy citing capabilities of officers; and other cities that have cnacwd similar
ordinances, ending with Council consensus to Move forward for formal consideration.
(h) The May 24, 2005 Council meeting was the opportunity for a first reading (which was advanced to a
second reading) of a proposed helmet sa.f-cty ordinance, submitted and explained by Deputy City Attorney
Driskell. Mr. Driskell highlighted the penalty provisions, stating that the provisions include tut
educational function for people between (lie ages of five and fifteen; and the penalty provisions would
apply to violators sixteen years old and older. During public coniment, five people spolce in favor- and
one person spoke agaitist the hchiiet safety ordinance. Extensive Council discussion ensued concerning
compliance, nominal repercussions regarding mines, education, individual and/or parental responsibility;
conducting bike safety week or other educational promotions of helmet safety; proteetion of the children
while not mandating helmets Bor adults; how the cost of caring for the injured frill on community
members; the resemblance of an ordinance for helmets to the seatbelt law; protecting the citizens; and of
the desire to see statistics concerning oilier city's ordinance compliance.
(5) The ordinance's second reading was held at the June 2$ 2005 Council meeting, where it was moved
to approve the ordinance with an amendment defining persons to read "individuals five years of age and
under the age of 16." Deputy Mayor Munson questioned the actual number of incidents that result in
head traumas, and questioned if perhaps the better route would be an aggressive education program,
including possible funding of helincts through tho Sheriff's Office, and rather than pass a holnict law, he
suggested placing the issue on a future study session. Jive people spoke in opposition and sii in favor
of the ordinance. Spokane City Police Officer Kim Thomas gave information and history concerning tale
Spokane City Helmet ordinance, including high usage and collision infonnation, but no statistics on
head traumas. After lengthy Counci I discussion, the motion failed with three in favor of the ordinance and
four against.
OPTIONS:
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION:
BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS;
STAFF CONTACT:
ATTACHMENTS
1. Januaay 10, 2006 Memorandum from Chris Bainbridge regarding Bicycle I•Ielmets
2. Internet article: "Flelntet Laws for Bicycle Riders" -- by Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute
3. Internet article: "The National Safe Kids Campaign Bicycle Injury Fact Sheet" -- by TrausSafety, hic.
A. Internet article: "Unintentional Injury"— by Spokane Regional Health District
5. Internet article: "12oad Injury Prevention & Litigation Journal " --by TransSafety, Tne.
6. Internet article: "Bicycle Safety" — by Brain Injury Association of America
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: May 24, 2005 City Manager Sign -off:
Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old buslness X new business ❑ public hearing
❑ Information admin. report ❑ pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Bicycle Helmet Ordinance, first reading
GOVERNING LEGISLATION:
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Received power point presentation from Spokane
Regional Health District on issues relating to helmet safety. Powerpoint and discussion by staff
with Council June 29, 2004. Powerpoint and discussion of revised draft ordinance with Michelle
Woikey, attorney for the Spokane Regional Health District May 10, 2005.
BACKGROUND: The Spokane Regional Health District provided the Council with information
on bicycle helmet safety last summer, including a proposed ordinance for the Council to
consider. At the request of Council, staff analyzed the proposed ordinance and discussed it
with the Council on June 29, 2004. Based on that discussion, the Council declined to consider
the ordinance in its then - existing form, and requested that the District address concerns raised
by City staff about the proposed ordinance. Those concerns were forwarded to the District.
The District asserts that this draft ordinance addresses those concerns.
The Council requested that this matter be put on the agenda for a first reading.
As mentioned May 10, the staff provided a place holder infraction class level of three in the
draft. The Council may want to consider changing it. The infraction levels and charges are as
follows:
Class 1 - $250 plus costs = $513
Class 2 - $1251257
Class 3 - $50/103
Crass 4 - $25152
OPTIONS: Request more information from staff /SRHD; move proposed ordinance on second
reading.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: If the Council wants to move the matter forward, a
motion would be: pl move that we advance the proposed helmet ordinance to a second reading
on an upcoming agenda."
BUDGETIFINANCIAL IMPACTS: None at this time.
STAFF CONTACT: Michelle Wolkey, Attorney for SRHD; Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney/
Cal Walker, Police Chief.
ATTACHMENTS: Draft helmet safety ordinance drafted and proposed by SRHD
DRAB r
This ordinance was
not approved
` CITY OF SPOKAKE VALLEY
' SPOKANE, Co"UNTY, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. OS -020
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY,
WAS..HTNGTON, R-t21[ITMi G TFIE USE OF PROTECTIVE KCiLMFTS WHEN
MING A IIICYCLF, SKATFROA -RD OR SCOOTER OR USING SKATES WITHMN
THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY.
WHEREAS, there is currently no state or local regulation requiring the use of a protective helmet
when riding a bicycles, skateboards o r scooters or using skates within the city limits; and
WHEREAS, failure to wear a protective lielmet when riding a bicycle, skateboard or scooter or
using skates creates a risk of serious injury to operators; and
WHEREAS, requiring the use of a protective helmet when riding a bicycle, skateboard or scooter
or using skates wquld increase the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Spokane Valley.
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Washington, do ordain as
follows:
Section I. Intent. The City of Spokane Valley declares that requiring the use of protective
helmets when riding a bicycle, skateboard, scooter or using skates is necessary to protect the he€tlth,
safety, and welfare of the public. Therefore, the intent of this ordinance is to promote the safe operation
of bicycles, skateboards, scooters and skates in order to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the
�...� public.
Section 2. New code royisions requiring the use of protective helmets. There is
established the following etew Sect under Title 7 of the City of Spokane Valley Municipal Code:
Chapter 7.40 Use of Protective I1elmels.
7.40.010 Definitions. The, following definitions are applicable in this chapter unless the
context otherwise requires:
A. "Approved Protective Helmet" means a head covering designed for safety that
meets or exceeds the required safety standards adopted by the U.S. Consumer Product
Safety Commission (CI'SC) 15 USCS 6004, or % - 00.4 set by the American National
Standards Institute (ANS1) the Snell Foundation, the American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM), or such subsequent nationally recognized standards for helmet
performance as may be adopted by the City of Spokane Valley. - rhe helmet shall be
equipped with a neck or chin strap that shall be securely fastened while the user is riding
the bicycle, skateboard, or scooter or wearing the skates.
B, $(Bicycle" means every device propelled solely by human power while. a person
or persons are riding, having hvo tandem wheels either of which is at least eleven inches
in diameter, or three wheels, any one of which is more thnn twenty inches in diameter
Within this chapter, the terns "bicycle" shall include tiny attached trailers, side ears,
and/or other device being towed by a bicycle.
Ordinance 05 -020 Helmet Safety Paget n1`4
DRAFT
THIS ORDINANCE WAS
NOT APPROVED
C. . "Electric- assisted bicycle" means a bicyclo with tAvo or three wheels, a saddle,
fully operative pedals for human propulsion and anti electric motor. �.. .
D. "Guardian" means a parent, legal guardian or other person eighteen years of age
or older who is responsible for the safety and welfare of a person under the age of sixteen
}rears.
p "l'er, on" includes those individuals who are five (S) years of age or older.
F. "Public area" means public roadways, sidewalks, bicycle paths, parks, or any
right -of -way, publicly -owned facility, or publicly -owned property within the City
G. "Scooter" means every device with a platform having two or more wheels
beneath it and a balancing hand post or steering device, which the rider balances on top
of, and which is propelled solely by human power.
H. "Skates" includes in -line skates, roller skates, skate shoes and any other footwear
that has two or more wheels attached beneath.
1. . "Skateboard" incans every device with a platform having two or more sets of
wheels beneath it, which the rider balances on top of, and which is propelled solely by
human power.
7,40.020 Use Requirements. "fhe requirements regarding the use of approved
protective helmets are set forth below;
A. Any person riding a bicycle, skateboard, scooter or using skates, including any
Passenger thereon and/or person being towed thereby, on any public area in the cite shall
wear an approved bicycle helmet, and shall have either the neck or chin strain of the
helmet fastened securely.
B, No person shall transport another person on or tow another person on a bicycle,
skateboard, scooter or skates upon ally public area in the jurisdiction of the city unless the
passenger is wearing an approved protective helmet.
C, A guardiani is responsiblc for requiring that a person under the loge of sixteen
years who is under tine guardian's care wears an approved protective helmet, the neck or
chin strap of which is fastened securely, while riding a bicycle, skateboard, scooter or
using skates in the guardian's presence.
7,40.030 Special Event Use Requirements, The requirements applicable to persons or
entities managing special events are set forth below:
A. Any person or entity managing a specizil event involving the use of bicycles,
skateboards, scooters or skates, which will take place in whole or in part in any public
area i the city, shall include the following statement in all promotional materials
1111 participants are required to wear approves! protective liebriets.
Participants without approves!proteclive lielincis will be Crcludeel
Ordinifnce 05 -020 Flein;ct Safety P age 2 or4
Yids" �'w;. _%t � r � '7 r- -7i � „�.: '. {_- - "r:..�'. .. .� -�� �-- '�.+'f:u n•• ;rrr r .. • ..-�
DfRA.1 „1' THIS ORDINANCE WAS NOT
APPROVED
B. Any person or entity managing a special event involving the use of bicycles,
skateboards, scooters or skates, which will take place in whole or in part in any public
area in the city, shall require that all participants wear approved protective helmets, and
exclude any participant who does not wear an approved protective helmet while riding a
bicycle, skateboard, scooter or using skates while in the presence of the event manager or
its employees.
7.40.040 Renting, Leasing, or Allo%ving Test Rides This section sets Forth the
requirements applicable to persons renting, leasing, or allowing test rides of bicycles,
skateboards, scooters or skates.
A. Any person engaged in the business of renting, leasing or allowing test rides of
bicycles, skateboards, scooters or skates for use in any public area of the city shall supply
the person(s) renting, leasing or test driving the device with an approved protective
helmet; unless the rider establishes that lie or she has their own helmet by showing We
helmet to the business representative.
B. Any written rental, lease or test ride agreement shall include the following
stalernenC
City of Spokane Valley Municipal Code Chapter 7.45 requires lhQt
approved protective helmets be properly worn by persons riding=
bicycles, skateboards, scooters or using skates.
7.40.050 Selling Helmets. Any person in the business of selling holmets shall not sell or
i offer to sell any lielmct that is not an approved protective liclnet.
7.40.060 Penalties. The penalties for violation of this chapter are as follows
A. Any person sixteen years of age or older violating any provision of this chapter
shall be deemed to have comtnitted a class three civil infraction. If a violation has been
determined to have been coEmtnitted, the violator shall pay the penalty, along with court
costs and tees.
B. For the purpose of this section, the Spokane Valley Police Department is the person
authorized to enforce the provisions ofthis Chapter.
C. The Procedures for the issuance of a Notice of Infraction, hearings, assessitient
and payment of monetary penalties shall be in accordance with the provisions of Spokane
Valley Municipal Code Section t.10.040.
D. Any person between the ages of five (5) and fiflecn (15) years of age violating
any provision of this chapter may be provided educational instruction on the need for and
availability of approved protective helmets.
E. information about the need for approved protective helmets, safe lelmel use,
traffic safety education and helmet safety programs are available at the City of Spokane
Valley Police Department and Spokanc Regional Health District.
r�
Ordinancc 05 -420 Hetnict Sarety Page 3 of
DRAFT
Section 3. 5everabili '
If any section, sentence., clause, phrase, or word of this ordinance should be held
to be invalid or unconstitutional by it wart of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or
unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section,
sentence, clause, phrase, or work of this ordinance.
Section 4. Effective Date.
This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five (5) days after the date of
publication of this Ordinance or a summary thereof in Ilse official newspaper of the City.
PASSED by the City Cotntcil this — day of . 2005.
THIS ORDINANCE WAS NOT APPROVED
Mayor, Diana Nithite
ATTrti7':
City Clerk, Christine Bainbridge
We of Publication
Fffectivo Date:
Approved as to form:
Deputy City Attorney, Cary Driskell
Ordinance 05.020 Helmet Safety Page 4 DN
,;00*VaUey 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 ♦Spokane Valley WA 94206
509.921.1000 ♦ Fax: 509.921.1008 ♦ cityhatiospokanevalley.org
Memorandum
To: Counclimembers
Cc: Dave Mercier, City Manager; Nina Regor, Deputy City Manager
From: Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk
Date: January 10, 2005
Re: Bicycle Helmets
Current educational efforts:
I. BicyCle safeu rodeos.
1. SCOPE volunteers
♦ `There is no schedule for rodeos by volunteers, they are held as needed /requested.
♦ Usually held in available parking lots, etc. like the 1NVhimsical Pig Apartments
♦ There is no cost to participants.
♦ Volunteer Al Fisher, cell phone 218 -5203, is the Bicycle Rodeo Coordinator for SCOPE.
1 Al is also a member of the Spokane County Bicycle Helmet Coalition grid Safe Kids
Coalition (both sponsored by Spokane.RegionalI-lealth District)
♦ Children receive, a "report card" folloMng completion.
