The URL can be used to link to this page

2010, 08-17 Study Session MinutesMINUTES SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING STUDY SESSION FORMAT Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers Spokane Valley, Washington August 17, 2010 6:00 p.m. Attendance: Councilmembers Staff Tom Towey, Mayor Mike Jackson, City Manager Gary Schimmels, Deputy Mayor Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney Rose Dempsey, Councilmember Neil Kersten, Public Works Director Bill Gothmann, Councilmember Ken Thompson, Finance Director Dean Grafos, Councilmember Mike Stone, Parks & Recreation Director Brenda Grassel, Councilmember Kathy McClung, Community Development Dir. Bob McCaslin, Councilmember Rick VanLeuven, Police Chief Greg McCormick, Planning Manager Scott Kuhta, Senior Planner Christina Janssen, Assistant Planner Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk Mayor Towey called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. 1. Draft 2011 Legislative Agenda —Mike Jackson City Manager Jackson went through the draft legislative agenda, and Council made the following determination: (1) item #1 will be left on the agenda for now, especially in light of the two proposed liquor initiatives; (2) as there was funding for this last year, it was felt there would be little chance for further increases, and Council determined to change the first line to read: " Maintain Current I-nereased state funding for the 911 system and encourage additional upgrades to the system (3) Mr. Jackson explained that the Park Road property is back on the market, and said the asking price has not been determined as the property is not being actively advertised. Council elected to keep Item #3 but to add the words "or assessed value" after "seek $300,000. Items #4 and #5 will be left intact; and items #6 and #7 will be omitted, as the cap and trade appears to be stalled at the federal level, and for #7, there exists opportunities for cities to purchase fuel through the state or other arrangements. Item #8 is the cell phone registration proposed by Councilmember Gothmann, and for Item #9, Mr. Jackson said staff will contact representatives from the Food Bank to ask them to come to a meeting to explain the issue further. After brief discussion on the difference between the two liquor initiatives, it was decided that the remaining items would be left intact, and that any of these items could be revised at any time, or other issues added. In response to questions about pending legislation, Mr. Jackson said he would include such information in next week's council packet as an information item, including any financial impact we might face as a result of these initiatives. 2. 2011 Budget: Proposed Property Tax — Ken Thompson Finance Director Thompson explained that we are required to pass an ordinance to levy the property tax; and said this year we are in an unusual situation as we are proposing a reduction in property taxes; he said the laws are designed for things we need to do to increase the rate and the same process applies if we want to decrease the rate; he said this came as a result of council asking to roll back the 2010 property tax, which could not be done at the time since those rates were already in place, but he said we could reduce the 2011 rate; and he said it would be down about 1 % or $100,000 from 2010. Mr. Thompson said we have three public hearings scheduled for the 2011 budget, with the first set for next week. Mr. Thompson Council Meeting Minutes: 08 -17 -2010 Page I of 12 Approved by Council: 09 -14 -2010 also mentioned that passing such an ordinance to reduce the property tax would not limits us in the future as the law allows us to go back to highest levy since 1983. 3. 2011 Budget: Proposed Decreased Property Tax — Ken Thompson Mr. Thompson said another state law says if we want to change the property tax, it must be announced early, and we must indicate if it is increasing or decreasing by what amount and what percentage; and he said both of these ordinances will be coming back to council as we move ahead to ultimately adopt the budget for 2011. 4. Code Text Amendment, CTA 07 -10, Vehicle Sales in Mixed Use Zone — Christina Janssen Assistant Planner Janssen and Planning Manager McCormick explained that this proposal was originally scheduled as part of a previous proposed amendment which council saw earlier; that this issue was sent to the Planning Commission for a public hearing June 24, and that the Planning Commission had additional questions and the issue was brought for a second hearing July 22; and she mentioned that following the initiation of this amendment, staff received a privately initiated request for this same proposal, which will be placed on hold until this matter has been determined. Ms. Janssen showed via her PowerPoint presentation, this proposal and of changing vehicle sales from being prohibited, to requiring a conditional use permit; and she showed on the map the areas which would be affected by this proposed amendment; she further explained that a Conditional Use Permit is a Type III Application which requires a public hearing before the Hearing Examiner, and that the neighboring property owners receive notice of the hearing to give them opportunity to speak for or against the proposal and /or voice any concerns they might have with the proposal, and said the Hearing Examiner can propose additional conditions on the proposal to help mitigate any impact it would have to the proposed location; and such examples of conditions typically include increased landscaping buffers or setbacks, or height limitations. Planner Janssen said the Planning Commission's recommendation to council is to approve the amendment. Councilmember Grafos asked if instead of a conditional use permit (CUP), could this be done as an administrative decision by the Community Development Director instead of requiring a hearing. Planner Janssen responded she didn't know why not. Councilmember Grafos said the safeguards would still be there, but the conditional use permit could result in a delay of perhaps 120 to 180 days, not to mention the cost. Ms. Janssen said the application fee for a CUP is $910.00; and Planning Manager McCormick said the timeline typically is about 90 days and said a CUP is different from a rezone or subdivision which would go to the Hearing Examiner, but it could be an administrative decision, and he said that this is exactly the same language of the privately initiated text amendment provided in their application materials forward, to move forward with a CUP, understanding that some of those uses warrant a closer look and might be appropriate for the use, but would warrant additional scrutiny and opportunities for the surrounding property owners to provide public input. Councilmember Grafos asked if they would have input if this were done administratively, and Mr. McCormick said there would be no hearing and no notice to the adjacent property owners and would not go out for external review or comment. Councilmember Grafos asked if the Community Development Director would have a problem doing this administratively. Community Development Director McClung responded that it's not that she has a problem doing it, but that it was proposed this way by the applicant who initiated the private amendment, and it made it more palatable for the Planning Commission to have that extra security of having the public process for that particular use. Councilmember Dempsey expressed her concern in giving away some of Council's and Planning Commission's responsibility on these issues. Councilmember Gothmann said he is aware that the Hearing Examiner can require mitigation to make sure the use is compatible with the neighbors; and he asked if the Community Development Director has that authority as well and she indicated she does not. Councilmember Gothmann said since the Community Development Director cannot impose requirements to mitigate a use, that there would be two reasons for the CUP process: one in order to notify neighbors, and he said Council Meeting Minutes: 08 -17 -2010 Page 2 of 12 Approved by Council: 09 -14 -2010 Council has heard "loud and clear from the citizens of Spokane Valley" that "we do not want things going on in our rezones without us knowing about it;" and second, the only way to provide mitigation such as additional landscaping or setbacks, is through the Hearing Examiner process, and he said he recommends the Hearing Examiner process remain. Councilmember McCaslin asked why the process would take ninety days as once the public is notified and has opportunity to testify, he said he doesn't know why that would take 90 days. Planner Janssen said it doesn't take 90 days for the Hearing Examiner decision, but there is a period of time following the application, to get on the Hearing Examiner schedule, including the required time to notice the meeting, and said the Hearing Examiner is then required to submit a decision within ten days. Councilmember McCaslin asked staff if they are inundated with requests for changes, and Ms Janssen replied they are not. Councilmember Grassel said as we go through this process and this comes back in a few weeks as a code text amendment, she asked when this might become effective, and Ms. Janssen said she believed it would be effective in September, and City Manager Jackson indicated the second reading is scheduled for September 14. Councilmember Grassel said the majority of council ran on getting through SARP and going back to commercial zoning in that district, and not really going forward with a city center, and she said council can go through with this, but that at the end of the day, "we're going through a lot of extra work that I'm not sure when we go to change the comp plan, which I'm understanding we're supposed to be doing by November, that's going to be one of the things we're bringing forward as an overall change" and said it seems so close to changing the comp plan, she said she's not sure a conditional use permit is really necessary, as the intent of going through each of these zones, is to eventually go back to business - friendly zoning, and said we are putting a