2005, 09-29 Special Joint Council/BOCC Meeting MinutesAttendance:
City of Spokane Valley
Mayor Diana Wilhite
Deputy Mayor Rich Munson
Councilmember Dick Denenny
Councilmember Mike DeVleming
Councilmember Mike Flanigan
Councilmember Gary Schimmels
Councilmember Steve Taylor
NOTES
Joint City Council/ Spokane County Commission Meeting
Thursday, September 29, 2005
11:30 a.m.- 1:30 p.m.
Spokane Valley Council Chambers
1 1707 E. Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, WA 99206
City Manager Dave Mercier
Deputy City Manager Nina Regor
City Attorney Mike Connelly
Deputy City Attorney Cary Driskell
Public Works Director Neil Kersten
Police Chief Cal Walker
Senior Engineer Steve Worley
Administrative Analyst Morgan Koudelka
Public information Officer Carolbelle Branch
City Clerk Chris Bainbridge
Spokane County
Commissioner Phil Harris
Commissioner Mark Richard
Commissioner Todd Mielke
Chief Executive Officer Marshall Parnell
Director Engineering & Roads Ross Kelley
Deputy Prosecutor Jim Emacio
Martin Rollins, Prosecuting Attorney's Office
John Pederson, Assistant Dir. Bldg & Planning
Others: approx 25 citizens
Mayor Wilhite welcomed everyone to the meeting at approximately 11:45 a.m.; said that today is the
County's turn to chair the meeting, and turned the meeting over to Commissioner Mielke. Commissioner
Mielke also welcomed everyone to the meeting, and mentioned the listed agenda items for discussion.
1. Revisions for the Road Maintenance Contract — Ross Kelly, and Neil Kersten
Spokane Valley Public Works Director Kersten explained some of the history of the progress of the road
maintenance contract; that the bulk of the contracted work would occur next year; that half of the work is
contracted privately, while the other half is with the County and deals with items such as snow removal;
and added that not all details have been finalized.
County Engineering and Roads Director Kelley stated he realizes there are many aspects to starting a new
city, and that not all things happen simultaneously; that everyone wants an orderly transition if the City
were to take over all aspects of running a city, including street maintenance; that the County felt a
responsibility to assist when the City first incorporated; and a full transition needs to be discussed with all
officials; that the County is willing to help in the transition; that the County uses seasonal and part -time
helpers to help out in the Valley; and should the City wish to handle all city aspects; the County would
not need to lay off anyone, but merely would not need the part time and seasonal help they now employ.
Further discussion continued on the topic including taking over a part or all of the contract; street
sweeping transition methods; the philosophy of contracts; the public's perception of when things go right
or wrong; liability issues; revenue sharing; sales tax; privatization of some or all of the contract when
using union employees; timeline for any transition; the idea of downloading some of the summer
functions and the city finding alternate contracts for such things as sweeping; keeping a high level of
Notes of Joint Meeting: 09 -29 -05 Page 1 of 4
service; other services such as landscaping and /or weed control; and the need for further research and
discussion of the topic, which could lead to drafting a new contract with officials approval. It was also
suggested that in looking at such transition, perhaps there should specific items should be defined that the
City wants transferred, and whether those transitions should be further defined by splitting the issues
between summer and winter services; and the idea of staff jointly preparing a list of items that would be
reasonable to bring to the City's side was also mentioned. Questions for further consideration included
whether both entities are willing to further discuss transition issues; long -term plans for the contract; the
need to determine a timeline of when such decisions could be finalized; and to look at items in addition to
road sweeping and what a longer term plan night look like for road maintenance. Councilmember Taylor
mentioned that the City is a contract city and desires to maintain that philosophy. Commissioner Richard
suggested the Commissioners review these issues within the next thirty days, and bring the topic back to
the Board for their review and decision.
2. City /County Model agreements (me too clause)
County Attorney Emacio explained that staff has been working towards finalizing agreements since
December of last year and has come up with a standard form agreement which is easier to interpret. He
explained that during the course of coming up with standardized provisions, the "me too" language was
discussed. He stated that if the County provides similar services to other entities at a substantially reduced
price, the County would consider changing the City's contract to make all services similar. He said that
he deleted the "me too" provision as it was initially included in 2003/04 by the prior Board, and that this
Board felt that clause was not necessary, and he was given direction to delete it. Mr. Emacio further
stated that he and Deputy City Attorney Driskell came up with standard language; but that Mr. Driskell
noticed the "me too" clause wasn't included. Mr. Emacio said that he cannot include such clause without
the approval by the Board; adding that if the County offers that methodology to similar size cities, then it
should do so also to Spokane Valley, but use a different figure for different size cities; and would leave
the exact verbiage to the officials. Deputy City Attorney Driskell added that the underlining premise for
that clause was to respect the notion that neither jurisdiction should be subsiding the other; that if we get a
service, we should be paying for it in keeping with the gifting of public funding. Discussion on this
agenda item then included the work involved in identifying the service costs throughout all contracts; the
need to be fair to the payer and the provider; and the affect of the new proposed language. Attorney
Driskell suggested changing the verbiage to read: "the county shall not provide similar services to other
municipalities at a reduced cost." Further discussion included the settle and adjust; whether the assurance
language is necessary; the need for flexibility; defining what constitutes a smaller city; overhead
allocation levels; and ending with the County stating its opposition to the language proposed by Mr.