♦ Children are furnished with a free helmet if they don't have one available (especially to
low- income families).
2. Shcrifl's Bike Unit
♦ No cost for participation.
♦ 20+ participants necessary (to make it worthwhile for deputies' time).
3. COPS Shops in City of Spokane
2. Sae rn rams available now;
♦ League of American Bicyclists --b weeks curriculum (Deputies Jeff Bergeron and Bob Sofa are
trained instructors)
♦ YMCA
♦ Wke shops such as R.E.I. and Wheel Sport offer educational programs oil topics including
helmets, safe riding, mainlenimce, nutrition, etc.
♦ Bicycle Alliance last year received a $48,000 grave froth the Traffic Safety Commission to train
and directly assist 15 schools in the Spokane, .K.itsap County, Moses .Lake and Olympia regions to
plan and implement safe routes to school programs,
♦ Various informational fliers and brochures are available through Washington Traffic Safety
Commission, Spokane Regional Health District (Spokane Safe Kids Coalition and Spokane
County Bicycle Helmet Coalition) and many of theso fliers are distributed through SCOPE
stations.
I- 1:lcbainbridg6RCAslhclmet memo with helmet rca.doc Pagel oft
3. Places where ntetnbers of the public can go for helmet education riutari! y covers proper rit & svh
it is needed)
4 All bike shops
♦ SCOFF, voltinteers /stations
♦ All Bike Patrol clepulies
♦ Valley Precinct
4. Places sphere ntentbers of the tNablic can get free Mine&
• SCOFF Stations -- they distribute hundreds of helmets
• Valley Precinct
• Spokane County Health District (Ana Mathews)
(Note: These helmets are paid for by grants, and Mould be an an "as needed" basis to low -
income fainilies, but documentation of income is not required.)
(Thanks and appreciation are extended to .Sharon Jones of die Spokane Valley Polico Department for her
assistance in gathering this information.)
F- , UsinbridgelRCAslhclrnet memo with }pelmet rca.doc page 2 oft
Helmet Laws for Bicyele Riders
Revised immediately upon receipt of nest/ info.
For date of last revision sec Jast line at the bottom. '
l N
t
1
Summary: There is no federal Iaw in the U.S. requiring
bicycle helmets. The states and localities below began
adopting lives in•1987, mostly limited to children under 18.
More info on 11e1.11let laws follows the list,
Washington State
-
Aberdeen
All ages
2001
Bainbridge island
AT.1 ages
2001•
Sellovue
All ages
2002
Bremerton
All ago$
2000
Des Moines
All ages
ID93
rlupont •
All ages
Duvall
All ages
i993'
Eatonvill.e
Under 16
1996
Enumclaw
All ages
1993
Fircrest
All ages
1995
Gig Harbor
A11 ages
1996
Hunts Point
All ages
1993
Island County:
All ages
1997
(Recommendation.only,)
Kent
All ages
1999
King County
A11 ages
1993
Lakewood
All ages
1996
Milton
All ages
1997
Orting
Under 17
1997
Pic -roe County
A 1 ages
.1994
Port Angeles
All ages
1994
Poul.sbo
Under 18
1995
Puyallup
All ages
1994
'Renton
All ages
1999
Seatac
All, ages over
1 yr• 1999
Seattle
All ages
2003
Snohomish skate park
All ages
2002
(City -wide bike ordinance repealad)
Snoslualmie
All ages
1996
Spokane*
All ages
2004
Steilacoom
All ages
1995
Tacoma *
All ages
1994
University Place
All ages
3.996
Notes
The Spokane Iaw was passed
by the City Cotmcil
over the
Mayor's veto. the iMay6r - wanted to delay, reduce coverage to
those 16 and wader, not cover
skateboarders or inliae skaters and
coordinate with neighboring jurisdictions,
The Council
vote was
5 -1 with one absent.
!
Bic ycl e H elmet Safety Institute
Helmet Related Statistics from Many Sources
.Summary: Below are acres of stats from every source we can fm(l. Most of them are
probably inaccurate. Take your pickt
First, our own pick of Basic Numbers from mony sources:
• There are 85 million bicycle riders in the US
• More than 600 bicyclists die in the'LJS every year
• About 540,000 bicyclists visit emergency rooms with injuries every year. Of
those, about 67,000 have head injuries, and 27,000 have injuries serious enough to be
hospitalized.
• Bicycle croshes and injuries are under reported, spice the majority are not serious
enough for emergency room visits.
• I in 8 of the cyclists with reported injuries has a brain. injury.
• Two- thirds of the deaths hero arc from traumatic brain injury.
• A very high percentage of cyclists` brain injuries can be prevented by a helmet,
estimated at anywhere from 45 to 88 per cent.
❑ Many years of potential life arc lost because about half of the deaths are children under
15 }rears old. --
❑ Direct o6sts of cyclists` injuries due to not using lichnets are estimated at $81 million
each year,
❑ indirect costs of cyclists' injuries due to not using helmets are estimated at $2.3 billion
each year.
❑ .Helmet use in the U$ varies by orders of magnitude in different areas and di.ffercnt
sectors of out' society. White collar commuters probably reach 80 per cent, while inner
city kids and raral kids would be 10 per cent or less, Overall, our best wild guess is
probably no more than 25 per cent. Sommers Point, NJ, where a state helmet law is in
effect, found that only 24. of the 359 students who rode to school in one week of the
Winter of 2002 worb helmets (6 per cent) until the School District adopted a helmet rule.
North Carolina observed 17 per cent statcevide before their law went into effect in 2001.
❑ Helmets are cheap. The typical discount store price has risen from under $10 to about
$15, but there are still models available for under $10 at major retailers.
Statistics from the Insurance Instituto for.9ighway Safe
[fatality Facts: Bicycles - 2003
Only 1 percent of motor vehicle - related deaths are bicyclists. Among a majority of those
killed, the most serious injuries are to the head, so it's important for bicyclists to ivear
behuets. Helmet use has beers estimated in one study to reduce head injury risk by 85
percent. Nineteen states and the District of Columbia have helmet laws applying to young
bicyclists; none of these laws applies to all riders. local ordinances in a fow states do
require some or all bicyclists to wear helmets. A nationwide phone survey estimated that
state helmet use laws increase the probability that a rider will wear a helmet by 18
percent, Helmets are important for riders of all age, especially because adult bicyclists
represent more than threquarters of bicycle deaths.
17 619 bicyclists were killed in crashes with motor vehicles in 2003. This is 7 percent
fewer than in 2002 and down 38 percent since 1975.
0 1;ighty -five percent of bicyclists killed in 2003 reportedly weren't wearing helmets.
R.F.l,SI Note: We don't know where the ituntber.4 in the ballet point above and the chart
belorp originated. The data to retake that determination is not usually collected lit the
field
Bicycle Deaths byHelmet'Use
1994 - 2003
Year
No Helmet
Num %
Helmet Total*
Num % Num
1994
1995
F
776 97
78395
192 796 '
- 344 828
- -- - -
1996
—
7 96
274 761
1997
785_97
233 1 811
1998 r
1999
741 98
69893 {
162 757
42 6 750
2000
62290
507 689
608 729
`—
001 61684
J
i 59989
-
548 - - 663
_2002 -
2003 i 52785
579 619
*Total includes other and,/or unknowns
0 Twenty -your percent of bicyclists killed in 2003 had a blood alcohol concentration
(BAC) at or above 0.08 percent.
0 lit 2003, about 8 times as many bicycle deaths were moles compared with females. At
every age, more malo than female bicyclists were killed. Deaths per million people were
higher among males than females at all ages. Bicycle deaths per million people wore
highest among 12 year -old stales.
❑ I)eaths among bicyclists younger than 16 have bone down dramatically since 1975 (79
percent). Now they represcnt just a quarter of bicycle deaths in 2003 compared with two-
thirds in 1975.
❑ In 2003, bicycle deaths were most likely to occur in summer and fall and bohN the
hours o.F6 pm -9 pin.
0 Older bicyclists represent a larger percentage of bicycle deaths than in the past.
Seventy -six percent of 2002 bicycle deaths were riders 16 years and older. This compares
with 32 percent of bicycle deaths in 1975.
0 More bicyclists were killed in urban areas than in rural areas (68 percent compared
with 31 percent) in 2003.
0 Thirty-five percent of bicycle deaths on roadways in 2003 occurred at intersections.
❑ Sixty-one percent of bicycle deaths on roadways in 2003 occurred on major roads, and
35 percent occurred on minor. roads
EJ In 2003, 57 percent of bicycle dcaths among children younger than 16 and 28 percent
of Mult (ago 16 and older) bicycle deaths occurred on minor roads. Adult bicyclists were
more likely than children to have been killed on major roads (66 percent compared with
42 percent),
Doivnloaded .Mae, 2005. For charts and more detail see the JLffS site
Statistics from Safe Kids USA
On May 11, 2004, the Safe Kids USA published a study on Helmet usage rates showing
that:
• Only 41 per cent of the kids 5 to 14 at surveyed sites were wearing helmets,
although the sites chosen had a bias for higher rates.
• Even at sites where helmets were required, only 52 per cent wore them.
• At sites where wheels are used for transportation, only 38 per cent wore helmets.
• More than a third of the kids wearing helmets did not 118ve them fitted correctly.
Conversely, two- thirds did!
1
�1
r�
L�
The effect of laws was not well evaluated. Although sites with state level helniet
laves had only 45 per cent wearing helmets and sites widiout state levol laws had 39 per
cent, the study did not take into AQWLI tt whether or not there was a local ordina ".
You can .CiAd the whole, study on the Sato Kids siEC
i statistics from'the Cousnrncr Product Safety Commission
a Bicycle helmet usage hits increased fi)om 1.8 percenC in 1991 to 50 percent in 1998
' Bike- related crashes kill 900 people every year attd send about 567,000 to
hospital owergencyroonlswith injuries
• - Wearing a bike helmet can reduce the risk of head injury by 85 percent_
Today there are all estimated S0.6 million riders, 43 percent of whom never wear
helmets and 7 percent of whom woar helmets less tharr halFthe time.
i Of biters who now report wearing a helmet, 98 percent said they wore a llclltvct
for safety reasons, 7 0 perecttt said they wore a helmet brcausc a palVnt or spouse insisted
oa it and 44 percent said they slid so because a lawn required it.
• 69 percent of children under 16 wear a helmet on a regular basis while riding a
s ..
bike, aaaordin; to parents.
f 38 percent of adult bike riders i e¢ larly wear their helmets. '
hero is the Pruss 'Release on the study, and here is the whole text There Are other
estimates further down this page t hat, we Consider more realistic f.4r the nation as a whole
Nor axarnple, rite University of North Carolina has conducted Arable ob
studies showing a staWwide hehnet usage rata of 17 parr cent. On the other hand, usage
observed in Seattle in 1999 w a s 60 %o for children, 37% or teens and 7 1% for adults.
Helmet use in western Washington :3tato is 56 %, *but just 33% for eastern Wash ington
where lrelnia ;prgtCaoCiOn Cainpai¢is have, not been as intense (Source: Diane Thompson,
M8, Epidamiologisf, Harborview Injury'Prm entiou Be, Research Center)
Mnre Statistics from the CollsnmerProduct safety Corurttlssiorl's
Cunsumer Praduct 811f6ty Revicwv - Spring, 2400
Raby BoumcrSports Injuries
sports. related injuries among those ages 35 tb 54 (Baby boomers) increased 33
per cent fronx 1991 to 1998,
• - fho population in that age bracket increased from G5 to 79 milliori, explaining
some of the increase.
+ In 1998 bicycling acrountod for the largest number treated in hospital en3ergency
rooms. Bike- h1judes were uvor 65,1700, while basketball injuries in second place were
sander 50,000.
* In 1995, ar total of 2 boomers died in bicycle Cr ashes, with 255 involving a car
(88 per cent).
•
In 1998, no other sport killed as ninn boomers Swimming was a distant second
with 67 deaths, skiing third with 7 deaths,
In 1998 baby hoomers on bicycles died from head irrjurles art nearly twice the
rate of children oa bikes. CPSC bciieves th an the difference its death raves is due to mom
A
helmet use by children.
• CPSC believes that 69 per cent of children wear bike helmets and only 43 per
cent of boomers.
• It is important for baby bootmcrs to stay active and participate in sports.
• The article is signed by George Rutherford, CPSC Directorate for Epidemiology
And this front a CPSC Web page
Q. Which sport is most likely to crash -land you in a hospital emergency room?
A. Bike accidents crash -land more kids in hospital emergency rooms than any other sport.
In fact, kids ages 5 to 14 get hurt more often than bikers of any other agel Every day,
about 1,000 kids end tip in hospital emergency rooms with injuries from bikes - like
broken bones or brain concussions. About one kid every day dies of these injuries. Others
suffer lifetime problems, like limping or brain damage.