lot of carts before the horse. Mayor Towey said he believes this was initiated by a citizen, and Planner Janssen confirmed that this was part of the group that council request staff examine prior to the larger comp plan change that will start happening in November, and said as staff started working on this, staff received a privately - initiated application that has been put on hold since that citizen's language is identical to this amendment proposal. Deputy City Attorney Driskell added that there is pending litigation with the person making this request, and if council considers this, it might have an impact on that pending litigation; and said that it is worth Council's time to give consideration to this issue. Councilmember McCaslin asked if this is pending litigation or if a lawsuit has been filed, and Mr. Driskell said that there is a land use petition appeal currently pending before the Spokane County Superior Court. To clarify, Planning Manager McCormick said the deadline for comp plan amendment applications is November 1, which means that is when the process starts, and that typically goes into the following spring as it also goes through staff review, Planning Commission review with study sessions and hearings, and ultimately to Council, and given the addition of looking at the Subarea Plan, that could easily go into summer of next year before all that information moves through the process. Councilmember Grassel said if this were passed in September, the citizen could file a special use permit request the next day and still wait another 90 days, which means we are into December or January, keeping in mind if the Hearing Examiner through this special permit process, allows that; or the other option would be not do require a special use permit and just give that option to the Community Development Director and he wouldn't have to wait the 90 days or file for a special use permit. Planner Janssen said if this amendment is postponed until the comprehensive plan was changed, we would be looking at some time in spring. Councilmember Grafos said if this were passed and moved to a second reading, it would probably mitigate that pending litigation; and Mr. Driskell said currently the litigation is on hold and the applicant is engaging in the use that has been requested for the change, and we entered into a stay that we are not going to pursue until there is judicial resolution; and said a hearing is slated for late September; so what Council chooses to do could have some influence on the litigation direction at that point, and said if council is looking to consider adoption of this on September 14, that will be a good target date to decide what to do, and said that can be discussed further in executive session. Councilmember McCaslin asked if council does nothing, would that have any effect on the suit; and Mr. Driskell said yes, that be believes the suit would then continue to proceed through court; and that this issue could be discussed further in executive session. City Manager Jackson asked it the property owner be able to continue as they are even Council Meeting Minutes: 08 -17 -2010 Page 3 of 12 Approved by Council: 09 -14 -2010 during the 90 -day process; and Mr. Driskell said yes, he could continue just as he does today. Mayor Towey said he favors moving this forward to a first reading and there was apparent consensus to do so. Councilmember Gothmann asked if the entire lawsuit was precipitated by a complaint from a businessperson; and Mr. Driskell said he would not guess why it was precipitated. Councilmember Gothmann asked if there was a complaint from a businessman about an adjacent businessman who was doing something illegal; and Mr. Driskell said while he thinks that is a fair statement, he requested further discussion on this, in particular the litigation, should be discussed in executive session. 5. Subarea Plan (SARP): City Center — Scott Kuhta Senior Planner Kuhta said tonight's discussion is on the City Center District Zone, which is the second - to -last district zone discussion as part of the Sprague /Appleway Revitalization Review; he mentioned the reported included in this council packet addresses why and how the city center was identified, that the community, through scientific and informal surveys, and Planning Commission and other meetings, in response to the question of should there be a city center, and if so where should it be; the majority of respondents said the area around the U -city mall site was the preferred place to develop a city center; staff directed the SARP planning team to look at the entire corridor and to also advise where they felt the best place for a city center would be; that the consultants looked at the Pines intersection thinking it would be a good spot but due to the difficulty in assembling properties at that area, with the available and vulnerable land, the larger area was identified as the preferred city center: it goes to Main on the north, Walnut on the west, 4` on the south, and Bowdish to the east; it was intended as the future heart of the community and a lively gathering place, and a "true center" with civic uses, retail, offices, and a wide variety of building types and uses. Mr. Kuhta said a large variety of retail, office and residential uses are permitted in the city center and said it is the most urban place as a part of the Subarea Plan, and even drive - through restaurants are permitted provided they are oriented to Sprague; and includes and permits such things as multi - family, civic, quasi- civic, and anchor stores uses. Mr. Kuhta continued his PowerPoint by giving the zone comparison with the SARP existing zoning, pre -SARP zoning, and interim zoning; he explained difference in comparing the current zoning to the previous zoning is that most retail uses are still permitted in the City Center zone including specialty food shops, restaurants, personal services and health clubs, entertainment, but that bars would require a conditional use permit, and that auto - related uses would not be permitted; office uses were previously allowed and are still allowed, and previous zoning where B -1, B -2 and B -3 did not allow ground floor residential, the City Center district zone allows ground floor residential except on the Core street, which is the main street, with the idea that would be the main retail street and you would want retail activity on the ground floor of that street; that single family residential would not be permitted in the city center zone. To clarify, Mr. Kuhta explained that the core street is not Sprague; he explained that the council at that time felt it was important to figure out what the city could do to help get the city center going; and the idea was to identify an area where this could start; staff looked at University and talked to property owners to see if properties could be assembled very easily on the east side, and it was determined that the west side would be the best place to start the city center due to the desires of the property owners and in working with the city on the available property; the idea is to have a north to south core street connecting from Sprague to a civic building; at one time the library was included on one part and the city hall would be on the east/west axis. Mr. Kuhta explained that the Library District had negotiated to purchase property for a new library, and Spokane Valley was negotiating to purchase a site for city hall; the Library sent to a public vote for a bond issue and it failed, so the Library District pulled out of the city center idea; the area was re- designed to accommodate a city hall without the library, and he showed some sketches of what the city center core street might look like; and he said the core street is subject to some special regulations. Mr. Kuhta explained that once a binding site plan is approved for the core street, city center retail is restricted to the city center core, which means that when someone comes in to create a lot, which is done through the binding site plan process, once that is in place, until there are building permits for all the retail lining that street, then city center retail would be restricted in other places; the goal was to get the city Council Meeting Minutes: 08 -17 -2010 Page 4 of 12 Approved by Council: 09 -14 -2010 center core street going; and he said there are no restrictions now, as it would only be at the time the binding site plan was approved and until those building permits were granted, and once that occurred, the retail would be restricted. Concerning nonconforming uses, Mr. Kuhta said there are not very many in this area; there are a lot of single family, and he said that will be addressed so we don't make those nonconforming like businesses like Fred's Appliances; Valley Self Storage, Globe Motors, those are considered nonconforming; and said that 36% of the existing uses in the city center zone are nonconforming; and if you remove the single family, it leaves 11% nonconforming. In regard to the site development standards, he reminded everyone that this is the most urban place; there are two different forms of the city center; one is the core where the core street would be — the most urban place lined with retail, buildings completely up to the sidewalk; and then the neighborhood with mixed uses on the ground level; setbacks would be zero in the core street which would make the buildings right up to the sidewalk just like a downtown, and on Sprague setback would be zero to ten feet, and on Appleway five to fifteen from the back of the sidewalk; and the building height ranges from one to six stories in the center core, and as you move out toward the neighborhood it goes down to four stories, and if adjacent to single family it moves down. Mr. Kuhta went over the frontage coverage and stressed this is just an idea; that the plan does not require the buildings to be built but just to give a concept of what it could look like. Sign standards were mentioned and Mr. Kuhta said free standing signs are not permitted in the city center zone similar to neighborhood centers; the prior permitted one sign per arterial frontage, so everything would be wall signs or roof