Driskell as it is substantially different from what is now in the contract. Commissioner Harris stated that
the County is not subsidizing anyone, and if the City can show they (the County) are over charging, to
bring such information forward. It was also mentioned that the 2004 contract is not yet reconciled.
Commissioner Mielke stated that there are specific circumstances that create differences; with some
smaller towns the services are diminished in nature; the difference doesn't justify the staff time to
quantify all the minute differences.
3. interlocal Agreement Re Joint Planning
Commissioner Mielke made reference to the Commissioner's September 29, 2005 letter regarding the
Draft lnterlocal Agreement; and stated the Commissioners would like to postpone further discussion of
this until the next meeting. Deputy Mayor Munson stated that the Steering Committee meeting is set for
November 16` and suggested if we came up with an agreed upon product, we could let them take it from
there to see if it can be applied to their situation; and said he would like to have a date certain of an
outcome to this process in order to give the Steering Committee time to review and comment.
Commissioner Mielke stated that the draft agreement covers a number of elements, including
transportation, stonnwater, impact fees, and questioned whose standards would be used
Notes of Joint Meeting: 09 -29-05 Page 2 of 4
Further discussion of issues included interest in adopting model language regarding the different
elements; the most appropriate way to present the issue formally to the Steering Committee; the work of
the sub - committee; what the scope of joint planning entails and whether it includes annexation; adjacent
infrastructure placing a strain on City infrastructure; traffic flows; and how to fund traffic mitigation.
Because there are multiple elements to this issue, Mayor Wilhite suggested convening another joint study
session to discuss this issue possibly in October, and stated she would work to set up such a meeting.
Commissioner Harris suggested doing away with the steering committee as it is a means for delay and is
no longer needed. Attorney Connelly stated that there is a proposed motion to go to the steering
committee, which motion clearly states that adoption of a joint planning agreement will not be evidence
of' an intent for opposition to annexation for any purpose; and also that there is a draft joint planning
agreement only for the Turtle Creek area as that was the area of concern to the Valley Council. Attorney
Connelly recommended reconvening the sub- committee before the steering committee meeting, and have
them review the proposed motion; and he added that he would be happy to work with Martin and Stan
and others involved, to come up with a more generic joint planning agreement to use for all jurisdictions,
and further that the motion should likely be modified to give direction to all jurisdictions to allow them to
conduct those negotiations.
4. Urban Growth Areas
Commissioner Mielke suggested skipping this topic or keeping it very brief due to time constraints.
Martin Rollins and John Pederson spoke on this topic, stating that it is their understanding that the request
is for an inventory of the applications with regard to their impact on Urban Growth Boundaries, in the
form of maps; that County staff has maps with them but that much of this information is included on the
shared GIS system. Mr. Mielke said that they have over 200 applications which were received for
consideration under the update of the Comprehensive Plan; that they have been uploaded onto the system;
and while difficult to put them on a rnap, they did bring maps depicting the existing UGA as well as
vested plats.
5. Applewav Rif!ht- of -wav Transfer
Mr. Mielke turned the discussion to the Appleway right -of -way transfer; and the document to review to
determine whether it is acceptable to the parties; that the Country had an old draft quit claim decd prepared
by the previous Board; that Mr. Driskell reviewed the document and submitted a letter requesting a
number of language adjustments; and that the Board reviewed the letter with Mr. Rollins to determine if
those adjustments were captured in this new document. Discussion centered on the document letter
language, the purpose of page 2 paragraph one; that is the only thing that did not get specifically changed;
as it stated that the property shall be maintained in good condition for transportation purposes; and Mr.