Injuries to Bicyclists. From A Afonograph by the Johns Hopkins Injury Prevention
Center Sponsored by the Snell Memorial foundation
<^Each year in the United States;
• more than 900 bicyclists amo killed - - [balling since this was done: in 1997 it
was 808)
• 20,000 are admitted to hospitals
• 580,000 receive emergency room treatment
A For the population as a whole, there are approximately:
• 1.8 billion bicycle trips
• 300 injuries per million trips
• 1 death in every 2 million trips (0.5 per million)
A11cinicts are needed because head injuries in bicyclists are noted in:
• 65,000 emergency room cases and 7,700 hospital admissions annually
• about 40 per cent of bicyclists admitted to hospitals
• an estimated 70 to 80 per cent of fatally injured bicyclists
Allicyclists hospitalized with head injuries are 20 times as likely to die as those
Ivithout.
Abicyclist injury rates per million trips are highest at age 5 to 15.
ABicyclist death rates per million trips are highest above age 50.
ABicyclist death rates per 100,000 population are highest at age 10 -14.
Alii,fty -six per cent of fatally injured bicyclists are age 20 or older.
ADeath rates for male bicyclists age 20 -54 have substantially increased in recent
years.
Coritlaared Nvith females, males;
make 2.5 times as malty bicycle trips
are 2.4 times as likely to be killed, per trip
have a death rate per 100,000 population that is 6 times as high
AThe death rate per million trips is 8 times as high from 10 I'M to 1 AM as from
9AMtoIPM.
l�
c1bMotor vehicles are involved in 90 -92 per cent of bicyclist deaths and 12 per cent
of injuries.
dwbOne third of bicyclist fatalities occur on roads with speed limits of 55 mph or
higher.
AlWo thirds of fatally injured bicyclists tire tested for alcohol; 32 per cent of
those tested have been drinking.
ABicyclist death rates per'trip or per person mile of travel greatly exceed the
rotes for car occupants.
Statistics front the Safe Kids USA
Please cheep their Web t}age for their latest Fact Sheet on Bicycle Injury.
fnjuries to Children
' Denths and Injuries
a
In 2 001, nearly 314,600 children ages 14 and under were trcatcd in hospital
emergency rooms for bicycle-relnted injuries. Nearly half (47 percent) of children ages 14
and under hospitali7xd for bicycle- related injuries are diagnosed with a traumatic brain
injury.
a In 2001, children ages 14 and under accounted for 36 percent of bicyclists injured
in motor vehicle crashes. It is estimated that collisions with motor vebieles account for
nearly 90 percent of all bicycle - related deaths and l0 percent of all nonfatal bicycle-
\` , related injuries
o More than 40 percent of all bicycle - related deaths due to head injuries and
I approximately three - fourths or all bicycle- related head injuries occue among children
ages 14 and under.
o Children can be seriously hart from colliding with handlebars during a fall, even
in low speed bike crashes. One national study of seriously injured bicyclists found that
handlebar impacts accounfed for 22 percent of injuries among nonhead- injured children.
Improper bicycle sizing may predispose a child to falling and exposo more of his trunk to
the handlebar.
When anti WhuraDicycle Deaths and Injurks Occur
o Children are more likely to dio from motor vehicle- related bicycle crashes at
nonintersection locations (74 percent), during the months of April through October ($1
percent) and behveen 3 p.m. and 7 p.m. (55 percent),
o Nearly 60 percent of all childhood bicycie- related deaths occur on minor
roads.The typical bicyclelmotor vehicle crash occurs within 1 mile of the bicyclist's
home.
o Children ages 4 and under are more likely to be injured in nonstrect locations
around 010 llonre (e.g., driveway, garage, yard) than are children ages 5 to 14.
a Children ages 14 and under are nearly lour ti.mos more likely to be injured riding
in non - daylight hours (e.g., at dawn, dusk or night) than during the daytime.
a Among children ages 14 and under, more tbau 80 percent of bicycle- related
fatalities are associated with the bicyclist's behavior, including riding into a street without
stopping, turning left or swerving into traffic that is coining from behind, running a stop
sign, and riding against the flow of traffic,
Who is at 11isk
o Riding without a bicycle helmet significtrntly increases the risk of sustaining a
head injury in tho event of a crash. \bnhelmeted riders are 14 times more likely to be
involved in a fatal crash than helmeted riders.
o Children ages 10 to 14 Are at greater risk for traumatic brain injury from a bicycle-
related crash compared with younger children, most likely because helmet use declines its
children age. Helmet use is lowest (for all ages) among children ages I 1 to 14 (11
percent).
o Correct fit and proper positioning are essential to the effectiveness of bike helmets
at reducing injury. One study found that children whose helmets fit poorly are at twice the
risk of head injury in a crash compared with children whose helmet fit is excellentin
addition, children who wear their helmets tipped back on their heads have a 52 percent
greater risk of head injury than those who wear their helmets centered on their heads.
o Children ages 14 and under are five times more likely to be injured in a bicycle -
related crash than older riders.
o Males account for 82 percent of bicycle- related deaths and 70 percent of nonfatal
injuries among children ages 14 and under.Children ages 10 to 14, especially males, have
the highest death rate of all ages from bicycle - related head injury.
Bicycle Helmet Effectiveness
o Bicycle helmets have been shown to reduce the risk of head injury by as much as
85 percent and the risk of brain injury by as much as 88 pereent.fiiCycle helmets have also
been shown to offer substantial protection to die forehead and midFacc.
o It is estimated that 75 percent of hicycle- related-fatalities among children could be
prevented with a bicycle helmet,
o 'Universal use of bicycle helmets by. children ages 4 to t5 could prevent between
135 and 155 deaths, between 39,000 and 45,000 head injuries, and between 18,000 and
55,000 scalp face t.ijurios annually.
o Child helmet ownership and use increases with the parent's inconie and education
level, yet decreases with the child's age. Children are mote likely to wear a bicycle
helmet if riding with others (peers or adults) who are also wearing one.tn a national
survey of children ages 8 to 12, 53 percent reported that a parental rule for helmet use
would persuade them to wear a helmet, and 49 percent would wear a helmet if a state or
community law required it.
Bicycle Helmet ]LRivs and Regulations
o Currently, 19 states, the District of Columbia and numerous localities have
enacted some form of bicycle helmet legislation, most of which cover only young
riders.At least five stator now require children to wear a helmet while participating in
other wheeled sports (e.g., for scooters, inlino skates, skateboards).
o Various studies have shown bicycle helmet legislation to be effective at increasing
bicycle helmet use and reducing bicycle-related death and injury among children covered
under the law.One example shows that hi Cho fve years following the passage of a state
mandatory bicycle helmet law for children ages 13 and under, bicycle - related fatalities
decreased by fro percent. Police enforcement increases the electiveness of these laws.
o One recent study reported that the rate of bicycle helmet use by children
ages 14 and under was 58 percent greater in a county with a fully comprehensive bike
helmet law than in a similar county with a less comprehensive law.
Health Care Costs and Savings
a The total annual cost of trait- related bicyclist death and injury among children
ages 14 and under is more than $2.2 billion.
o Every dollar spent on a bike helmet saves society $30 in direct medical costs and
other costs to society,
v If 85 percent of all child cyclists wore bicycle helmets in one year, die lifetime
medical cost savings could total between $109 million and $142 million.
o A review of hospital discharge data in Washington state found that treatment for
nonfatal bicycle injuries among children ages 14 and under costs more than $113 million
each year, an average of $218,000 per injured child.
Stats from the.fournal of Iniuryf'revention
State level estimates of the incidence and economic burden of head injuries
stemming from non - universal use of bicycle Itelmets, by J Schulman, J Sticks and G
Provenzano
"Approximately 107,000 bicycle- related head injuries could have been prevented in 1997
in the United States. These preventable injuries and deaths represent an estimated $81
million in direct and $2.3 billion in indirect health costs, Estimates range from 200
preventable bicycle- related head injuries and $3 million in health costs in Wyoming
(population 480 000) to 13 700 preventable bicyclo-re fated head injuries and $320 million
in health costs in California (population 32.3 million)." (There are numbers for other
states as well, but you have to buy the article for them.)
A note front the University of California at$erl eley Wellness Letter of flee 97:
"It's estimated that 96 % of cyclists killed in 1996 were not wearbtg liehnets."
Statistics front the abstract of an article from JAATA, the Journal of the American
Medical Ass•ociedlon:
Bicycle Associated Head Injuries and Deaths in the United States From .1.984
Through 1988: IRONY Many Are Preventable?
Jefftcy J. Sacks, ACID, iI1PH; Patricia Holmgreen, MS; Suzanne M. Smith, A11); Daniel M
Sosin, MD
Objective. -To estimate the potential benefits from more widespread bicycle safety
helmet use.
Design.-Review of death certificates and emergency department injury data for 1984
Iltrough 1988. Categorization of deaths and injuries as related to bicycling and head
injury. Using relative risks of 3,85 and 6.67 derived from a case- control study and varying
helmet usage from 10 per cent to 100 per cent, population attributable risk was calculated
to estimate preventable deaths and injuries.
Setting;,- Entire United States.
Alain Outcome 1 4casures. - Numbers of US residents coded as dying from bicycle
related head injuries, numbers of persons presenting to emergency departments for
bicycle- related head injuries, and numbers of attributable bicycle related deaths and head
injuries.
Main Results. - From 1984 through 1988, bicycling accounted for 2985 head injury
deaths (62 per cent of all bicycling deaths) and 905,752 head injuries (32 per cent of
persons with bicycling injuries treated at an emergency department). Forty -one percent of
head injury deaths and 76 per cent of head injuries occurred among children less than 15
years of age, Universal use of helmets by all bicyclists could have prevented as many as
2500 deaths and 757,000 head injuries, i.e., one death every day and one head injury
every 4 minutes.
Conclusions.- hffective community -based education programs and legislated approaches
for increasing bicycle safety helinet usage have been developed and await only the
resources and commitment to reduce these unnecessary deaths and injuries.
(JAMA, 1991;266:3016 -3018)
Statistics from Anterican Bicyclist:
Some Bike Shops Still Do Not Carry Helmets
(As reported in Anterican bicyclist in August, 1995)
Ninety-three percent of bike shops carry helmets. Two percent plan to add them in the
coming year. Anterican Bicyclist asks if that can mean that one bike shop in 20 still does
not carry helmets.
Source: Americart J3lcyclisi research by Readcx.
This page was last revised on: December 21, 2005.
i
.,r
THE NATIONAL SAYE KIDS CAMPAIGN BICYCLE IN WRY FACT SHEET
;.� Auto and Road User
ROADS Journal
Page 1 of 4
September 9, 1998
TranSafety, Inc,
1- 800.777 -2338
(U.S. and Quinda)
(360) 683 -6276
Fax: (360) 683-
6719
info @usroacls.com
THE NATIONAL SAFE KIDS CAMPAIGN BICYCLE INJURY
FACT SHEET
(This article is repraduced whit pennission from the website of tho National Safe Kids
Campaign at littl):/I% vww.safekids.orglltocne.httnl.)
More than 70 percent of children ages 5 to 14 (27.7 million) ride bicycles. This age group rides about 50
percent more than the average bicyclist and accounts for approximately one -third of all bicycle- related
deaths and more than two- thirds of all bicycle - related injuries: Bicycles are associated with more
childhood injuries than Any other consumer product. except the automobile..
Head injury is the leading cause of death in bicycle crashes and is the most important determinant of
bicycle- related death and permanent disability, Head injuries account for more than 60 percent of
bicycle - related deaths, more than two - thirds of bicycle - related hospital admissions, and about one -third
of hospital emergency room visits for bicycling injuries. The single most effective safety device
available to reduce head injury and death from bicycle crashes is a bicycle helmet. Helmet use is
associated with a reduction in the risk of bicycle - related death and injury and a reduction in the severity
of head injury when a crash omuzs. Unfortunately, national estimates report that bicycle helmet use
anions child bicyclists ranges from 15 to 25 percent. Relmet usage is lowest (for all ages) among
children ages 1 I to 14 (I I percent). Bicycle education programs and mandatory bicycle helmet
legislation aru ef_fcctive at increasing helmet use and, therefore, reducing bicycle - related death an
injury.
0EiATIIS AND IArJUJUES
. In 1995, more than 250 children ages 14 and under died.in bicycle- related crashes. Motor vehicles
were involved in 230 of these deaths. .
. In 1996, more than 350,000 children ages 14 and under were treated in hospital emergency rooms
for bicycle- related uijuries.
. it is estimated that collisions with motor vehicles account for 90 percent of all bicycle - related
deaths and 10 percent of all nonfatal bicycle- related injuries. Collision with a motor vehicle
increases the risk of death, severity of injury, and the probability of sustaining a head injury,
• More than 40 percent of all head injury - related deaths and approxiviately three - fourths of head
http'//www.usroads.coiiViouriifils/artij/9909/rti98O9O 12/30/2005
THE NATIONAL SAFF, KIDS CAMPAIGN 131CYCIX INMY ]FACT Si-T T Page 2 of 4
injuries occur among children ages 14 and under. Younger children suffer a higher proportion of
head injuries than older children.
iV W1V AjVD WHERE BICYCLE DEA. THS AND INJURIES OCCUR
. Children are more likely to die from bicycle crashes at non - intersection locations (66 percent),
during the months of May to August (55 percent), and between 3 p.m. and 6 p,m. (39 percent).