signs; monument signs would not be permitted on the core street since it would be on the sidewalk, but monument signs would be permitted on Sprague or other streets where there is a little setback for buildings. Mr. Kuhta reminded everyone of this Thursday's community meeting, beginning at 8:00 a.m. in Council chambers. Councilmember Dempsey mentioned handicap accessibility and how handicapped people would get from a parking lot to a business. Mr. Kuhta said we would require handicap parking spots, sidewalks would be available, and parking is allowed on the interior of buildings, paths would be allowed; parking garages is another idea as the intensity of development would require structured parking like garages, and the garages would require some parking close to the elevators, and ADA compliance would be adhered to; but he said the amount of travel is likely no different from what is currently at the Valley Mall. Councilmember Grafos said once a binding site plan is on the core street, then the rest of the retail is put on hold until the core street is developed; and Mr. Kuhta confirmed it would be city center retail in the city center area. Councilmember Grafos said from Walnut Street to the west, and to Bowdish on the east, so about a three -block area; he said he went through the map under prelocated streets in the city center, and in a three -block area he counted seven new east/west streets, twelve new north/south streets, one existing street, Dartmouth which will be abandoned and relocated; he said he counted new roads, pre- existing or prelocated streets, there are 24 existing buildings, 100% of the existing buildings are nonconforming due to setbacks and coverage requirements of 70% on Sprague Avenue; and if nonconforming, a building cannot be re -built if the use is taken away if 80% of the building is destroyed; and 100% of the free standing signs are now not allowed, such as Rosauers, Banner Bank, McDonald's, Les Schwab, and said he counted about 31 uses that go away. Councilmember Dempsey said she would appreciate receiving a list of the 31 uses or 36 uses that have gone or will go away; and Mr. Grafos showed her where they are in the book on the chart on page 19. Councilmember Grafos asked Mr. Kuhta if the chart includes all the zoning uses on the zoning matrix; and Mr. Kuhta said he thinks not, there are all kinds of uses not listed and he is sure there are more. Mr. Kuhta said this is a re- development scenario, with the city center being the start of this; that these regulations would result in a different place than we have now. Councilmember Gothmann said he feels the very first question of Council is, does Council wish to create a place we don't have now, a place where there is a certain amount of density on a core street; or do we wish to not have this place and leave it the way it is now; he said citizens have told him they prefer to Council Meeting Minutes: 08 -17 -2010 Page 5 of 12 Approved by Council: 09 -14 -2010 create such a center; and suggested Council wait to see how Thursday's meeting goes, then come back as a Council and ask the question of do we want to create a city center; and if we do, then council should make some regulations, and said the core street is relatively undeveloped area at the moment. Councilmember Dempsey said regarding the idea of having something we didn't have before, we didn't have Discovery Playground before and now we have this wonderful enhancement to our city; and said through careful planning, we could have a similar wonderful city center. Councilmember Grassel said she feels the biggest difference is in such places as Hillyard, they had the support of all the business owners on that main corridor; but here we have trampled on property rights, and in talking to the University City owner, there was no discussion of what he wanted for that particular city center; so it is one thing to ask a community for a city center, and have a survey done; but is another thing to say to all 1300 business owners along Sprague, in order to input this plan, we're going to change all your property rights; and that's the biggest interest; we have a conflict because we have not gone to business owners and received their buy -in; she said she spent a lot of time talking with business owners, and many are not happy with the plan, which is evident in the meetings; but the request is to give them back their zoning, and to put a city center at that location might not be the right location. Councilmember Gothmann said the initial place for a city center was University east; and then the owner of the property on the southwest corner of Sprague and University said he'd like to do it; so Council talked to that owner to see if it would be feasible; and said the City of Spokane Valley would not have talked to that owner if he had not initiated the subject; further, Councilmember Gothmann said the property along the core street is owned by one or at most two people, and not owned by the thousands of property owners Councilmember Grassel keeps talking about; he agreed there are changes which could be made to the general city center; but the real question is, do we want a core area; he said he doesn't see why businesses along Sprague would object to a core area as it seems it would be bring additional business to the area. Mayor Towey said Thursday's community meeting should give council more information on whether to pursue a city center; he said he is bothered that for two years the City has tried to negotiate that particular land without a positive reaction; and said he doesn't know if it would be feasible to start negotiations again. Mr. Kuhta said regarding the negotiations, they were willing to sell us land, but it was really the jigsaw puzzle of this: who built the street, do we go to a bond vote on city hall and pay for the infrastructure; they were willing to dedicate the right -of -way if we built the streets; those are the types of issues we were talking with the land owner; and they wanted a commitment from the city but the city wasn't ready to give a commitment; and said it was trying to put all the pieces together and trying to get commitments on both sides; he said they were a willing negotiator. Mr. Kuhta said staff will have a final report of this Thursday's meeting, back to council on September 14. Mayor Towey asked how long we negotiated; and Mr. Kuhta said the property owner hired a high - quality consultant who did public /private partnerships, and we mainly worked through them, and had numerous discussions; but probably actively engaged about a year; they were involved in the process and concerned about some of the regulations; and one of the things they said was they didn't want two -story buildings as they didn't think the market was there for two -story buildings; and reiterated that they were engaged in the process. 6. Street Preservation Program — Neil Kersten Public Works Director Kersten gave a presentation on the pavement management program; explained that the first plan was developed in 2006 and in 2008 they were in the process of updating the plan; he went over the street improvement categories of annual operation and maintenance; pavement management, and capital grant projects and again mentioned there are no current revenues for pavement management; he gave a few of the highlights of the 2007 report and briefly mentioned the pavement condition, the 2007 annual street revenues, the six -year OCI (overall condition index), and discussed in brief some of the road maintenance and rehabilitation treatment types and recommendations to the overall process to correct issues on future projects. Director Kersten discussed some of the budget aspects including the annual average need for arterials, STEP (septic tank elimination program), and said the Pavement Management Plan Update 2008 is included in council's agenda packet, along with maps to show street locations; and Council Meeting Minutes: 08 -17 -2010 Page 6 of 12 Approved by Council: 09 -14 -2010 he concluded by explaining that staff will return when we have better numbers and that the plan should be ready for review around the first of next year. Mayor Towey called for a recess at 7:35 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at approximately 7:45 p.m. 7. Ci1y Transportation Benefit District (TBD ) Cary Driskell Deputy City Attorney Driskell said on July 6, council discussed with City Attorney Connelly, what a possible interlocal agreement might look like with other jurisdictions in the area, and said after this discussion tonight, Commissioner Mielke will give council an update on that interlocal. Mr. Driskell said one of the questions council had July 6 was, if this city were to consider a TBD on our own using a license fee, what kind of revenue could be generated. Mr. Driskell said research was gathered from the Department of Licensing to determine how many qualifying vehicles are in Spokane Valley, and using those numbers, staff used the GIS (geographic information system) to get the most accurate number possible; it appears there are approximately 60,000 qualifying vehicles that would be subject to a TBD if that was something Council chose to enact; he further explained that for every $10.00 imposed fee, $600,000 would be generated in revenue, so a $20 fee would generate $1.2 million, a $30 fee would generate $1.8 million, and $40 would be $2.4 million; and said these figures are for discussion purposes only; and he said the information is merely an outline for council showing the options as set forth in state law; that there are some options subject to voter approval and some not. Councilmember Grassel asked at what point we would get with other municipalities to determine whether to move forward, and Mr. Driskell said that Commissioner Mielke and Mr. Tortorelli will give an update, and Council can hold additional discussions at a future council meeting to come to consensus on the path to take regarding a transportation benefit district. In response to questions from Councilmember Gothmann concerning the uses of impact fees, Mr. Driskell said he has not examined that closely, but generally impact fees are only for new