Driskell's letter suggested that while not legally objectionable, under the current set of circumstances that
everything seems to be progressing fine and questioned the need to address that issue; but that the Board's
concern is more on how to protect the area in the future; so the issue is, is it maintained in good condition
to provide access for service" Regarding the next bullet seeking clarification of any improvements made
regarding the maintenance, altering the sewer (top of page 3), County staff stated the intent is to make
sure it is applicable to the permitting process of the City of Spokane Valley. Mr. Driskell said he feels the
concepts appears to have been addressed and he would review the specific language. Regarding other
items, County legal staff suggested Mr. Driskell review the issue and contact the County's legal staff with
any further questions or concerns. Mr. Pederson explained the proposed changes in the document; and in
reference to Mr. Driskell's June 21, 2005 letter, item (6), that staff indicated that everything they are
aware of has been turned over to City of Spokane Valley staff; and regarding (7) concerning the detailed
maps, Mr. Pederson indicated it is his understanding that has occurred and is the same G1S information
available to both jurisdictions. Mr. Pederson said he would like to give City of Spokane staff time
to review the language; and should be able to fine -tune the document soon.
Notes of Joint Meeting: 09 -29 -135 Page 3 of 4
Attorney Connelly asked the purpose of the reversionary language in page 2 of 6, paragraph 1; and why
that is tied to maintenance; as it stated that if the property is not properly maintained in good condition,
the property could revert to the County. Mr. i?macio stated that the reversionary language was to address
transportation purposes; to which Mr. Connelly responded that further language edits need be made to
separate the maintenance from the reversionary interest, to which Mr. Emacio agreed. Mr. Connelly also
stated if maintenance is solely for access, it might be good to put that right next to the word "maintained"
to be clear that is what is being referred to. Mr. Emacio agreed. Mr. Connelly asked who would be
responsible if contaminants are found under the roadway, to which Mr. Pederson stated the property
would be given "as is," and would be in the same condition in which the County received it when granted
to them from the railroad. Attorney Connelly preferred not to have "as is" language, but since the issue is
potential contamination, there should be specifically spelled out who has responsibility for that property;
or perhaps refer to some federal regulation that will allocate responsibility according to an existing
scheme; because "as is" leaves room for too many unknowns. Attorney Connelly stated he would like
that clarified. Mr. Emacio said he would be happy to review those issues; and added that it is the
County's intent to make it clear when ownership is passed to the Valley, that the County is no longer
owner and except for any contamination they (the County) personally did to the site, they are not going to
assume responsibility. Commissioner Richard added that all documents have been turned over to the
City, and full disclosure is another key clement to property transfer; and that the County has given to the
City of Spokane Valley all information they might have had concerning any environmental concerns the
of the County. Commissioner Mielke agreed adding that it is his understanding also. Mr. Connelly asked
for written verification of that for the record, that all documents and items have been transferred. Mr.
Mielke stated that staff will continue fine- tuning this, and will send a letter acknowledging that all
documents they are aware of have been sent to the City of Spokane Valley, with regard to any history on
this property.
6. 1/10 of 1% Local Option Sales Tax for new and Expanded Mental Health Services
Mr. Mielke stated that last week, Spokane County took action to place on November's ballot for public
approval, a 1 /10 of 1% local option sales tax for mental health services; that this is something the
legislature granted the authority for local jurisdictions to impose; the authority was granted without
placing the matter before the citizens for a vote, but that it will be placed on the ballot as an advisory vote.
Commissioner Richard explained the proposal; that the mental health system has between a four and
seven- million dollar shortfall in the budget; and that they spent almost all risk reserves; that the shortfall
comes from in part from trying to fix a funding problem which occurred in the 05 legislative session; the
Legislature attempted to patch a huge hit given at the federal level regarding Medicaid dollars, and all
looked in good shape until after the Legislature convened and there was some movement in adjustment of
how those dollars would be allocated; and in that adjustment, the County was left with a projected
shortfall. If approved as a citizen advisory vote, this tax would raise an estimated $6.5 million dollars
annually, after the first year of raising four to five million dollars; still leaving the County short as
revenues would not be realized until the end of June or early July. Commissioner Richard stated that this
tax in an effort to assist those who cannot assist themselves; and not taking care of the mentally ill has a
ripple affect on the entire community; and if nothing is done, additional cuts in addition to the 20 -25%
cuts already made in the mental health system, would be necessary.
In the interest of time, the meeting was adjourned at 1:46 p.m. and any items not covered will be added to
the next agenda.
Respectfully submitted,
Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk
Spokane Valley
Notes of Joint Meeting: 09 -29-05 Page 4 of 4
Joint Spokane Valley Council & Spokane County Commissioners
September 29, 2005
AME
ADDRESS
PHONE #
rt.. .1
ii. _
• * w„ 1
"77 7/0 0
, • - 1 •i
_.