. Nearly 60 percent of all childhood bicycle - related deaths occur on minor roads. The typical
bicycle/motor vehicle crash occurs witbin one mile of the bicyclist's home.
• Children ages 14 and render are more likely to be injured riding in non. - daylight hours (e.g., at
dawn, dusk or night). The risk of sustaining an injury during non - daylight conditions is nearly
four times greater than during the daytime.
. Among children ages 14 and under, more than 80 percent of bicycle - related fatalities are
associated with the bicyclist's behavior. The most common crashes include riding into a street
without stopping; turning left or swerving into traffic that is corning from behind; running a stop
sign; and riding Against the flow of traffic.
W10 IS AT.RISE
• Riding without a bicycle helmet increases the risk of sustaining a head injury in the event of a
crash. Nonhehueted riders are 14 times more likely to be involved i.n a fatal crash than bicyclists
wearing a helmet.
• Collision with a motor vehicle and crashes occurring at speeds greater than 15 miles per liour
increase the risk of severe bicycle- related injury and death.
• Children ages 14 and under are five times more likely to be injured in a bicycle- related crash than
older riders.
. Males account .for approximately 85 pe-reent of bicycle - related deaths and 70 percent of nonfatal
injuries and have higher bicycle - related death and injury rates than females. Children ages .10 to
14, especially males, have the highest death rate from bicycle- related head injury of all ages.
. Children under age 10 are at greater risk for serious injury mid are more likely to suffer head
injuries than older riders. Approximately half of al I bicycle - related injuries among children under
age 10 occur to the head/face, compared to one -fifth among older children.
•. Bicyclists admitted to hospitals witi head injuries are 20 times more likely to die as those without
head injuries.
BICYCLE DELKET EFFECTIVE
• Bicycle helmets have been shown to reduce the risk of lead.tnjury by as much as 85 percent and
the risk of brain inj'ay by as much as 88 percent. Bicycle helmets have also been shown to offer
substantial protection to the forehead and mid face.
http: / /wkv%v.usroads.com /journals /aruj /9809/rLi980901.htm 12/30/2005
THE NATIONAL SAFE KI17S CAMPAIGN BICYCLE IN URY TACT SH> ET Page 3 of 4
• It is estimated that 75 ,percent of bicycle related fatalities among children could be prevented with
a bicycle helmet.
• Universal use of bicycle.helmets by children ages 4 to 15 could prevent between 135 and 155
deaths, between 39,000 and 45,000 head injuries, and between 18,000 and 55,000 scalp and face
injuries annually.
Child helmet ownership avid use increases with income and educational level, yet decreases with
age. Children are more likely to wear a Bicycle hchnet if riding with others (peers or adults) who
arc also wearing one and less likely to wear one if their companions are not.
BICFCI, E HF,.T,MET LA WS AAtD RE G ULA27O ArS
• Currently, 15 states and more than 30 localities have enacted some form of bicycle helmet
legislation, tuost of which cover only young riders.
. Various studies have shoNvii bicycle belrnet legislation to be effective at increasing bicycle helmet
use artd reducing bicycle- related death and injury among children covered under the law. Helmet
use among children is greater in those regions of the United States with the highest proportion of
mandatory helmet laws.
• One exam, ple shows that five years following the passage of a state mandatory bicycle helmct laws
for children ages 13 and u.uider, bicycle - related fatalities decreased By 60 percent.
�} • Pursuant to the Child Safety Protection Act of 1994,.the Consumer Product Safety Conuuission is
currently developing a mandatory federal safety standard for bicycle helmets.
IMA LTH CARE COSTS AXD SAV.IAIGS
• Every bicycle helmet saves this country $395 indirect medical costs and other costs to society.
If 85 percent of all child cyclists wore bicycle helmets in one year, the Iifetime medical cost
savings could total between $109 n.ifll.ion and $142 million.
• A review of hos 'pital discharge data in Washington state found that treatment for nonfatal bicycle
injru among children ages 14 and under cost more. than $113 million each year, axt average of
$218,000 per child.
PR.EVEATTION TIPS FROM TILE iVA TIOXAL SAFE KIDS CAMPAIGN
A bicycle helmet is a necessity not an accessory. Always wear a bicycle hchnet every tune and
everywhere you ride.
• Wear a bicycle helmet correctly. A bicycle helmet should fit comfortably and snugly, but not too
tightly. It should sit on top of your head in a level position and should not rock fonvard and back
or from side to side, The helmet straps must always be buckled.
• Buy a bicycle helmet that meets or exceeds the safety standards developed by the Aineriemi
httri; / /www.tisroads.com/ journals /anti /9809 /ru980901.htai 12/3012005
THE, NATIONAL, SAFE MD8 CAMPAIGN BICYCLE INMY FACT SHEET Page 4 of 4
iva.ional Standards Institute (ANSI], the Snell Memorial Foundation and/or the American Society
for Testing and Materials (ASTM).
• Learn the rules of the road and obey all traffic laws. Ride on the right side of the road, with '
traffic, not against; use appropriate hand signals; respect traffic signals; stop at all stop signs and
stop lights; and stop and took botlr ways before entering a street.
. Cycling should be restricted to sidewalks and paths until a child is age 10 and able to show how
well he or she rides and observes the basic rules of the road, parental and adult supervision is
essential until the traffic skills and judgment thresholds are reached by each child.
9/97
This inrmmallon was compiled by the NationaI SAFE, KIDS Compalgn (NSKC),1301 PenaVIVanla Avenue, Suite 1000, W6shingtoa, D.C.
20004.1707.
0
Back to ndex Top of Pa
http: / /wwtiv.usroads.com/ journals /anij /9809 /ru980901.htni 12/30/2005
EGIOHAL
� UD
The five leading causes of de<nth date to injury in
Spokane County for children 0.24 years of age were:
• motor vehicle crashes
• suicide
• homicide
accidental fire/burns
drowning'
The rate of all fatal unintentional: injuries to children, in
both Spokane County and Washington State, is
decreasing'
Ail Fatal Unintentional 1n1ury Rates for 0 to 24 Year olds,
Spokane County and Washington State 1884.1998 3
46
55� 33 1rt
2S'
20
is to Y
3
a
im 1992 1864 19®0 1448 19g0 1992 1994 19% ON
- ;, "W G-Ait a WA S[A1A
The correct use of seat bells is estimated to decrease
motor vehicle- related fatalities for all ages by 40% to
509 and decrease sglous injury by 45% to 55%,4
People who died as a result of a collision were 50% less
likely to have been using a restraining device than those
who were.injured,s
There were 62 drowning deaths of children ages 0 to 24
in Spokane County between 1980 and 1999?
A � t t t'�i�I F t `r zeds''. �� t�l� ��ts�k'�,�,�i���'��Ct `5
(
In a 1999 Spokane County Youth Risk .Behavior Survey
81% of the respondents reported riding bicycles during
the 12 months before taking the survey. Qfthosv who
had ridden a bicycle in the past year, 63% never wore a
ltcimct.
Youth who wore H elm@ta !While Rlding
Their Bicycles (n =lHdit)
AWayo wore a
Most of the tlmo wore a halmak 9.4%
holmet 7,7
Sometimes ware a
helmet 81%
Rarely wore A
helmet 11. % Hover.
wort A
helmet
s .2,0%
Wearing a bicycle helmet is tho single most effective
safety device available to reduce head injwy and death
from bicycle crashes.'
Non -Fatal Islcyolo vs. Motor Vohldo IrIjuryi Hosphalkatlun
Rates for 0 to 24 Year Olds by Gondar
Spokane County 1989 -1999'
so
45
4 0
J5
sa ss,s s4 �a ` srt
xa 34a
Se
Is 22A
16
6 ie,6 10.d -1J.0 ■
198$ 1990 1891 199 1899 1894 169s 1896 9997 1488 1499
— #--Malmo �> omakati
�o�n��l�ata ,nntteut�in'"1 �`I [tiu
There are many more non -fatal injuries than faud
injuries. These non - fatal injuries have a large impact on
the medical care delivery system, family system,
educational system, taxpayer burden, and the
individual's economic situation, The five most prevalent
non - fatal injuries requiring hospitalization in
Washington State and Spokane County from 1998 to
1999 for children 0 -24 years of age were:
• motor vehicle crashes (occupant)
• falls
• suicide attempWself- injury
• polsclling
• bicycle crashes
All Non -Fatal UnTntontlonal injury Rates for 0 to 24 Yoor Olde,
soa
sae --
� aBo
a
0
$ 300
B 200
SCO
0
1069 1691 t0m 1997 1097 {999
- +- SpokuroC0W*/ �WAStato
M Inrormallon Is excerpted from Chapter 9 or
Grotsfng Up In Spokane. Bfrth through Young Adulthood.
For questlons, addltlonal copies, or to obtain tha full report,
.please contact the Spokane ReVottal lioalth Dishict
Assesstarni/Epidcattulogy Ccntcr at (509) 323.2853.
The graph below shows that males had a higher
hospitalisation rate for motor vehicle injuries than
females in Spokane County.
SPOKABE REGiOHAL
1101% Ca leg Avenue, Room 360, Spoke ne, \VA 99201 H LT H
Phone; (509) 323 -2853 • Fax: (509) 324 -3623 • TDD; ($04) 324 -1461 • ssvw.srhd.org t
Non -Fatal Motor Vehicle Injury Hospliaiization Rates for
0 to 24 Year Olds by
Gender, Spokano County 1989 -1999'
too
1 50
Q 1
�5
8t
BO
t9 &9 iow 1991
1992 189'; '1834 1995 1996 1697 1898 1939
—• —arias .O—ae�
Decreased traffic deaths and hopitalizations are the
result of traffic safety campai6ms that promote new laws
and Introduce new ways to avoid problems on the road.'
'�••�AfDrliilit} rotes' ure�untpiled' irsiiig�cnitt 's�nt,�ncten�#callti' _ •� ' �N'a+hm, Ion' I' rut lt�Sslet .Cummiuion.'lintliuCogisiinsln
stttilic tes: 4sginninu n1999' Ulese 'coilopwrc'eliirig:�l.anci' a 15'ashiiigtun Inil: i )[jLiisiiin:;SYA:Jiil}.III'17 =.
tl[l -U tic'. il•anJ conttkiii lt>; slf Pirl6r:%.al i:t nas�i�ebynhirad�il - {• ,. %M141h)RInn Trnnia sal hrdWa?hinglon".9d C.
y
;tiv 15ep iif t talih Cclirrr tar 1leolih Stat {�tic�:,',' " '• _'17cp, arncnl rsf'I fnnSnprt� lien, ^011111 "i iryet 7tru r4.Slrilt i4_
lhnlh ,la r11I1CAt►', I)ntn. + Wit5l17Eltt!rttGIC'Bt�t}Jtlnllnl ctf 1ILah }l, '. .hl8fl•fi�f I1i�it14:1S SRt�ij' 3b00 . (3riA)- 7J3= •111'1 if 4f • . - '• .I
_ :CCil1Cf ,fir Iicalltl Slilti � li4s: - ' {3t1�•795'7?53. _'
�=• - Com�nc�risneFlospjl; ilAbstra�t�tjlc4iilii� $_YStetn(CI1 :1fii) ' �::. �J�n�; itis�. �vyin;::\' rnttiF; RicK• �nelidilar Sunc:•fY',tt�33)1;1�'
Vc;uliinelOn Stu[C l5cp trimcntof N�tr1llt,;llivs6ilal an.. Intl nk : .x faatiannl �nfe l:fcf •CannniTn Ituniyisiirlia �+rntt a S;11;
:fJcian S }: ternk &tite{ Ii�r Itenllli tul'tsiics;_ Suiic ton: 13C,?Ui}t�► =1117.
'' hniio'nitt .GOpi niitt� gyt:lil' F i v -fifion: ind C0nfaoi..liiitii} i • i, uRi:� iti liJ ;, t ` _ ; '
"f3e,uuir„k ;Htetilt.ihs Cliallen { -Yor6 `C)titard' : ' ' :x.`:'' = :ti
�•t�EI1Yif3 IY�' [s l' - _ - - a - :.ti. s f . - . •." .,
1 2D
GD
00
so
ao
sa
0
Washington State Study Focused on Bicycle- Collision Statistics f.Tom 1988 -1993 Page 1 of 4
Michigan City.
August t0, 1997
Road Injury Prevention TranSarety,tnc•
,..�
(360) 683.6276
J ROADS
& Litigation Journal Fix: (360)683 -
Evidence
6719
Showed
Copyright O 1997 by TranSafety. Inc. info cAtisroads.cont
n
factors related to bicycle collisions vary from year to year.
�.,.i Was Unsafe
Washington State Study Focused on Bicycle- Collision
Statistics from 1988 -9993
—
Historically, statistics on bicycle collisions have not found
their way into overall statistical records on collisions in
Washington State. Often bicycle collisions do not meet the
collision- reporting criteria set forth by state statute and,
subsequently, do not become part of the data. In an effort to
_.
increase the knowledge base about bicycle collisions and
�! il�# 3
improve highway /traffic safety, the Washington State
Department of Transportation (WSDOT) conducted a study on
bicycle collisions in Washington: State ftorn1988 through 1993 -,.