construction. Councilmember Grassel commented that the text states there shall be no "double dipping on impact fees" and she said if we are already requiring an industrial or commercial user to get the tab fee on those trucks, she asked if a formula exists. Mayor Towey invited Commissioner Mielke and Mr. Joe Tortorelli to come forward to speak to this topic. Commissioner Mielke expressed thanks for the opportunity to comment tonight; he mentioned he is distributing tonight, copies of the draft interlocal agreement, and he asked Council to keep in mind that the legislature permits forming a city -only TBD, or to form a regional TBD, and he acknowledged that there are some areas in the language of the regulations concerning a regional TBD that are ambiguous and difficult to implement; and said to move forward on a regional TBD, the law requires the Board of County Commissioners to adopt an ordinance forming the district, and prior to the district being formalized, an interlocal agreement must be negotiated with the partnering jurisdictions, and it must be signed by jurisdictions representing at least 75% of the population as well as 60% of the jurisdictions; and what that means for Spokane County if it were to form a regional TBD, the County can reach the population threshold if Spokane County, City of Spokane, and City of Spokane Valley participate; but the second part would not be met, that of requiring 60% of the jurisdictions participating. Mr. Mielke said there are fourteen jurisdictions within Spokane County, and in rounding up, 60% is 8.4, which means nine of the jurisdictions would need to participate. Mr. Mielke said he asked local elected officials if they would like Spokane County to move forward, and said that if the County were to move forward, they would like to know if all of the jurisdictions which would benefit really wanted a regional approach and would they be willing to go on record with that decision; and said he received a lot of individual opinions but not many official positions of jurisdictions. Mr. Mielke said many local elected officials said before they give an answer on this question, they would like to see a draft interlocal agreement; and Mr. Mielke said he therefore drafted a rough draft interlocal agreement; and said he tried to insert language which reflects concerns of the majority of elected officials with whom he has spoken; in examining state laws regarding revenue streams, most require voter approval, but two do not require voter approval; one is the TBD, whether it be city only or regional, they can impose transportation impact fees on commercial Council Meeting Minutes: 08 -17 -2010 Page 7 of 12 Approved by Council: 09 -14 -2010 development; and the second is a tab fee up to $20.00 can also be implemented without a vote; and said everything else is subject to a public vote. Based on input he received, Commissioner Mielke said he made the interlocal more restrictive, and in the revenue section, it states that every revenue source regardless of how small, which goes to a TBD must go to a public vote. Also in the revenue section, Commissioner Mielke said he included that we will not impose transportation impact fees on commercial development; and said the business community, which is primarily the Chamber organizations throughout the region said they realize transportation infrastructure is one of the most basic government investments, and therefore, said they wanted a coordinated, comprehensive approach rather than having one fee now, and another fee later, and so on. Commissioner Mielke also mentioned his second handout, that of a copy of an August 12 letter addressed to Spokane Council President Shogan; that Spokane City Council has had two meetings where this topic was discussed concerning doing a city -only TBD or participate in a regional TBD; and said there was a quote in a recent newspaper article where President Shogan was quoted that he was not aware of the Board of County Commissioner's position on this topic; so the intent of the letter is to reiterate the Board's position, which has been consistent, where the Board asks either by resolution or by letter, for the local jurisdictions to indicate to the Board if the Board should move forward on a regional TBD, and to also give some feedback on the interlocal agreement; and added that he has heard from many local officials that they want to know the public's feelings on this issue. Mr. Joe Tortorelli, Secretary of the Spokane Area Good Roads Association, which is a 107 year -old organization, said they are in a coalition with Greater Spokane, Inc., Association of General Contractors, and AVISTA on examining what the public's interest is in transportation funding; he said they acquired a reputable survey firm from Portland who conducted a survey by calling 300 residents in Spokane County, a combination of inside the City and out, and in and outside the unincorporated area; and said about 25 questions were asked, primarily, would the public be interested in a new tax to create funding specifically to be used for road improvements; he said this was done as a baseline to determine public sentiment as they knew the answer to a question about wanting more taxes would be no. He explained the survey asked if they would be supportive of individual cities creating their own TBDs or if it should be regional, and the results were 72% in favor of regional. He said the question was asked, do you believe they should jointly plan for transportation funding, and it came back 76% support for a regional effort. He said they asked how important are the roads, and over 90% said very important. He said another question was about the percentage make -up between maintaining the roads and new capital projects, and it came back about 50/50 that they were supportive; and finally, they asked if people would be willing to accept a regional effort in order to create a funding source to support road maintenance, and it came back 57% in favor; and said they believe they need to create local funding for local projects. Mr. Tortorelli said the state passed the gas tax in the nickel package in 03, the TPA package of 9.5¢ in 05, and said we didn't quite get our share especially in the 9.5¢ or $9 billion dollars, but we are still paying that tax; and said this would be locally generated and locally spent. Mr. Tortorelli said their organizations are very supportive of this as it creates jobs and the opportunity for job growth; and he encouraged Spokane Valley to be part of the regional effort. Mr. Mielke said regarding revenue streams, that when the legislature first put together TBDs, it had in mind city -only TBDs; and they had in mind to have the City Council operating as the TBD's Board of Directors; he said Council is aware of where the road problems are as they communicate with the City's Public Works Director, so as the Board of a TBD, there would be a direct connection in allocating funds. He further explained that if a city has transportation impact fees, it must credit that amount back against whatever resources would be drawn from; he said that calculation would be easy if only one jurisdiction were involved, but the legislature said this might also work on a regional model. Mr. Mielke said for example, if there are fourteen jurisdictions forming a regional TBD but only one has a transportation impact fee, the law said that must be credited back, but the question is, does it get credited back to all Council Meeting Minutes: 08 -17 -2010 Page 8 of 12 Approved by Council: 09 -14 -2010 fourteen jurisdictions, or only against the one; he said the law is confusing and lacks clarity; so we suggested avoiding those ambiguous areas and this interlocal will not impose transportation impact fees. Further, under this proposal, Mr. Mielke said the easiest time to develop a formula to distribute money is when there is no money to distribute; so the formula in the interlocal is that for every dollar collected, 70% gets re- distributed to those fourteen jurisdictions to be used for whatever transportation purpose they deem appropriate; and the other 30% goes to the regional projects, such as Bridging the Valley. Mr. Mielke said this formula was based on a combination of vehicle miles traveled and population, and said if you look at just the tab fees staying in the city generated by Spokane Valley, $600,000 for every $10.00; if you wanted to generate $20 million in the region, that would equate to approximately a $45.00 tab fee, which means that the total collected for Spokane Valley would be about $2.6 to $2.8 million; but when you change the formula under the regional TBD and do the combination of vehicle miles traveled and population, the allocation to Spokane Valley is 70 %, which would equal about $2.6 to $2.8 million plus the other 30% generated which gets distributed to projects of regional significance; and said he feels there is a slightly better return with the regional TBD. Regarding the question of whether to go regional or alone, Mr. Mielke said he asks the question of how have we done in the past, and said he hasn't looked at state funds, but in just looking at the federal allocation, and using the percent of population in a TMA (Transportation Management Area), Spokane Valley represents about 19.2% of the total population; and if you look at the federal funds coming into this region, that allocation under the urban funding program would be about $913,000 annually, so over ten years, that would draw about $9.1 million to Spokane Valley; and said if you look at the past ten years in projects that have fallen within what is now Spokane Valley, and he mentioned that this City has done very well and has projects which have ranked high regarding their regional significance; he said instead of pulling $9.1 million over the course of the last ten years, the area that comprises Spokane Valley would have had about $19.3 million or about twice as much as you would if you were to go on your own without having the regional pool to draw from. Mr. Mielke mentioned that the Bridging the Valley continues to be seen as a project of regional significance; at a cost of approximately $300 million; and if all the