..,._ . _ r .... i
- - mb
L_
C-2o X ./
ag(93
G il k - cfr*6a
1.117A ce.
_- / 7 S f
-6-76
! — ,r/1 --
-- 1",a J -- .. ,-I
22 Z G-,-",
Sot--
7* - !O ?a
9 d . • - .e-
ail
,ae6_. c 797 .l.
72 -/- vg y
1M
I
1 7 4 7 7 e/0
6LTzle
c
i(3 /2„ C- 7C
Tn. -35
- r-) . A7 ' -
o • ci , 5? y t42 c/F - RD
?), � - ys 3 .3
V ,
...., _ 1/ &AI t:4
•
�,. / ' A &La.
%�,ad-,/
46 id 1 ,
7022 533
_ 44� l ' _; ..!
.: 7 E 3 t
X6 ) 7 Z (7 ( ( /ttl[[ Lt
1 177 -7g /
` - V
_ ..18- 070
De4-h
7 a,Lg_ ill/
w f
2,. it
ge,i-
s .e,,, i. -e ,/ / ,., P
/ ? aV6 f. gdi
cr 7- 2,7
).°‘ - 4 9
1
Joint Spokane Valley Council & Spokane County Commissioners
September 29, 2005
Joint Spokane Valley Council & Spokane County Commissioners
September 29, 2005
NAME
'5e,rv:_
ADDRESS
PHONE #
OFFICE OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
TODD MIELKE, .I. ST DISTRICT • MARK RICHARD, 2ND DISTRICT • PHILLIP D. HARRIS, 3RD DISTRICT
September 29, 2005
Honorable Diana Wilhite, Mayor
City of Spokane Valley
11707 E Sprague Avenue, Suite 106
Spokane Valley, \VA 99206
RE: Draft .interlocal Agreement
Dear Mayor Wilhite.:
The Board has received your letter dated August 30, 2005 and the draft Interlocal
Agreement Regarding Joint Planning between the City of Spokane Valley and Spokane
County dated September 6, 2005. We appreciate your good faith effort in taking this
first step toward preparing a draft interlocal agreement as a means to initiate inter- agency
coordination. It is our desire to work cooperatively with you to develop an interlocal
agreement acceptable to both entities. Ultimately, it makes sense to have the Steering
Committee adopt model language that reflects concerns from all jurisdictions that would
serve as a template for future Joint Planning Agreements.
We believe it would be most productive to convene a joint study session between the
Board and City Council and appropriate staff to compare any and all proposals and
counter- proposals for a workable interlocal agreement. Please contact the Clerk of the
Board, Daniela Erickson, at 477 -2265 to coordinate scheduling a joint study session.
This joint study session should be scheduled as soon as possible. We look forward to
working with you to accomplish this important joint planing task.
Sincerely,
lip D. Harris, Chair
cc: Rich Munson, Deputy Mayor
Michael DeVleming, City Council Member
Steve Taylor, City Council Member
Gary Schimmels, City Council Member
Mike Flanigan, City Council Member
Dick Denenny, City Council Member
7
d Mielke, Vice -Chair Mark Rich• rd, Commissioner
1116 WEST BROADWAY AVENUE • SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99260 -0100 • (509) 477 -2265
Emacio, James
From: Emacio, James
Sent: Sunday, September 11, 2005 12:56 PM
To: 'CDriskell @spokanevalley.org'
Cc: Farnell, Marshall; Gemmill, Gerry; Paul, Downs
Subject: Assurance Clause
Cary:
I have been trying to come up with some language which might be acceptable to our respective clients with regard to the
above issue.
At the present time, you have suggested continuation of the 2003 -2004 language which provides as follows:
SECTION NO. 17 ASSURANCE
The CITY desires to ensure that if the COUNTY provides similar services to other municipalities at
significantly reduced comparable costs, that the CITY can initiate negotiations with COUNTY to take
advantage of the methodologies giving rise to the reduced comparable costs for the remaining tern of this
agreement. Accordingly, the PARTIES agree to meet prior to September 1 of the current year to discuss the
use of any other methodologies by the COUNTY for providing similar services to other municipalities. The
PARTIES shall in good faith attempt to renegotiate the methodology set forth in Exhibit 2. An inability to
renegotiate methodology shall not be subject to Section 17.
As 1 understand that language there is no obligation on the part of the Parties to agree to a new methodology.
We are only required to meet and discuss in good faith a new methodology. And failure to do so is not subject to
the Dispute Resolution section.
is that your understanding?
So, if the parties do meet and in good faith can't resolve the new methodology, neither party has a right to bring
an action for breach of the agreement. We could only exercise our right to terminate.