..... _ ..__
using data compiled by the Washington State Patrol (WSP).
Ralph L. Wessels discussed the study and its report in "Bicycle
County May
Collisions in Washington State: A Six - !ear Perspective, 1988 -
�, Owe Duty to
Intoxicated
Trans ortation Research Record 1538
1 993" � p )•
Driver and
Peceased
BACKGROUND
Passengers If
Edge Dropoff
Contributing
This study used demographic data. from the 1990 census. By
Cause of Crash
means of a modified version of the Cross/Fisher bicycle -
collision collection method, the study identified 22 collision
Injury g ice- child
Leaving
cat with collision typ es g eographical s delineated b area,
g P
Cream Truck
age group, and road ownership. Statistics regarding bicycle
Did Not Result
helmets were considered negligible, since only two jurisdictions
from
Dangerous
had mandat helmet laws during the stu p eriod and
L t Y g 3 p '
Condition or
enforcement had been limited. Researchers classified roadways
Nuisance
by the following Five functional types: interstate, state routes,
Created tfy
California City
county roods, city streets, and other roads.
Michigan City.
RESULTS
Immune from
Liability When
No Admissible
recog nizing Excep for an. overall alinual increase in the
P g
Evidence
munber of reported bicycle collisions, the author cautioned
Showed
against basing trend assumptions on this collision data, since
Intersection
factors related to bicycle collisions vary from year to year.
�.,.i Was Unsafe
http:// www .usfoads,coiydjoui /rilj /9708 /ri970905.litm 12/30/2005
Washington State Study Focused on 13icycle- Collision Statistics from 1988 -1993 Page 2 of 4
Can Graduated
Bicycle collisions during the years studied occurred most often
Licensing
between April and October, and they happened primarily `•.
Lessen Risks
ror Young
between 3:00 p.m. and 8:00 p.m, Eighty -two percent of the _.f
Drivers?
collisions in the study were during daylight hours, mostly in
clear or cloudy weather. While males accounted for 80 pcxcent
Washington
State Study
of bicyclists involved hi the col.l.isions, researchers viewed this
Focused on
overrepresentation as primarily the ;result of a higher exposure to
Bicycle•
potential collisions rather than as a gender- related factor.
Coniston
Statistics from
q roximatel X percent of motorists and bic clists involved in
pp Y p Y
1988 -1993
reported collisions had been drinking, For fatal collisions, the
ftequency of alcohol involvement rose to 9 percent for motorists
Automotive
Engineering
and 11 for cyclists,
Describes
Effectiveness
Approximately half of all bicycle collisions involved cyclists
or Restraints
and Air Bags in
aged 15 or less, with those age 10 to 15 comprising the largest
g g p g g
Preventing
segment of this group. In fact, the 10 -to -15 age category had
Injuries to
almost twice the collision rate of the next - highest groups' rates,
Children
ages 5 to 9 and 16 to 24. Of particular significance was the
comparatively high number of serious collisions involving ages
Erigh,.ay Saroy
5 to 9 and 10 to 15 on count roads.
Publiralions Catalog.
Articles on Road
g,
Results of this stud correlated closely with other stational
Y
i44alntcrnrt ca 3c
MaInt &
era
Man:%eitwnt end
data, which show the five most common factors involved in '
injury Liligalion,
[nronnationand
bicyclist fatalities are: failure to yield (23 percent), improper
consulting fur Oib
AutomobileondRoad
crossing of roadway or intersection (15 percent), failure to obey
ns5rdlas for ian'
a
pra
prressionply in
traffic control devices (9 percent), failure to keep in proper lane
widewinmdcation&
(g percent), and operating without required equipment (5
TranSsfuVs free
consutncejawnalfor
percent).
sulnmo6ilo cad road
uscrQ, throe subsciiptiaa
j° ° °n .
mAiatcM1'inC0.
Results were summarized in relation to five functional classes
angfrreia and injury'
lidgatiantrrr, and highway
of roadway. The article reported data for four of these
s4cly publications
categories: city streets, county roads, state routes, and the
catalog. Soo ow rrca
tansumarjowaotFor
interstate system. The fifth category, other roads, reco.tded only
, tlompbilo and road
ustr9,threesubsuipdon
4 of the 325 collisions during the study period.
juurnals on r,%d
maintcnonct,
englnocring, and lnjury
City Streets
thigmion, and a
highway safely
publicationscntelog.
City streets accounted for 65 percent of bicycle collisions,
followed by county roads and state routes. While the majority of
bicycle collisions happened on city streets, those collisions made
up only a third (33 percent) of bicycle collision fatalities. Most'
fatalities on city streets happened at intersections, and "motorist
action at intersections accounted for a high 30% of the total
bicycle collisions on city streets," -'
http : /hvww.usroads,com/joumaWrilj /9708 /ri970805.httii 12/30/2005
Washington State Study Focused on Bicycle- Collision Statistics from 1988 -1993 Page 3 of 4
County Roads
County roads were the location of 21 percent of all collisions
and 45 percent of the fatalities. Of the five functional types of
roadways analyzed, county roads had the highestpercentage of
bicyclists being struck. from behind by motorists. ,'In addition, the
percent of cyclists turning or swerving on county roads was
nearly twice that of all roads (probably a result of narrower
lanes, poor shoulder conditions, and limited sight distance).
Most fatalities involving a bicyclist entering or exiting a
roadway at a midblock location also occurred on county roads.
Of note is the "surprisingly low" (15 percent) number of
collisions on county roads that were attributable to motorist
action.
State Routes
On state routes, intersection collisions made up close to half
(45 percent) of bicycle collisions, while "bicyclists riding the
wrong way accounted- for a significant 21 percent of collisions.
Half of the fatalities involved the bicyclist turning or swerving at
a location that was not an intersection."
Interstate System
Wasb.ington is one of only a few states to allow bicyclists on
interstate shoulders, and results indicated relatively few bicycle
collisions took place on interstate roadways. However, while
state and interstate systems made up only 13 percent and I
percent respectively of all collisions, they accounted for 18
percent and 4 percent of all fatalities. As such, "roads with
higher driving speeds are the locations of more fatalities
proportional to the overall number of accidents."
CONCLUSIONS/lINT_P1i ICATIONS
Many people tldnk that motorists striking bicyclists from
behind represent the majorit} of bicycle collisions, and decision
makers have considered improving the safety of bicyclists by
having them ride against traffic. This study revealed, however,
that "the number of bicycle collisions in which a bicyclist was
riding the wrong way is two and one -half times the number of
collisions in which a bicyclist was struck from behind by a
motor vehicle." :Moreover, being struck from behind accounted
for only 5.7 percent of all collisions. Again, the 5 -to -9 and 10-
littp;/ / 4� , wnv. usroads,com /joumals/riIj /9708 /ri970805.htm ' 12/30/2005
Washington State Study Focused on Bicycle- Collision Statistics from 1988 -1993 Page 4 of 4
to -15 age groups were most involved. Of note is the fact that
bicyclists being hit ftom behlud and bicyclists turning or
swerving accounted for 12 percent of bicycle collisions but
constituted 40 percent of fatalities.
The study provided information that can be used by a variety
of groups interested in improving and promoting bicycle safety.
In fact, "the report has become a key component of WSDOT's
nonmotorized Safety Management System (SMS)... I"
Moreover, the report would suggest that a key area for action
should be education, not only of bicyclists and motorists but also
of policymakers and decision makers, whose information on
bicycle issues can be incorrect and short - sighted. The author
concluded:
Safety - improvement programs that only use motor- .
vehicle collision records to determine safety
improvements are inherently biased against bicycles as
H transportation mode. A change in the reporting
requirements for bicycle collisions is necessary to allow
problem areas to be better identified and safety
improvements to be specifically targeted toward
bicycles.
Safety - improvement programs that only use motor- vehicle
collision records to determine safety improvements are
inherently biased against bicycles as a transportation mode. A
change in the reporting requirements for bicycle collisions is
necessary to allow problem areas to be better identified and
safety improvements to be specifically targeted toward bicycles.
scan
Copyright ® 1997 by Tru&irety, Iim
Ram to the Road injury Prevention & Litigation Journal Index
http: /Iwmv.usroads, corn/ jotu /ri1j /970S/ri970805.htm 12/30/2005
`ai . #320!• Greeiisb�r4
if vA,- Off ca ' ,,
i }: SOq= 441 ;G4 #3
" El y
Bicycle Safety
..� °. man ri a s should b
{ �:B y k and alway o e done correctly.
Bicycle Facts
• More kids ages 5 to 14 g to the hospital
emergency departments with injuries related
to biking than with any other sport.'
•
Each year, about 567,000 people go to
hospital emergency departments with
bicycle - related injuries; about 350,000 of
those injured are children under 15. Of
those children, about 130,000 sustain brain
- J injuries.'
• leach year, bicycle- related crashes kill about
900 people; about 200 of those killed are
children under 15,
• Statistics show that between 70 and 80% of
all fatal bicycle crashes involve brain
injuries!
• 90% of bicycle - related deaths involve
collisions with motor vehicles.
Who, What, When & Why
• The number of people who ride bicycles
rose from 66.9 million in 1991 to 80.6 in
1998.'
• Distribution of bicycle- related deaths in
1999,
• 37 percent of all deaths occurred
behveen 5 p.m. and 9 pxn?
• July, August and September have the
highest percentage of bicyle- related
deaths.'
• h4ales are seven times more likely to
die in bicy =cle crashes than females;
• fn 1999, 35 percent of bicycle- related deaths
occurzed at intersections.'
• Bicycle uicidents are most likely to occur
within five blocks of home .6
• Almost half of all bicycle crashes occur in
driveways and on sidewalks
Creating a better firhrre throtegh hrain injury prei�ention, rayearch, edrreedion and adirocacy
Apnl 2001
Bicycle Helmets
Bicycle Helmet Checklist:
• in 1997, 813 bicyclists were killed in • Buy a helmet that meets the safety standards `
crashes, an increase of 7 percent from the of the American National Standards Institute J
previous year. Of these, 97 percent were not (ANSI) or the Snell Memorial "Foundation.
wearing helmets.'
• Medical research shows that 85 percent of
bicyclists` head injuries can be prevented by
a bicycle helmet.'
• Always do these things to ensure a
proper fit:
• About 50 percent of all bicycle rulers in the
U.S. regularly wear bicycle helmets - a rise
from 18 percent in . 1991.'
• Of the 50 percent of bikers who regularly
wear a bike helmet, 43 percent said they
always wear a helmet and 7 percent said
they wear a helmet more than half of the
time.' •
• Universal use of helmets could prevent one .
death every day and one brain injury every
four minutes,'
• Half of all bike riders, do not wear a helmet
regularly, which is the single most effective
protection against brain injury.'
• 1'lavuig friends or parents who weal• bike
- 'R[inets significantly (Encourages cliilii eti tU '
use them.
1. Tighten the chin strap to keep the
helmet from slipping forward or
backward.
2, Only two fingers should fit under the
chin strap.
3. Place the helmet directly over the
forehead.
Wearing a helmet correctly is vitally
important to the ability of the helmet to
work effectively in preventing injuries.
souraal;
1. C13G AO.YAWS Ream Yeaaw came! IYaselielarlTse Bu21WFotA11FI &MSod1WulnaF1dintitAP4111,M7.
2 olgdeFfdmrt5�f nylrana: ACo� ?ei3iu�of5atiadoGara�h�uRnSovtu h�/1nww.h4f€ aril+ sli6iGtk�ml�un(1�n..�y+i41C01j
3. W SA, 1979
4. rmursta4�arwohrF {irfiwaYS�tsp.Fwlwipxa•Aiq•i!�• fop /hvw.hvyufayara*�d�!fttisrraliry fsmh'txshva(lwxvy19,3001}
A E11thwvSi V.F00t? Pacts- 71iryde& l mD lhra +xhayyfery.wg�s,kry_F,ea/ie5li� fxn�'skestt�(Imsmyl9 a0J1)
A N1L1Y1 4 WMMM ry and K;Uis 119416 A&r& W4= I ftcls Call SS "Cl Yr, zoo))
7. cemmCH Mime cootrml- Pmeningakid RelmidUndln)edcs +_9,7001)
k Hf{ 51, ACmncnresou8irsoHicydeN�3ffeu, hc�/ A u•. xbM�o�J' asbdoc+�gutdo.�tnr(YcbscvyS.xoq
z
Spokane County Library District
Spokane Valley Library Services and District Support
Report to the City of Spokane Valley
2nd Quarter 2010
Customer use
As with the District as a whole, materials circulation and the door count are up significantly. While
reference is slightly up District -wide, it's down slightly in Greater Spokane Valley libraries, as are
program attendance and computer bookings.