jurisdictions do their own TBD, will other jurisdictions believe that Bridging the Valley is a Spokane Valley project and therefore one that only Spokane Valley should pay for; he said the use of the 70% funds is entirely up to Council, and the 30% might be able to be, used as leverage funds for acquiring a federal grant or allocation; and he said we try to wisely use local funds for local projects, instead of exporting funds elsewhere. Councilmember Grassel asked about section 4 of the interlocal and the definition of transportation improvements; and said one of the things troubling her in supporting this is it is too broad; that the board could be formed and someone might feel a regionally significant plan is to put in light rail or do a bike plan; and said constituents she talked to are supportive of a tab fee provided it only goes to roads; and said she is leery to endorse this; she said you could include parking lanes or bike stalls on that road, but outside of that, people will have a problem supporting it as people say they currently pay gasoline tax, and utility tax, and this new tax might not even go to a road; and she said people are sick and tired of more and more taxes and fees and we never seem to prioritize our budgets to meet the needs, and she said the needs are simply to have improved roads; and she reiterated this is too broad. Mr. Mielke confirmed that the area she questioned, Section 4 on page 3 of 9 under "definition of transportation improvements" is taken completely from State law; and he said section 5 has some added crafted language to try to have it flexible but still consistent with law; and said they want to be careful as for some people, a road only means the asphalt surface and not sidewalks or curbs; but he hears from his constitutes that the kids have no place to walk to school without walking on the edge of the road; and said as they are looking to rehabilitate Harvard Road, especially in the area of Harvard and Wellesley, they know they must look at a road which includes a place for people to safely walk beside the road, or ride bikes. Mr. Mielke said one of the questions asked on the survey was, what do you believe the most important transportation issue in this community is, and Mr. Tortorelli said the number one road issue is road maintenance by far; and Mr. Mielke said the second priority is public transportation as roughly 19% of the population said that preserving our existing roads is the number one priority. Councilmember Grassel said she has no Council Meeting Minutes: 08 -17 -2010 Page 9 of 12 Approved by Council: 09 -14 -2010 objection to that but asked if Mr. Mielke is saying that the state requires language such as passenger rail and bicycle - pedestrian accommodations, or is that Mr. Mielke's own language? Mr. Tortorelli said it comes down to a plan that is developed by the region, and as part of that region, he said Spokane Valley will have plenty of input to determine what those projects are of regional significance. Councilmember Grassel said if she were to ask her constituents about this and tell them that this regional TBD could cost them $45 in tab fees, and since it could go to light rail or a bike path, she said those constituents will not support that; and if she tells them it will go only to preservation of roads, including maybe sidewalks and curbs, they would support that; and she said her constituents are tired of being taxed and fees not going to the projects they want the tax money to go to. Mr. Mielke said concerning section 5, he wrote the first and third paragraphs, and the second paragraph is from State Statute, and said the purpose of the first paragraph is to address that economic development is a consideration and has to benefit two or more jurisdictions; or has to be something that improves it, since they feel that WSDOT (Washington State Department of Transportation) should be responsible for maintaining the road in its current form; and said that third paragraph addresses how people can nominate their project to be a project of regional significance. Councilmember Grassel said her input is to leave that language out if he wants this to succeed; and said she feels there is no public support for those other things; and sees the City of Spokane going one direction with their roads, said we heard tonight that we don't have funds for road preservation. Councilmember McCaslin said that page 3 of 9, third paragraph, "the parties agree that the governing body of SRTBD shall be the same as the governing board of the designated federal metropolitan planning organization (MPO) as provided" and he asked who are the referred to "they" to which Mr. Mielke responded, SRTC (Spokane Regional Transportation Council), and that Council is comprised of elected officials and a citizen member, Jim Williams, who represents Transportation, and all remaining members are elected officials from one of the jurisdictions, including Deputy Mayor Schimmels. Councilmember McCaslin said if this council imposes a $20.00 license fee, this council would have complete control of the revenues generated; but if this council goes with the regional TBD, this council loses control, and he said he prefers to have control. Commissioner Mielke reiterated that the allocation that comes back to each jurisdictions, is fully under that jurisdiction's control; and said that he seeks input concerning this interlocal; that it can be more or less restrictive; and the goal was to exercise control to ensure that whoever makes up the governing board, which can be done with a new independent board with no less than five members including at least one elected representative from each jurisdiction; or could use an existing government entity, the existing MPO, which in this case is the Spokane Regional Transportation Council. Mr. Mielke said he tried to restrict the powers to things we are compatible with; such as not giving this separate board the power to implement a regional transportation impact fee, which is why he included the language that "every revenue source shall be subject to a public vote;" and that at no time will there be a transportation impact fee; and said it is similar to the interlocal which formed Spokane International Airport between the City of Spokane and Spokane County. Councilmember Gothmann said that we will get more money going regionally; locally only results in $600,000 per $10.00 tab fee but regionally is $600,000 per $10.00 tab fee plus the regional percentage; and recommended that in the interlocal, there be some way to select the value of the tab fee and that the amount has to be approved by some formula by the jurisdictions, not SRTC; he also suggested another reason to go regional is that he found that Mr. Torterilli's group is ready, willing and anxious to act as a voter information source for getting this on the ballot, and for providing information; and said for jurisdictions to do it alone, they lack such a resource and he added that 72% of our citizens said we should go regional; and he suggested this council decide; that there is a Council of Governance meeting early September, and that at the first part of September, this council could have a solid answer for the Commissioners concerning whether this Council is for a regional model; with the goal of having the group make a collective decision at that September meeting; and he suggested that all the jurisdictions move toward that goal; thereby the Board of Commissioners would know as a result of that Council of Governance meeting, if there is ample support to go regionally; and Councilmember Gothmann said if there isn't enough support, this council could do local. Council Meeting Minutes: 08 -17 -2010 Page 10 of 12 Approved by Council: 09 -14 -2010 Commissioner Mielke said regarding making the determination if jurisdictions are "in or out" he would like to know if they would like the Board to schedule a hearing to adopt an ordinance and start trying to negotiate an interlocal; and once those two things are in place, we would stop until the voters agree to a revenue source and we all get together and determine what it is our citizens are willing to accept; so the question remains, should the Board complete the first phase, that of scheduling a hearing to adopt an ordinance. Mayor Towey said the question is not whether this Council is in or out, but if this council endorses the Board of Commissioners moving this forward; that the referred to meeting is September 10, so there should be enough time for this council to discuss this and draft a letter addressing the issue. Commissioner Mielke said GSI has taken a position of supporting a comprehensive transportation solution; that the Valley Chamber is taking the issue under consideration; and the West Plains Chamber has stated in the past they support a comprehensive solution to transportation, but they have not gone back to discuss specifics of a TBD. Deputy Mayor Schimmels mentioned several projects that have an impact on this city, including the Havana Bridge, the Department of Transportation Pines/Mansfield project, the widening of I -90, and many other projects. Councilmember Grassel asked then if that contradicts forming a regional TBD, since all that was accomplished without a TBD, and Deputy Mayor Schimmels said we would never find the matching funds for even 25% of those projects; and Mr. Mielke said the federal government is changing its criteria for EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), DOT (Department of Transportation), and Economic Development, that they are now looking at scoring criteria based on comprehensive or coordinated approaches. Councilmember Grassel asked if Council could get a copy of the survey questions and results, and Mr. Tortorelli said he would not be able to comply with that request as it is not a public document, but rather is funded through private funds; that he can go over the questions, but cannot supply a copy of the document as it could be used against them in a campaign. Commissioner Mielke added that were Council to receive a copy, it would instantly become a public record and the people who paid for the survey want to control the