Selected 2nd Quarter 2010 Year -to -Date Statistics
Registered Customers by Branch of Registration
Circulation
Door count
Reference
Inquiries
Program
Attendance
Computer
Boo l<in s
-
YTD
2010
YTD to
2009
YTD
2010
YTD to
2009
YTD
2010
YTD to
2009
YTD
2010
YTD to
2009
YTD
2010
YTD to
2009
SCLD
1,264,280
11%
696,311
5%
126,472
2%
27,541
1%
129,332
1%
Spo Valley
308,056
8%
164,880
5%
42,829
-2%
8,877
-6%
39,560
-1%
Argonne
87,457
10%
53,101
11%
1 8,952
10%
1,205
0%
12,341
0%
Otis Orch.
46,237
6%
27,363
0%
4,474
-26%
1,474
16%
3,685
-7%
Subtotal
441,750
8%
245,344
5.6%
56,255
- 2.4 ",,
11,556
-3%
55,586
-1.3%
SCLD
34.9%
-
35.2%
-
44.5%
-
1 42%
-
43%
-
Registered Customers by Branch of Registration
Manager change
Until the position could be filled, an interim management plan was in place following Branch
Services Manager Ellen Miller's March 31 retirement. A second round of interviews was held in late
April and SCLD Web Services Coordinator Doug Stumbough was hired for the position; he began as
Branch Services Manager for Region II on July 1.
Page 1 of 4
2010
YTD
% of
SCLD
YTD Change
from 2009
SCLD
116,227
-
2%
Spo Valley
36,661
31.5%
2%
Argonne
10,609
9.1%
1 5%
Otis
4,671
4.0%
-1%
Subtotal
51,941
44.7%
2%
Manager change
Until the position could be filled, an interim management plan was in place following Branch
Services Manager Ellen Miller's March 31 retirement. A second round of interviews was held in late
April and SCLD Web Services Coordinator Doug Stumbough was hired for the position; he began as
Branch Services Manager for Region II on July 1.
Page 1 of 4
2nd Quarter activity highlights at Greater Spokane Valley branches
Spokane Valley Library
Staff continued to attend the Greater Spokane Valley Chamber of Commerce monthly breakfasts.
Crime Check reports included a customer who found in the lobby a small plastic bag containing
unidentified white powder, which elicited responses from fire and police departments; and a regular
customer, expressed concerns he was being harassed and shadowed by an unnamed group of people,
informed staff he was going to get a gun and take it out on the community at large. More positively,
students from South Pines Elementary, McDonald Elementary, and the Pioneer School took tours of
the library; the bicycle safety program had 32 attendees; staff presented summer reading information
to K -5th graders at Opportunity Elementary and book - talking as part of a top accelerated- reader
celebration for 105 students at several Central Valley middle schools; and a business resources
overview to ten participants of the Spokane Valley Chamber's NxLevel Entrepreneur training
program.
Argonne Library
More and more preschooler parents are asking for early education materials; when they ask for math
or science, staff shows them the website used for our math and science storytime. The library served
as a hub for Census staff in this area, not only using the meeting room for a week of canvasser
training, but nearly every afternoon after that, teams met any place they could find a table to
complete and submit paperwork and /or discuss problems. Several SCLD staff and family members
participated in the West Valley /Scope Parade on June 5, giving out two boxes of pencils while telling
a lot of people about Summer Reading (for all ages), and hearing many nice comments about how the
community loves the library.
Otis Orchards Library
The Friends of the Library put out a suggestion box to encouraging submission of ideas from the
community for possible programs. Only money was submitted, so the box was removed. The fifth
annual Otis Orchards parade began in sunny weather and ended with everyone soaked and chilled.
The Friends purchased tools and seeds for a group of high school students to begin planting the
community garden. Teen moms will plant seeds, and elementary school students will work and
harvest the garden. Also, the principal of Otis Elementary brought in students and community
members to plant marigolds in the garden as a "Share Your Life" activity.
Customer use
The continued increase in circulation numbers over last year is again of interest. An 11 % increase this
month, 10% increase in May, 8% increase in April and 6% increase in March are evidence of a positive
growth trend. The sheer number of people in our buildings was commented on by many customers.
Summer has brought an increasing number of customers without a regular physical address, some
living in recreational vehicles, while others are homeless or living in local shelters. This increase in
customers with alternative living arrangements means staff needs to stay on their toes and find the
best way to serve these customers.
Adult services
Programming. District -wide programs included the regularly - scheduled computer instruction
classes and book discussion groups; three Master Gardener programs; three resume - writing webinars
and three bicycle safety programs. In June, six adult summer reading programs were offered.
Community: We visited an average of 47 adult outreach facilities each month. The U.S. Census
Bureau ended its month -long stint of Questionnaire Assistance Centers at North Spokane, Spokane
Page 2 of 4
Valley, Airway Heights, Cheney, Fairfield, Medical Lake, Moran Prairie and Otis Orchards. Staff
provided information on library services at the annual Caregiver Conference, interacting with
approximately 70 attendees.
Youth services
Programming. Partnering with Whitman County and Spokane Public Library, we hosted an author
visit sponsored by the Foundation for Early Learning. Titles of After School Specials were "Weather
Watch" and "Take Flight." Summer reading programming began the last week of June.
Community: We visited 62 childcare facilities to provide 125 storytimes to 1,916 children. All ten
branches served as drop -off locations for the Children's Book Blitz book drive, a drive organized by
the Mead High School senior class collecting books for KHQ's Success by 6 Children's Book Bank.
Community Minded Enterprises utilized meeting rooms at three of our branches for state - mandated
childcare provider training.
Board of Trustees action, April -June
• Adopted resolutions calling for a levy lid lift election at the August 17 Primary Election and for
the November 2 General Election as a back -up
• Adopted a resolution revising the District's 2010 budget
• Adopted an updated resolution on authorizing vouchers for payment
• Adopted a resolution declaring official intent to reimburse capital expenditures with tax - exempt
bonds
• Approved an Avista Utilities easement request for the Conklin Road property
• Reaffirmed the Computer Software Control and Valuing and Managing Diversity policies
• Approved revisions to the Annexation of Cities and Towns to the Library District and Personnel
Policies
Board of County Commissioners' briefing
Board Chair Jake Laete, Vice -chair Tim Hattenburg, and Director Mike Wirt presented the annual
SCLD briefing to the Board of County Commissioners. It included background information on the
District, accomplishments over the past year and a preview of what's coming up in the future. The
levy lid lift election and Library Facilities Master Plan were highlighted.
Library Facilities Master Plan
Draft Two of the Library Facilities Master Plan was completed, transformed into an attractively -
formatted document, posted for public comment on our website, and also sent to the mayors of each
of the 11 cities and towns we serve, as well as the Board of County Commissioners. Responses were
few. Informational open houses held in each of the four geographic regions were lightly attended,
except for Cheney in Southwest County.
Levy Lid Lift Election
Informational flyers and posters were distributed to all branches, the website main -page feature was
implemented, information was distributed to the press, and preparations were made for the
informational open houses at each branch; the six held in June were sparsely attended. There were
election articles in the Spokesman - Review, Spokane Valley News - Herald, and several community
weeklies.
Credit and Debit cards
On May 3, the District began offering use of credit and debit cards for payment of overdue fines and
other charges. Online capability will be added later this year. One -fifth of the payments taken in
Page 3 of 4
May were by credit card; approximately 18% of the $23,563 in June payments at branch cash registers
was by credit card.
Collection Services
Ordered 6,351 titles and 19,971 copies during the second quarter; the net increase, year -to -date, in
the print /nonprint collection was 4,471, almost entirely nonprint items
In June, Consumer Reports Cars Best Deals Plus went live in -house and to remote customers, giving
full access to new and used -car reviews, ratings and prices
Communications
• Community relations and public information activities included completion of work on summer
reading program materials and publicity; planning and coordination of Library Facilities Master
Plan open houses; and preparation of levy lid lift election informational materials
• In media relations and publicity, distributed press releases for new services and the summer
reading program; facilitated newspaper stories on the facilities plan and levy election
Human Resources
• Recruited for 12 positions with 7 filled; there were no retirements, 7 resignations, 2 promotions,
no transfers, and 2 position reclassifications
• Provided another two - session "Essential Skills for Supervisors" class; two classes on dealing with
individuals who are mentally or emotionally challenged; and a two- session leadership class
• Our "Spring into Wellness" event ended on May 16 with 52 employees completing the program.
The District's annual April volunteer recognition was completed the week of April 18; total
volunteer hours for 2009 amounted to 2640
Information Technology
• Text -a- Librarian was launched on the website
• The new teen site was launched May 3
Planning was completed for replacement to occur this summer of all catalog computers, with
orders placed and equipment received in early June. This includes installation of smaller -size
wireless computers on shelving end panels to make it easier for customers to check the catalog —
and staff to help them —while in the stacks
Finance, Facilities, & Purchasing
• In finance, 2009 financial statements were completed and submitted to the State Auditor's Office;
the branch -cost allocation report was completed
• In facilities, the first stage of replacement for a portion of the Moran Prairie sidewalk that sunk
was completed with new curb cuts installed; the second air conditioning unit for the IT server
room was replaced in mid -June; the locust trees between the front walk and front wall of Spokane
Valley Library will be removed in July and replaced with shrubs to alleviate maintenance issues
07/21/10 mjw
Page 4 of 4
0
0
N
A
�i
a
Quarterly Report -2nd Quarter
New County -Wide Ambulance Agreement
Over 4 years ago, a group of fire chiefs began talking about the advantages of having a sin-
gle county -wide ambulance agreement. The advantages outlined were:
• Consistency of emergency ground medical ambulance service
• Established measurable performance criteria
• Economies of scale
• Centralized disaster response planning and direction
• Uniform regulatory and administrative oversight
In May of 2008, 11 participating local government (PLG's) entered into an Interlocal Coop-
eration Agreement for Ground Ambulance Service. The Interlocal Agreement provided the
structure to work together to develop a process to grant an ambulance service contract to a
single provider. The Interlocal provided the mechanism to form an Ambulance Service
Board (ASB) made up of 8 representatives from the PLG's. The ASB's charge is to provide
policy and direction to a Contract Administrator. The Spokane Valley Fire Department was
selected by the ASB to be the Contract Administrator (CA) where we will be providing over-
sight and administration of the Agreement. Since the ASB formation, they have solicited
request for bids to provide emergency ground transport ambulance services, selected a po-
tential provider from the bid process, and have been negotiating with the potential provider.
On July 1 a new county -wide ambulance agreement was implemented with American
Medical Response Ambulance Service, Inc. and 11 PLG's. The PLG's are the Cities of Air-
way Heights, Cheney, and Medical Lake, Fire Districts 3, 4, 5, 9, 11, and 13, and Spokane
Valley Fire Department. The Agreement is through October 31, 2013, and based on per-
formance, it may be renewed for a maximum of three years.
Now that we've covered some of the past to the present, what does this mean to the citi-
zens we serve? It means —
• We have response time performance requirements
• Per call response time liquidated damages (when any call is 10 minutes beyond the
allowable response time limit, as defined in the Agreement, there will be no bill to
the patient for the transport)
• One inclusive rate of $941.22 plus $17.57 per mile (previously there were itemized
charges for supplies, drugs, oxygen, etc.)
• Terms of the Agreement will be closely monitored by the Contract Administrator
daily, weekly, and monthly
It's been a long complicated process, but we believe what has been achieved will provide a
better level of service to our citizens.
Article provided by Cfiief - Tike Thompson
Page 2
EMS DIVISION
Community Assistance RESponse Team (CARES)
0
N
= What is the CARES Team? The CARES Team is a brokering social service agency utilized by
A the Spokane Valley Fire Department, which helps address the needs of citizens utilizing the
i Department's services. CARES was founded in 2008 by the Spokane Fire Department and
a Eastern Washington University. The team is composed of Eastern Washington University so-
cial work Interns, as well as; two supervisors, a MSW (Master of Social Work) and a Commu-
nity Services Director. Team members are knowledgeable about local community agencies,
diversity issues, and vicarious trauma. Team members are also trained in crisis intervention.
What Does the CARES Team Do? CARES works in collaboration with the Spokane Valley
Fire Department to assist vulnerable populations who face barriers in identifying and utilizing
appropriate community resources. The CARES Team visits individuals in their home, works
with them to identify their needs, advocates with them, and connects them to appropriate re-
sources.
CARES' Responsibilities Include:
• In -home visits
• Client assessments
• Contacting and brokering with other Spokane agencies
• Advocating, brokering, and empowering on behalf of the client
• Program development
• Internal and external marketing
• Participating in local coalitions
• Grant writing
The Spokane Valley Fire Department began implementing the CARES Team program in early
April 2010. The Spokane Valley Fire Department would like to thank the Spokane Fire De-
partment for bringing this valuable program to our attention and providing the initial training of
our front line personnel.
Construction Station 10
On September 22, 2004, the Spokane Valley Fire Department opened Station 10 at 17217 E. Spra-
gue. It originally housed a paramedic unit and 2 personnel. As the growth in the Valley moved to-
wards this location, the Valley Fire Department put into service a new 75 foot pumper ladder with a
crew of 3. The old station was a manufactured home primarily used E.�ISArticfesprovidedby
as offices for various businesses prior to the fire department pur- Battafion Cftief of ELVIS Kandy olson
chasing it. The original Station 10 did not allow for expansion and
also with the new apparatus, the fit was tight. The construction of ConstructionArticlespro,cidedby
this station is included in a building plan adopted by the Board of Captain C13ruce 'Hamner
Fire Commissioners and is the second station built under the levy lid
lift passed by the voters 3 years ago. At the end of March, a ground TiainingArticfe provided6y
breaking ceremony took place and today we have most of the brick 'Training officerSfiawnArofd
walls erected giving the shape of our new fire station. Oltotos providedbySVF(l) employees
Palue i
TRAINING DIVISION
Confined Space Awareness /Entry refresher kicked off in April and we haven't slowed down yet!
Crews have been continually honing their craft and focusing on "the basics" such has extending
hose lines, emergency vehicle operation, annual wildland refresher, search & rescue, self rescue,
fire behavior, hazardous door entry, and hazardous materials responses. They participated in the
Fire & EMS Safety, Health, & Survival Week which provided an opportunity for them to reflect on
maintaining a healthy lifestyle, emergency response responsibilities, and Near Miss Reporting (a
way we share and reinforce lessons learned from others and apply them to daily operations).
New props were added that simulate different window heights that al-
lowed our firefighters to try different techniques for entering and exiting a
room. These are particularly useful for preparing ourselves of the need to
rapidly exit a structure in the event of hostile fire behavior, or our original
exit path becoming blocked. Another new training component was added
this quarter. If you spent some time in or along the river, you may have
witnessed some of our personnel learning the rescue techniques for swift
water emergencies. Through the dedication and training of the team, this
service will enhance the safety of the Spokane Valley citizens, their fam-
ily, and friends they will bring to the river.
---- 1
-- ----
-----------
Na ue 1
PREVENTION DIVISION
Fire Safety House...
o Over eight hundred third grade students from fourteen of the twenty -eight grade schools in
o the District were instructed in Fire Safety and had the chance to go through the Fire Safety
= House. They learned about electrical hazards, smoke alarms, fireplace safety, knowing two
ways out of each room, and practicing a fire drill with theatrical smoke. We talked about call-
- ing 911 only for emergencies and having a meeting place outside the home.
i
a
1
Visit Spokane Clean Air at www.spokanecleanair.org for additional
information on outdoor burning.
Classes Taught...
Just over 300 citizens were instructed
in the use of fire extinguishers and
fire safety so far this year.
Prevent Drowning:
• Actively supervise your children around
water at all times (including bathtubs
an toilets), and have a phone nearby to
call for help in an emergency.
• Make sure your pool has four -sided
fencing and a self - closing, self - latching
gate to prevent a child from wandering
into the pool area unsupervised. In ad-
dition, hot tubs should be covered and
locked when not in use.
• Install a door alarm, a window alarm, or
both to alert you if a child wanders into
the pool area unsupervised.
• From the start, teach children to never
go near or in water without an adult
present.
• Enroll your child in swimming lessons
after age 4 — typically the earliest age
when they are likely to practice and re-
tain information. Teach children how to
tread water, float, and stay by the
shore.
• Learn CPR and know how to respond
in water emergencies.
o0
u �
u
GL
Barbeque Safety...
• Propane and charcoal BBQ grills must only be
used outdoors. If used indoors, or in any en-
closed spaces, such as tents, they pose both a
fire hazard and the risk of exposing occupants
to toxic gases and potential asphyxiation.
• Make sure that the barbeque is not near any
material that could catch fire.
• Only open the propane tank a quarter to one -
half turn. That is all the gas the barbeque needs
to operate. If you encounter a problem it is
much quicker to turn it off.
• Always open the barbeque lid before you light
it. If your barbeque does not light up the first
time you try it, shut it off and try again in 5 min-
utes.
• Stay with your fire, from the
time you first light the barbeque
until you finish cooking. Accidents
can happen when you leave a bar-
beque unattended.
• If you use a barbeque lighter
never set it down where children
can have access to it. Be responsi-
ble and put it up and out of sight
from children.
• When finished cooking, re-
member to shut off the propane
tank as well as the barbeque.
Prevention (DivisionArticfes provided 6y
Assistant Fire - Tars ( of /(Pu6fc Information Officer(BiffCCfford
In provided 6y
lDeputy Tire YarsfiafClfton Tefiaffey
Page 5
INVESTIGATIONS
35—Second Quarter Investigations with an estimated $468,750 in property damage.
II Intentional/Crnninal fires causing an estimated $3,000 in property damage.
Five (5) cases were either cleared by arrest or exceptional means.
14—Accidental fires, four (4) of which were caused by heating and electrical appliances
and four (4) were caused by mechanical means (machines, saws, bearings, etc.)
6 —Fires of undetermined origin and /or cause.
On June 29, 2010, multiple fires were started by four youths that caused $1500 in damage
to a commercial fueling station. Two of the suspects (aged 13 and 14 years old) were ar-
rested and transported to the Spokane County Juvenile Detention Center, while the two
remaining suspects (aged 11 years old) were too young to be taken into custody. The sus-
pects actions were caught on a video surveillance system installed by the fuel company
located in the Spokane Valley. The four juvenile suspects were charged with First Degree
Arson.
Year to late-
62 —Total investigations with an estimated $1.16 million in property damage.
21Intentional/Criminal fires with 9 incidents (consisting of 12 suspects) cleared
by arrest or exceptional means.
31— Accidental fires.
NEWSPAPER HEADLINE
Arson Award: Two Teens to share a $1,500 Reward, Friday, June
18, 9:30a.m., Adams Elementary School
SPOKANE VALLEY– Two $750 arson awards from NW Insurance Council and Arson Alarm Foundation
will be awarded during a public presentation, June 18th, at Adams Elementary School beginning at 9:30 a.m.
Principal Jeff Dufresne will be receiving the awards on behalf of two anonymous teens who provided fire investigators with
a copy of a text message that implicated four teens and one adult responsible for setting an arson fire at the elementary school in
June, 2009. The blaze caused approximately $1,500 in damage.
The adult male remains in jail on a charge of 2n Degree Arson and on an unrelated murder charge of his pregnant girlfriend
that occurred on July 22, 2009. Due to the subsequent homicide charge, the names of the witnesses are being withheld.
The blaze was set in a garbage can under the attached covered play area of Adams Elementary School. The fire sprinklers,
which were required at the last remodel, controlled the fire until the fire department arrived. A "Juvenile Referral Arrest" of the
four females followed.
The council and Arson Alarm will present the award in partnership with Spokane Valley Fire Department.
Page 6 SWIFT WATER RESCUE TEAM
The Spokane River snakes its way through our fire district, starting at the Washington
State line and continuing uninterrupted to the border of Spokane. To some it serves as
a peaceful backdrop while on the Centennial Trail, to others it is a recreational retreat
where they fish, swim and raft. Unfortunately, many fail to respect the power and hidden
dangers that the river possesses. They use boats that were designed for swimming
pools, don't wear personal flotation devices (PFD's), or consume too much alcohol. The
i end result being they get in trouble and need to be rescued. Last year, we had a woman
a get entangled on the supports of the Barker Bridge, and she had to be hoisted up
through the decking by our technical rescue team. She was not wearing a PFD
In the past, we have only been able to throw rescue ropes out to victims as they passed
by or rely on other agencies to perform swift water rescues. As of July 1 st , your Spokane
Valley Fire Department now has a 21 member Swift Water Rescue (SWR) Team. The
process started in January when we received budget approval from the Fire Commis-
sioner's and then interviewed Department members that had an interest in helping pro-
vide this valuable service to the public. We then purchased personal protective equip-
ment, provided training, equipped an existing vehicle with two kayaks, and established
guidelines to respond in a safe and timely fashion. The SWR Team members are trained
to conduct a search with kayaks, swim out to a victim, and make a contact rescue as
well as building rope systems to free watercraft from rocks or other debris in the river.
They have the ability to accomplish these rescues anytime of the year, regardless of the
weather.
Through the process of developing this program, we have taken a regional approach to
deliver the service. Responding in conjunction with other agencies allows us to put
more responders on scene, increasing the safety level of the rescuers as well as the
chance of a successful rescue. Nationwide, statistics show that 30% of the deaths in
swift water incidents are rescuers. Working with other experienced agencies will help
keep us from becoming part of these statistics. The Spokane Fire Department has had
a SWR team for over 12 years; they have provided us with training support as well as
their experience for the startup of our team. We are also working towards an automatic
mutual aid response. In addition to the previous mentioned benefits, assisting other
agencies gives us more exposure to actual incidents which will increase our effective-
ness.
While the Spokane Valley
Fire Department now has a
team to rescue you, we
would really prefer not to!
The single biggest thing you
can do to be safe on the wa-
ter is to wear a PFD that is
the correct size and insist all
of those in your group are
doing the same. Please be
safe on the water by always
wearing a PFD.
CERT
This spring has been our normal busy time of the year. About 12 of
our citizens completed an initial CERT 8 week class, while those al-
ready trained completed 3 months of Continuing Education Training.
On June 5 approximately 20 trained citizens spent the morning in a
scenario based drill. Along with all that, our CERT program completed
a first. For the first time, our trained CERT citizens were called upon to assist the fire department.
One of the spring wind storms had our emergency crews busy, and our CERT trained citizens were
activated. They provided 2 two - member teams to relieve our emergency crews who had secured a
situation, and the CERT teams stood by until properly xo�zor yuardArtic�e proUided6y
relieved. These trained citizens enabled our emer- xonor Guard Commander Kurt Kilayko
gency crews to be available to respond if needed to
other emergencies within the boundaries of the Spo- Swift TCater xescueArticfe provided by
kane Valley Fire Department. These trained citizens (13attation Cfiief (Den n is (Doyle
provided a tremendous service to their community by
assisting their fire department. If you would like to learn C�127Articic provided 6y
more about assisting your fire department or being bet-
C�EI�rI`Program lnirectorCaptain�l3ruce�famner
ter trained in preparedness, call our administration of-
fice at 928 -1700. (Plotos provided 6y SVRD employees
HONOR GUARD Page 7
The honor guard was focused on organizing the first, hopefully annual, regional
Honor Guard training in conjunction with Spokane Sheriffs Department and Spo-
kane City Fire. This one -day, seven -hour training, included participants from law
enforcement and fire department honor guards from around the region. Its ob-
jective was to familiarize personnel with procedures common to line -of -duty
death memorials, which always involve many different agencies. The day
opened with speeches by Sheriff Knezovich and SVFD's own Deputy Chief Hail.
A presentation was then made by the local chapter of HOPE Animal Assisted
Crisis Response, a volunteer organization that uses dogs as therapy during a
major or minor disaster. Training included flag - folding and presentation, coffin
movement involving a hearse or fire apparatus, basic marching, and basic rifle
team maneuvers.
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: August 10, 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: 2011 DRAFT Legislative Agenda
GOVERNING LEGISLATION:
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN:
BACKGROUND: The 2011 Legislative session in Olympia will convene on January 10, 2011.
In the past, the City Council has considered various legislative items to promote with the
Legislature. The City Council viewed the 2010 Legislative Agenda at the February retreat. At
the Council meeting on July 20, 2010, Council discussed possible items to consider in the 2011
Legislative Agenda. A copy of the DRAFT Agenda is attached to begin the revision process as
Council considers legislative items that Council deems important to the City of Spokane Valley.
OPTIONS:
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION:
BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS:
STAFF CONTACT: Mike Jackson / Mayor Towey
ATTACHMENTS: 2011 DRAFT Legislative Agenda
j
DRAFT 2011 Legislative Agenda
The following is the draft ameaded 2011 legislative agenda for consideration of Council adoption
Principle Items of Interest:
1.) Street utility enabling legislation: Gatineil has seen seivml pr-esenta g a�g Spokane City
t�6ir,�i��e• ,-
Councilman Al French previously has proposed street utility legislation_ an d has pr :,. , shwA suppe14 of
the legislatie The proposal enables legislation to allow local control and determination by city councils and
local electorates to decide if it is a tool they want to use in their community to attend to street maintenance
functions.
2.) Increased state funding for the 911 system: Rates applied to telephone and other bills that generate revenue
for the 911 systems are set by state legislature and have not been revised for a long time. Many 911 centers are
advising their constituents that they are not able to hold a budget below the current revenues and have expressed
a need for state relief In addition, consider the inclusion of an anti - harassment provision concerning 911
operators.
3.) Seek $300, 000 for the acquisition of park land adjacent to the Park Road pool and Centennial Middle
School. Spokane Valley has a population of 89,440 people but only 172 acres of public parks — drastically
below the 6.25 - 10.5 acres/ 1, 000population (559 – 938 acres) specified in the Parks Master Plan. Spokane
Valley has successfully partnered with the State Legislature in the acquisition and development of Greenacres
Park, adjacent to Central Valley School District's future elementary school. We want to ask the Capital Budget
Committee for support in replicating our success in co- locating public assets in under - served and economically
distressed neighborhoods.