information. Councilmember Grassel said she would not endorse this with the language including light rail; she said she spoke with too many people who told her they only want fees going strictly to road projects; and that there has been a great deal of discussion on light rail or bicycle plans, and she said people she talks to are fed up with that. Commissioner Mielke asked if her desire would be to also eliminate Bridging the Valley since that is not a road project, and Councilmember Grassel asked if Bridging the Valley would fall under a different category, such as freight mobility or preservation of existing infrastructure, and Mr. Mielke said that paragraph could be eliminated, but if Spokane Valley gets audited on how the funds are used, the auditor will still make sure the funds are used consistent with state law; and he asked if Ms. Grassel is suggesting to strike out the line "public transportation and passenger rail." She said she is okay with public transportation but would omit passenger rail and /or the bicycle /pedestrian accommodations, and just keep to road infrastructure that vehicles travel on. Commissioner Mielke said he understands the point with passenger rail, and said he feels she will get some "push- back" if bicycle /pedestrian accommodations are eliminated, as that is sidewalks; and she said this council just went through discussion about bicycles on sidewalks, and said she doesn't think anyone supports bikes on sidewalks; but perhaps to just state "ADA sidewalk accommodations." Councilmember Dempsey said she feels bicycle and pedestrian accommodation needs to be included with the roads; and Ms. Grassel said you might have a bicycle lane, but there is a difference between having a bicycle lane and like what Portland has done by having bicycle lanes equal to car lanes. Councilmember McCaslin asked staff to provide Council with Mr. Tortorelli's testimony since the survey document is unavailable, and Mr. Jackson said such will appear in the minutes; and he asked if the Bridging the Valley could be accomplished by interlocal agreements without a TBD; and Mr. Mielke said he thinks that could occur, but the question of funding would be an issue; that the law states a project list must be developed in order to form a TBD, and in this case, the project list is the Six -Year Transportation Plan, and Bridging the Valley is on this City's six -year plan as well as on the SRTC regional plan as SRTC puts together a Council Meeting Minutes: 08 -17 -2010 Page 11 of 12 Approved by Council: 09 -14 -2010 regional six -year plan; and he said sometimes jurisdictions put the road maintenance plans in the six year plan and sometimes not; but he said it needs to be done to be in accordance with the state law. 8. Advance Agenda — Mayor TowU Deputy Mayor Schimmels noted that two councilmembers will be unable to attend the August 31 council meeting, and he asked for and received consensus that Council not meet August 31. 9. Information Only: The Greater Spokane, Inc. Third Quarter Report was for information only and was not reported or discussed. 10. Council Check -in — Mayor Towey Councilmember Grafos said he attended a Spokane Homebuilders meeting, along with the City Manager and Councilmember Grassel, and said he felt this was a great opportunity to start the process of a positive relationship between the Homebuilders and the City of Spokane Valley; he said this is the first of a number of meetings that the Homebuilders Organization requested to have with the City Manager and City Official, and to ask how they can help to improve the relationship between the building community and the City; he said that Mr. Jackson explained a number of steps already taken to start this process of resolving bottlenecks and delays on permits and development action, and said he feels all parties understand that we can only be successful by working together in a very positive manner. Deputy Mayor Schimmels extended an invitation to everyone to attend the Spokane Regional Transportation Committee meeting on Thursday September 9 at 1:00 p.m., and said he feels more interaction is needed between the committees. Councilmember McCaslin said that we had a meeting with the builders months ago, and we asked for their very specific complaints about the city, and again, requested the builders to provide council with those specific requests or specific problems with the City so we can attempt to resolve those issues, Mr. Jackson said that was part of the discussion and we have not received those specific complaints or comments. Councilmember Grafos said the president of that organization Joe White is ill; and they are setting up to bring those issues to the next meeting that is being scheduled. 11. Ci . Manager Comments — Mike Jackson: Mr. Jackson had no comments. There being no further business, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 8:56 p.m. Council Meeting Minutes: 08 -17 -2010 Page 12 of 12 Approved by Council: 09 -14 -2010 TODD MIELKE, 1ST DISTRICT - MARK RICHARD, 2ND DISTRICT - BONNIE A. MAGER, 3RD DISTRICT August 12, 2010 Council President Joe Shogan City of Spokane 808 West Spokane Falls. Boulevard Spokane, WA 99201 Dear Council President Shogan: We read with interest your comments in this past Tuesday's Spokesman- Review regarding the current status of pursuing a "regional" transportation benefit district. In the article, it claims you stated that "county leaders have balked the idea." Nothing could be further from the truth, and to suggest as such, is to completely ignore the consistent position of the Board of County Commissioners and repeated requests for other jurisdictions to put their positions on the matter on record. The purpose of this letter is to once again reiterate the position the BOCC has held consistently for nearly two years. We know area residents believe maintaining our transportation system is one of the most basic functions of local government. We also strongly believe those same citizens prefer local governments in this area work together to form a single solution, as opposed to each jurisdiction developing its own plan. With that being said, the BOCC supports pursuing the formation of a regional transportation benefit district and working with area residents to identify the appropriate funding sources(s) to address the continued challenge faced by all jurisdictions to address this region's transportation infrastructure in light of reductions in gas tax revenues and reductions in funding from state and federal transportation programs. However, we want to go forward with the support of a majority of the jurisdictions that stand to benefit from such an effort. Prior to scheduling the statutorily required public hearing for formation of such a district, we have consistently asked jurisdictions within Spokane County for responses to two items. First, we have asked that each jurisdiction clearly state a position of support for moving forward either through a signed letter or adopted resolution. Second, we have asked for written responses/input to the "draft" inter -local agreement on this subject that is also required under the law. While these requests Have been made in presentations to city councils, Council of Government meetings, and in individual discussions with local elected officials, we have yet to receive a single written response to either of these requests. 1 116 WEST BROADWAY AVENUE - SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99260 -0100 (509) 477 -2265 OFFICE OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Page Two Letter to Council President Joe Shogan August 12, 2010 Receiving individual observations from individual elected officials is not the same as receiving a formal request from a governmental entity. We would like to once again request, that if the City of Spokane wishes to proceed in forming a regional transportation district that some formal statement of support and response to the draft inter -local agreement be forwarded as soon as possible. It is only through those formal communication channels that public policy issues important to the region can be pursued with confidence that the jurisdictions have the same goals in mind. Thank you for your consideration of our request. We look forward to a timely response and continued dialogue on this matter. Sincerely, BOARD OF COUPI COMMISSIONERS Mark Richard, Bonnie Mager, Chair Vice -Chair Cc: Mayor Mary Verner Councilmember Bob Apple Councilmember Steve Corker Councilmember Nancy McLaughlin Councilmember Richard Rush Councilmember Jon Snyder Councilmember Amber Waldref City Administrator Ted Danek Todd Mielke, Commissioner Draft Interlocal By Todd Mielke A R gust 16, - ... - Deleted: February 2 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF COUN'T'YWIDE TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT AS PROVIDED FOR IN CHAPTER 36.73 RCW THIS INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT is made by and among Spokane County, a political subdivision of the Washington State, having offices for the transaction of business at West 1116 Broadway Avenue, Spokane, Washington 99201, hereinafter referred to as "County," the City of Spokane, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, having offices for the transaction of business at 808 West Spokane Falls Boulevard, Spokane, Washington 99201, hereinafter referred to as the "SPOKANE," 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 "SPOKANE VALLEY," City of Medical Lake, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, having offices for the transaction of business at 124 S. Lefevre P.O. Box 130, 99019, hereinafter referred to as "MEDICAL LAKE," the City of Cheney, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, having offices for the transaction of business at General Office, 609 Second, 99004, hereinafter referred to as "CHENEY," the City of Liberty Lake, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, having offices for the transaction of business at City Hall, c/o P.O. Box 370, 99019, hereinafter referred to as "LIBERTY LAKE ", the City of Airway Heights, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, having offices for the transaction of business at City Hall, 1208 South Lundstrom, c/o P.O. Box 969; 99001, hereinafter referred to as "AIRWAY HEIGHTS," the City of Deer Park, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, having offices for the transaction of business at City Hall, 316 Crawford Avenue, c/o Box F, 99006, hereinafter referred to as "DEER PARK", the Town of Millwood, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, having offices for the transaction of business at 9103 East Fredrick, 99206, hereinafter referred to "MILLWOOD ", the Town of Rockford, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, having offices for the transaction of business as 20 West Emma, c/o P.O. Box 49, Rockford, Washington 99030, hereinafter referred to as "ROCKFORD ", the Town of Spangle, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, having offices for the transaction of business at 115 West Second Street, c/o P.O. Box 147, Spangle, Washington 99031, hereinafter referred to as "SPANGLE", the Town of Fairfield, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, having offices for the transaction of business at 218 East Main Street, c/o P.O. Box 334, Fairfield, Washington 99012, hereinafter referred to as "FAIRFIELD ", Town of Latah, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, having offices for the transaction of business at 108 E. Market, Latah, Washington 99018, hereinafter referred to as "LATAH ", and the Town of Waverly, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, having offices for the transaction of business at 255 N. Commercial, Waverly, Washington, 99039, hereinafter referred to as "WAVERLY", jointly hereinafter referred to along as the "PARTIES." WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Spokane County and jurisdictions located within Spokane County acknowledge that providing transportation infrastructure is one of the primary functions of local government and that current revenues for maintaining the existing transportation infrastructure are not keeping pace with the costs of such maintenance; and CeWted: February 2 Page 1 of 9 (DRAFTED BY TODD MIELKE, August 16,201 2010 VERSION) WHEREAS, Spokane County and jurisdictions located within Spokane County further acknowledge the need to construct `projects of regional significance' that impact the transportation system of the entire region and recognize the lack of resources available to fund such projects; and WHEREAS, federal and state funding for local transportation maintenance and construction projects has been declining and becoming less predictable. Local jurisdictions recognize the need to rely more heavily on local funding for local projects; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of RCW 36.73.020, the legislative authority of a county or city (means city or town) may establish a transportation benefit district within the county or city area for the purpose of acquiring, constructing, improving, providing, and funding transportation improvements within the district that are consistent with any existing state, regional, and local transportation plans and necessitated by existing or reasonably foreseeable congestion levels. The transportation improvements shall be owned by the county of jurisdiction if located in an unincorporated area, by the city of jurisdiction if located in an incorporated area, or by the state in cases where the transportation improvements are or become a state highway; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of RCW 36.73.020, a transportation benefit district may include area within an entire county or area within a jurisdiction, or area within jurisdictions if the legislative authority of each participating jurisdiction has agreed to the inclusion of its jurisdiction as provided in an interlocal agreement adopted pursuant to chapter 39.34 RCW. Provided, further, under RCW 82.80.140, an interlocal agreement for the establishment of a countywide transportation benefit district shall become effective when it is approved by the county and sixty (60) percent of the cities representing seventy-five (75) percent of the population of the cities within the county; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of RCW 36.73.020 and RCW 36.73.065, the PARTIES desire to enter into an interlocal agreement to establish a countywide transportation benefit district as provided for in chapter 36.73 RCW. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein and as authorized under chapter 36.73 RCW, the PARTIES do mutually agree as follows: SECTION NO. 1: PURPOSE The PARTIES desire to pursue a joint transportation funding mechanism whereby any revenues collected shall be utilized for (1) the operation, preservation and maintenance of existing transportation infrastructure and (2) the acquisition, construction, improvement of transportation improvements under the control of the PARTIES, and (3) the construction of transportation improvements `of regional significance'. The purpose of this Agreement is to set forth the terms and conditions under which the PARTIES agree to the establishment of a countywide transportation benefit district as provided for in chapter 36.73 RCW. The Agreement sets forth, among other matters, how the district shall be governed and administrative functions carried out, how any revenues collected shall be distributed, and the process for determining transportation improvements of regional significance' and prioritizing their funding. SECTION NO. 2: ESTABLISHMENT OF COUNTYWIDE TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT. The PARTIES hereby request and agree, consistent with RCW 36.73.050, to the establishment of a countywide transportation benefit district to be known as the "Spokane Regional Transportation Benefit MS; February 2 Page 2 of 9 (DRAF'T'ED BY TODD MIELKE, August 16,201 2010 VERSION) District" ( SRTBD) through the adoption of an ordinance by the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County. The boundaries of SRTBD shall be co- extensive with the boundaries of Spokane County and shall include the area of all incorporated cities and towns within Spokane County as well as all unincorporated area within Spokane County. The PARTIES agree that the governing body of the SRTBD shall be the same as the governing board of the designated federal metropolitan planning organization (MPO) as provided for by USC Title 23, Section 134 (Governing Board). The Governing Body shall have the same powers as granted to the governing board of a regional transportation benefit district as set forth in chapter 36.73 RCW or otherwise agreed to by the PARTIES. SECTION NO. 3: ADMINISTRATION AND DESIGNATION OF FISCAL AGENT For purposes of this Agreement, the MPO shall have the powers of a transportation benefit district as set forth in chapter 36.73 RCW. The PARTIES agree that the fiscal agent of the SRTBD shall be the MVO. As such, the revenues from all taxes, fees, charges, or tolls enacted by the SRTBD or revenues received by the SRTBD shall be received, held and distributed by the MPO as provided in this Agreement or otherwise agreed by the PARTIES. SECTION NO. 4: DEFINITION OF TRANSPORTATION UAPROVEMENTS. The PARTIES agree and understand the purpose of the transportation benefit district is (1) to assist in funding the operation, maintenance, and preservation of existing transportation infrastructure and (2) to provide funding for the acquisition, construction and improvement of transportation improvements within the boundaries of the transportation benefit district that are consistent with existing state, regional, and/or local transportation plans and necessitated by existing or reasonable foreseeable congestion levels. The terminology "transportation improvement" is defined in RCW 36.73.015(3) to mean "...a project contained in the transportation plan of the state or a regional transportation planning organization ". In selecting a transportation improvement, the SRTBD shall consider those factors set forth in RCW 36.73.020 which include "a) Other criteria, as adopted by the governing body ". For the purpose of this Agreement, and as a condition of the establishment of the SRTBD, the terminology "transportation improvement" shall include those transportation projects listed as part of the regional transportation improvement program (TIP) as required by USC Title 23, Section 134 and administered by the designated metropolitan planning organization (MVO). Additionally the terminology "transportation improvement" shall include those improvement `of regional significance' addressed in Section No. 5 hereinafter. Transportation improvements acquired, constructed, or improved under this Agreement shall be owned by the County if located in the unincorporated area of Spokane County, or by the city or town within which they are located or by the state of Washington in cases were the transportation improvement is on or becomes a part of the state highway system. Deleted: February 2 Page 3 of 9 (DRAFTED BY TODD MIELKE, August 16,201 2010 VERSION) SECTION NO. 5: IMPROVEMENTS `OF REGIONAL SIGNIFICANCE' Transportation improvements of `regional significance' are those transportation related investments that benefit two or more jurisdictions within the SRTBD, benefit the economic health of the region, or enhance the state or federal transportation system within the boundaries of the SRTBD. Transportation improvements of `regional significance' may include investments for vehicular traffic, freight mobility, public transportation, passenger rail, or for bicycle- pedestrian accommodations. They may be for either a single transportation mode or multi - modal. PARTIES shall submit requests for a determination as to whether or not a transportation investment is `of regional significance to the SRTBD. The SRTBD Governing Board shall determine whether a transportation investment is of `regional significance' and prioritize the funding and construction timeline of the investment based upon the available funding. Transportation improvements of `regional significance' shall be listed as part of the regional transportation improvement program (TIP) as required by USC Title 23, Section 134 and administered by the designated metropolitan planning