4.) Law Enforcement District enabling legislation: Law enforcement needs and resources vary in jurisdictions
across the state like those for fire prevention and suppression. More tools are needed to best consolidate, deploy
and pay for law enforcement services. Use of fire districts has proven to be a viable system for the provision of
essential public services and many jurisdictions may derive benefit from providing law enforcement services
under a similar system.
5) Securing state funding for statewide communications interoperability infrastructure: Locally the citizens
have approved a sales tax increase that includes 1 /10 of 1% for communication equipment, however, the
revenue is insufficient to fund all five items within that initiative. Interoperability is a statewide concern and
according to the Association of Washington Cities, there is a $400 million problem to be resolved.
6) Reasonable legislation related to the "cap and trade " provisions of climate control regulations under
consideration: eke c-Climate control and change regulations beiRt
continue to be discussed in Olympia as well as Washington D.C., using the term "cap and trade" in reference
to efforts to reduce our carbon footprint. We want to be aware of the options under consideration for regulatory
enactment.
7) Access to enhanced state fuel purchasing power. We have a desire to determine if there is a way to access
enhanced state fuel purchasing power related to the large amount of fuel purchased by state, county and city
organizations to operate government vehicles. Exploration of methods that aggregate governmental purchasing
power that may drive down the cost of the fuel purchases is warranted.
Spokane I alley 2011 DRAFT Legislative Agenda Page 1 of 2
9 Provide support for the Association of Washington Cities' legislative agenda items that serve the best
interests of the City of Spokane Valley.
9.) Cell phone registration and confidentiahU pertaining personal information.
10.) Endorsement of a fi re sprinkler system in the Spokane Valley Food Bank.
11.) Duelin,�Liquor Initiatives: I -1100 & I -1105: Initiatives regarding privatizing liquor sales and the
potential impact on the Citv of Spokane Valley_.
12.) Consider legislation requiring out -of -state trucks to go to the port of entry.
Spokane I alley 2011 DRAFT Legislative Agenda Page 2 of 2
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: August 10, 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: Council Goals for 2011 Budget - DRAFT
GOVERNING LEGISLATION:
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN:
BACKGROUND: Council reviewed and discussed the 2010 Budget goals at the Winter
Retreat and again at the July 27, 2010 Council meeting. The draft list from those meetings is
attached below. The list is an opportunity for City Council to continue to establish their goals for
the 2011 Budget.
• Continue monitoring wastewater issues including governance of wastewater
facilities, and pursuit of the most efficient and economical methods to ensure the
continuation of wastewater discharge licenses.
• Re- evaluate regulations specified in the Sprague /Appleway Revitalization Plan
as adopted and amended by City Council.
• Develop a Shoreline Master Program to provide appropriate regulatory
protection for waters of statewide significance, as required by state statute.
• Pursue a legislative capital budget request for state funding for the acquisition
of parkland adjacent to the Park Road Pool.
• Develop and implement a multi -year winter roads maintenance plan
including availability, and costs and effects of private sector vendors performing
winter road maintenance for the City.
• Pursue state funding of a demonstration project that constructs a city hall in
accordance with "living building" standards.
• Continue monitoring budget to ensure long -term financial stability.
OPTIONS:
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION:
BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS:
STAFF CONTACT: Mayor Towey, Mike Jackson
ATTACHMENTS:
Spokane
,;
PERMIT CENTER
Community Development
Monthly Report
June 2010
Revenue
Permits
Permit revenue for June was $91,433. The revenue is approx. 5% ahead of this time last year.
Permit Revenue
$300,000
$250,000
$200,000
$150,000
$100,000
$50,000
$ V�
Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec - d0L -dL.
2010 Revenue 2009 Revenue
Land Use
Land Use revenue for July is $8,230. This is behind last year, however the drastic increase in May of
last year is due to the receipt of payment from a street vacation, which has caused an unfair balance
in the comparison to last year's numbers.
Land Use Revenue
$80,000
$70,000
$60,000
$50,000 1
$40,000
$30,000
$20,000
$10,000
$0 -
Jan Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
02010 Revenue 02009 Revenue
Page 1 of 9
SoWkn �
e
,;
valuation
Community Development
Monthly Report
June 2010
afg 0 tPermitlnl` o rmation fPermitsls ued�
June 2010 Residential
New
Structures
Separate
Dwelling Units
Demolition
Permits
Dwelling
Units
Demolished
Single Family
Residence
15
2
2
Duplex
Triplex
4 -Plex
Apartments
June 2010 Commercial
New
Buildings
Tenant
Improvements
Additions
16
2
' Per the currently adopted Master Fee Schedule, valuations reported above for commercial and residential
construction permits are "assigned based on the value of the construction work as stated by the applicant or the value
calculated by the Building Official using the latest valuation data published in the Building Safety Journal by the
International Code Council, whichever is greatest."
Page 2 of 9
The valuation' for June was $4,858,673.
" Community Development
pWa ne
�` V �a1le Monthly Report
y June 2010
ye"nit.�ctivit�
Certificate of Occupancy
One Certificate of Occupancy issued in June for Sinha Orthodontics at 720 N Evergreen.
Permits Issued
Community Development issued a total of 284 permits in June. Although lower for the month the total
for the year is ahead of this time last year, included in the permits is a 6,660 sf office building at
11319 E. Carlisle.
Construction Permits Issued
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
■ 2010 Permits 1 158 1 200 1 259 1 256 1 241 1 284
■ 2009 Permits 159 192 221 250 260 302 1 305 1 275 1 255 1 331 1 200 1 243
Page 3 of 9
Spokane
, ;
Land Use Applications
Community Development
Monthly Report
June 2010
In June staff issued 3 SEPA decisions including 2 Public Works projects and an amendment to the
Subarea Plan regulations
Commercial Pre - application Meetings
During the month of June Community Development staff held 3 commercial pre - application meetings
which included.
Hearing Examiner
The Hearing Examiner did not have any hearings in June
Business Licenses
Staff Approved 153 business licenses in June.
Home Occupation Permits
Staff approved 47 home occupation permits in June.
Entertainers Licenses
Staff processed 6 adult entertainment licenses for June.
Express Permits
Staff processed 6 Express Permits in June.
CZ � SS 't0, 77 Z � Y SB l'' V l C B
The Permit Center staff assisted 425 customers at the counter and handled 429 customers' inquires
by phone in the Permit Center during June. The Permit Center staff provided an average target date
of 10 working days for Commercial projects, 3 working days for Residential platted and 10 working
days for Residential un- platted. This target date represents the time to first comments issued to the
applicant.
IN8'1�BCt&ns
Right of Way
The Right -of -Way inspector performed 941 inspections in June.
Right -of - Way Inspections
1200
1000
800 - 0
600
0
400
•
•
200
0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
O 2010 221 491 773 852 1007 941
0 2009 164 265 506 774 137 1058 1058 641 860 718 555 174
Page 4 of 9
Sokan Community Development
p
�` V ��1�� Monthly Report
y June 2010
Building
Plans Examiners reviewed 73 plans in the last month, 7 of which were for Airway Heights. There
were 185 commercial inspections and 522 residential inspections in the same time frame. Attention
It was noted this month that although the numbers above have been reported correctly, the chart to
go along with it has been turned around and the commercial and residential numbers were graphing
incorrectly. It has now been corrected. All year long, the number of residential inspections have
exceeded the number of commercial inspections.
700
Building 600
' �
Zs
-
Inspections 500
Performed 400
—
300
200
OJanFeb
100
0
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
X2010 Residential
393
387
397
557
498 522
0
0
0
0
0
0
02010 Commercial
229
187
274
180
163 185
0
0
0
0
0
0
2009 Residential
221
237
304
257
302 628
649
582
580
584
459
438
0 2009 Commercial
F220
188
199
181
143
F189
222
219
202
322
166
253
Development Engineering
During the month of June the Development Engineering Inspector performed 18 inspections.
Development Engineering Inspections
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
- 2010 ■ 2009
Page 5 of 9
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Spokane
,; O OValley
UPDATES
Planning Commission
Community Development
Monthly Report
June 2010
In June the Planning Commission held one regular meeting in which two public hearings were held
one for a batch of code amendments concerning the Subarea Plan and the other concerning the
expansion of non - conforming uses.
Growth Management Steering Committee of Elected Officials (SCEO)
The SCEO met on June 16, 2010. Items on the agenda for discussion included an update on the land
quantity analysis (LQA) process and a progress report on the regional urban growth area (UGA)
process and an updated UGA work program.
Shoreline Master Program
Due to other department priorities, work on the SMP update has been postponed until late
summer /early fall.
Subarea Plan Revisited
On June 4 th Staff issued SEPA on the first text amendment related to the Subarea Plan. On June 8,
Staff gave feedback to the City Council on the Gateway Zones. On June 15 the City Council made
a motion that approved changes to the Gateway district zones, staff also made a presentation on the
Mixed Use Ave district zone. On June 24 staff held the Community meeting on the Mixed Use Ave
zoning district and the Planning Commission had a public hearing on the first Subarea Plan code
amendment.
Department yUe_
Energy Grant
Public Works continues transportation projects that will result in energy conservation and carbon
footprint reduction. The Avista Utilities partnering project began with a soft - launch of home energy
audits. Full advertisement and official kickoff was in April. Field surveys to identify existing
conditions, opportunities and constraints have been completed for the Bike and Pedestrian Master
Plan.
Washington State Energy Strategy Update Process
The Washington State Energy Strategy update process continued this month with weekly webinars.
The Building Official continues to participate in the conservation sector process and has been working
with Commerce staff to improve access to the work group meetings. Participation in this process will
be on -going through December 2010.
ADA Study
Staff is reviewing and entering all the department surveys that have been submitted. Follow up with
department staff will be scheduled after the August 3 public meeting. Side walk surveys are on hold
for the construction season.
Bike /Pedestrian Plan (BPMP)
Staff held a community workshop on June 16. The purpose of this workshop was to identify the
community's issues and concerns in relation to bike and pedestrian facilities. The meeting room had
several large maps displaying existing bike and pedestrian facilities, the arterial street plan, and
several posters with descriptions of typical bike facilities (shared use paths, bike paths, etc.). The
internal working group gave a presentation, provided an interactive exercise, and answered
questions.
Page 6 of 9
Spokane
,; O OValley
Training
Community Development
Monthly Report
June 2010
June 3 - 4 — American Planning Associate - Inland Empire Section Annual Conference — Greg
McCormick, Mike Basinger, Scott Kuhta, Mary May
June 6 - 7, GIS training - Henry Allen, Gloria Mantz
June 11 - Local Government use of Social Media - Deanna Griffith
June 16 — How to handle Difficult People, Chris Berg, Bill Schultz
Wellhead Protection
No wellhead meetings were held in June.
Regional Partnering
The Regional Partnering Group met with respective staff to review the master application. Staff
identified some procedural barriers that may not be resolvable. Building Officials will seek direction
from Directors and Commissioners to determine what priority this project has. In the meantime, the
building official group is working on identifying and prioritizing new partnering opportunities.
Page 7 of 9
3POKane
,,; 0 Valley'
Coee Cam Cie
Citizen Action Requests
Community Development
Monthly Report
June 2010
Code Compliance officers received 43 Citizen Action Requests in June.
Code Violation Totals
120 -
100 -- - I
80
60
40
0
kan eb M ar A r Ma Jun Jul Aug Se O t N v Dec
2010 62 97 76 51 70 43 0 0 0 0 0 0
- -2009 33 36 97 94 111 50 89 98 51 61 22 98
These are the customer action requests by type of violation, 6 of which were no violation but still must be
investigated.
Page 8 of 9
2010 Code Total Violations Reported -
100%
by Cate Jory
80%
60%
40%
20%
- -%
0%
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
0 Clear View Triangle
2
0
7
5
1
5
MComplaint - No Violation
3
2
3
9
2
6
■Environmental
0
0
1
0
0
0
(3 Junk Auto
10
19
14
7
9
9
a Property
16
19
20
13
15
12
CI Signs
15
31
5
5
31
0
MSolid Waste
16
26
26
12
12
11
Page 8 of 9
3POKane
Walley
Community Development
Monthly Report
June 2010
UPCOMING DATES OF INTEREST
Page 9 of 9
INTER —
July 5
Independence Holiday Observed
July 6
FEMA Map modification becomes effective
July 13
Council retreat
July 13
Council meeting, Subarea Plan Update, Subarea Plan report, code amendments
July 16
Hearing Examiner, Dangerous Dog Hearing
July 19
Customer Service Training
July 20
Council meeting, Subarea Plan report, code amendment
July 22
Neighborhood Centers Community meeting
July 22
Planning Commission meeting, code amendments
July 27
Customer Service Training
July 27
Council meeting, code amendment
August 3
National Night Out, no council
ADA Self Survey Public meeting
August 12
Planning Commission — Subarea Plan Code amendments — Gateway
August 17
City Council, City Center report
August 19
City Center Community Meeting
August 26
Planning Commission — Subarea Plan Code amendments
September 30
Community Boulevard Community Meeting
Page 9 of 9