organization (MPO). SECTION NO. 6: TRANSPORTATION BENEFIT DISTRICT REVENUES The PARTIES agree that the SRTBD Governing Board may utilize (i) any single or combination of revenues sources as authorized in chapter 36.73 RCW (ii) any other local government transportation revenue authorized by the state legislature and/or (iii) State and/or Federal grant in aid program to fund the operation, maintenance, and preservation of existing transportation infrastructure and to provide funding for the acquisition, construction and improvement of transportation improvements to include those of `regional significance' as provided for in this Agreement revenues shall subject to voter approval- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ c , - 6elemed: recogWng dial some Deleted: sources are However, the PARTIES fiuther agree that once the transportation benefit district is formed, no individual Dmay be implemented by jurisdiction that is party to this interlocal agreement shall impose a m_a_nd_a_to_ry impact fee on any construction TBD Board for the purp oses of transportation mitigation. SECTION NO. 7: DISTRIBUTION OF REVENUES All revenues received by the SRTBD shall be combined and distributed as follows: Seventy percent (70 %) of all revenues shall be used by the PARTIES for the operation, preservation, and maintenance of existing transportation investments within the boundaries of the SRTBD. Additionally, individual PARTIES may utilize their respective share of revenues to fund the acquisition and/or construction and/or improvement of transportation investments within their jurisdictions. The seventy percent (70 distribution shall be based upon a combined population - vehicle miles traveled formula (formula). The formula takes each PARTIES proportionate share of population as published in the Office of Financial Management's (OFM) Official April I Population Estimate and each PARTIES proportionate share of vehicle miles of travel (VM"I) on the Federal Functional Classification System as published by the designated MPO's regional travel demand model. Population and vehicle miles travel shall be equally weighted in the revenue distribution calculation. Thirty percent (30%) of all revenues shall be utilized to fund fully, or in part, transportation improvements of `regional significance' as defined and determined in Section No. 5. SECTION NO. 8: DURATION { Deleted: February z Page 4 of 9 (DRAFTED BY TODD MIELKE, August 16,201 2010 VERSION) - ----------------- The PARTIES agree, as provided for in RCW 82.80.140, that the provisions of this Agreement will become effective when the Agreement is executed by the COUNTY and sixty (60) percent of the cites representing seventy-five (75) percent of the population of the cites within Spokane County. The terminology "city" shall also include town. The population of the cities shall be determined based on the official records of the Washington State Department of Community Trade and Economic Development. Upon the effective date of this AGREEMENT, the COUNTY will by Ordinance, establish the SRTBD consistent with the provisions of this Agreement and chapter 36.73 RCW. The Ordinance establishing the SRTBD shall provide that it shall automatically dissolve when all indebtedness of the district has been retired and anticipated responsibilities have been satisfied. As such, this Agreement shall terminate when the SRTBD is automatically dissolved as provided for herein or as provided by law. SECTION NO. 9: GENERAL TERMS This Agreement contains terms and conditions agreed upon by the PARTIES. The PARTIES agree that there are no other understandings, oral or otherwise, regarding the subject matter of this Agreement. No changes or additions to this Agreement shall be valid or binding upon the PARTIES unless such change or addition is in writing, executed by the PARTIES. This Agreement shall be binding upon the PARTIES hereto, their successors and assigns. In the event any portion of this Agreement should become invalid or unenforceable, the rest of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. The PARTIES shall observe all federal, state and local laws, ordinances and regulations, to the extent that they may be applicable to the terms of this Agreement. This Agreement shall be construed under the laws of Washington State. Any action at law, suit in equity or judicial proceeding regarding this Agreement or any provision hereto shall be instituted only in courts of competent jurisdiction within Spokane County, Washington. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which, when so executed and delivered, shall be an original, but such counterparts shall together constitute but one and the same. SECTION NO. 10: CHAPTER 39.34 RCW REQUIRED CLAUSES A. PURPOSE See Section No. 1 above. B. DURATION See Section No. 8 above. C. ORGANIZATION OF SEPARATE ENTITY AND ITS POWERS See Section Nos. 2 and 3 above. D. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PARTIES oeleued: FeDra.ry 2 Page 5 of 9 (DRAFTED BY TODD MIELKE, August _16, 20104 2010 VERSION) See provisions above. E. AGREEMENT TO BE FILED The PARTIES, except the COUNTY shall file this Agreement with their City Clerks. The COUNTY shall place this Agreement on its web site. F. FINANCING. See Section Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 above. G. TERMINATION. See Section No. 8 above. H. PROPERTY UPON TERMINATION. Not applicable or see Section No. 2 above. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the PARTIES have caused this Agreement to be executed on date and year opposite their respective signatures. DATED: EVV 1-*w Daniela Erickson, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SPOKANE, COUNTY, WASHINGTON MARK RICHARD, Chair BONNIE MAGER, Vice -Chair TODD MIELKE, Commissioner DATED: CITY OF SPOKANE: B v: Attest: Its: City Clerk (Title) Approved as to form: By: Assistant City Attorney DeleRed: February 2 Page 6 of 9 (DRAFTED BY TODD MIELKE, August 16,201 2010 VERSION _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ DATED: Attest: City Clerk Approved as to form only: Acting City Attorney DATED: Attest: City Clerk DATED: Attest: City Clerk Approved as to form only: Acting City Attorney DATED: Attest: City Clerk CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY: By: Its: (Title) CITY OF MEDICAL LAKE: By: Its: (Title) CITY OF LIBERTY LAKE: By: Its: (Title) CITY OF CHENEY: By: Its: (Title) DATED: CITY OF AIRWAY HEIGHTS: Deleted: February 2 Page 7 of 9 (DRAFTED BY TODD MIELKE, August 16,201 2010 VERSION Attest: City Clerk DATED: Attest: City Clerk DATED: Attest: Town Clerk DATED: Attest: Town Clerk DATED: Attest: Town Clerk DATED: Attest: By: Its: (Title) CITY OF DEER PARK: By: Its: (Title) TOWN OF MILLWOOD: By: Its: (Title) TOWN OF ROCKFORD: By: Its: (Title) TOWN OF FAHMELD By: Its: (Title) TOWN OF SPANGLE By: Its: • •, •... •,....._ DelCted: February 2 Page S of 9 (DRAFTED BY TODD MIELKE, Aueust 16.20106 2010 VERSION) ------------------ DATED: TOWN OF LATAH Attest: Town Clerk By: Its: (Title) DATED: TOWN OF WAVERLY Attest: By: Its: Town Clerk (Title) Deleted: Febrasry 2 Page 9 of 9 (DRAFTED BY TODD MIELKE, Aueust 16,201% VERSION) _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _' S CITY okane p Valley DRAFT DRAFT 2011 Legislative Agenda The following is the draft 2011 legislative agenda for consideration of Council adoption: Principle Items of Interest: 1.) Street utility enabling legislation: Spokane City Councilman Al French previously has proposed street utility legislation. 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.) Maintain Current ieoueaged ° funding for the 911 system and encourage additional upgrades to the 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 assessed value) 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 /1,000 population (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 /1& 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. enhaneed state fbel pur-ehasing pewef related to the large affieunt ef fuel pufehased by sta4e, e tint) and eity 8.) Cell phone registration and confidentiality pertaining to personal information. With the passage of the FCC's "Commercial Mobile Alert System" which allows participating carriers to send emergency text messages to subscribers, and with the ability to gather information to proceed with a Reverse 911 call system, we urge Washington State Legislators to consider placing some restrictions on the release of 911 calls and the personal Spokane Valley 2011 DRAFT Legislative Agenda Page I of 2 information connected with such, and to stipulate that "911" personal information, including any audio recordings of "911" calls, shall be inaccessible to the general public. 9.) Endorsement of afire sprinkler system in the Spokane Valley Food Bank. 10.) Liquor Initiatives: I- 1100 & I -1105: These Initiatives, which would eliminate the state liquor store system; one initiative favors big retails, and the other preserves a business monopoly for liquor distributors that exist in some form in every state in the union. Initiative I -1100 would for the first time allow retailers to purchase hard liquor, beer and wine directly from manufacturers; and 1105 would require retailers to purchase through distributors. If the voters pass both measures, the courts could decide that 1100 would prevail as 1105 modifies the statues, while 1100 wipes them away and replaces with new statutes. Either initiative to privatize liquor sales would have a negative revenue impact on the City of Spokane Valley, and Council wants to be aware of the options should either or both initiatives pass. 11.) Out -of -state trucks to go to the port of entry. As Spokane County Commissioners and Spokane Valley Councihnembers hear some members of the public voice their desire to bar heavy trucks from circumventing the port of entry. Council wants to be appraised of any legislation proposed by ranchers or others, to mandate out - of -state trucks weighing in at a port of entry. 12.) Provide support for the Association of Washington Cities' legislative agenda items that serve the best interests of the City of Spokane Valley. DRAFT Spokane Valley 2011 DRAFT Legislative Agenda Page 2 of 2