If that. is your understanding, and recognizing that the County may treat entities having smaller populations
differently, I am wondering if you might agree to add the following underlined language:
SECTION NO. 17 ASSURANCE
The CITY desires to ensure that if the COUNTY provides similar services to other municipalities havim4 a
similar population at significantly reduced comparable costs, that the CITY can initiate negotiations with
COUNTY to take advantage of the methodologies giving rise to the reduced comparable costs for the
remaining term of this agreement.. Accordingly, the PARTIES agree to meet prior to September 1 of the
cun year to discuss the use of any other methodologies by the COUNiTY for providing similar services to
other municipalities. The PA.R.TIES shall in good faith attempt to renegotiate the methodology set forth in
Exhibit 2. An inability to renegotiate methodology shall not be subject to Section 17.
Of course, I have not discussed this language which my clients. 1 am just trying to find some common ground.
Regards,
Jim
Spokane
June 21, 2005
James Emacio
Chief Civil Prosecuting Attorney
11 15 .East Broadway, Second Floor
Spokane, WA 99260
Re: Quit Claim Deed issues on Old Milwaukee right - of - wary
Dear Jim:
11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 • Spokane Valley WA 99206
509.921.1000 • Fax: 509.921.1008 • cityhall@spokanevalley.org
I have itemized the issues the City would like to discuss further in relation to the transfer
of the old Milwaukee Rail ROW that the City is considering for extension of the
Appleway Couplet.
(1) Page 2, # 1, second line — I think the words "and shall be properly maintained in good
condition for these purposes." should be removed. While such language is not legally
objectionable, it is wholly unnecessary under the circumstances. I believe the City has
demonstrated its ability and desire to maintain its property in good condition.
(2) Page 2, # 2, first paragraph — I would like to clarify hi this paragraph that any right to
operate, maintain, alter, construct, etc. the sewer or road is subject to all applicable permit
requirements the City has adopted for such activity..
(3) Page 2, # 2, second paragraph — the words "or allow to be caused" are not acceptable
in this context due to the following sentences, which state that "any such damage is the
sole responsibility and liability of Grantee and hereby covenants with Grantor that
Grantee will pay for any damage done at any time hereafter to the sanitary sewer lines,
their appurtenances and the access road." We will be responsible for, and pay for;
damage we cause, but we should not he a guarantor for damage caused by others.
(4) Page 3, # 4, first paragraph — the bottom line refers to uses of the property, and that
Grantee shall grant an easement related to public transportation uses.. This sentence
should end after. "...joint use of the Property for public transportation purposes." The
remainder of'that paragraph should be removed. We also need to clarify to whom the
City would grant an easement to. It is not clear if it is intended to be Spokane County, or
another entity that may propose a form of public transportation for that area.
(5) The City should have the right to place utilities, public or private in the ROW, and
make other reasonably related uses of the ROW. In the donation document the language
should read, "transferred and conveyed for street, utility (public and private), and all.
other reasonably related purposes consistent with the authority of the City to control and
manage the property under the laws of Washington."
(6) Page 2, #3, Obviously, both jurisdictions are concerned about the potential for
contamination, given the history of the property. Please verify that the County has
provided the City with all documentation the County has regarding potential
contamination related to the property. The City can then determine whether it wants to
have a full environmental assessment done on the property.
(7) Please provide a detailed map or GIS information layer detailing the boundaries of the
ROW, both at the time of the transfer to the County, and now. That map or GIS
information should also show any portions of the R.OW that is encumbered in any way,
such as a lease, license to use, or sale to an outside entity. This is important so the City
knows exactly what is subject to the transfer, and any .limitations that may exist for future
use.
I look forward to your response. if you have any questions or comments, please feel free
to contact me.
CPD /pd
c: Dave Mercier, City Manager
Neil Kersten, Public Works Director
Very truly yours,
Cary P. Driskell
Deputy City Attorney
AFTER RECORDING RETURN TO:
Daniels Erickson, Clerk of the Board
Board of County Commissioners
1116 West Broadway
Spokane, WA 99260
GRANTOR:
GRANTEE:
ABBREVIATED LEG:
PARCEL. NO.:
QUIT CLAIM DEED
SPOKr iNE COUNTY
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Sec. 17,'rwp 25N, Rng 45 E, See. 21, 22, 23 & 24, Twp 25 N, Rng 44 E, Sec. 19, 18 &
W 4 of Sec 17, Twp 25 N, Rng 45 E. (See legal description)
GRANTOR, SPOKANE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Washington,
having its principal place of business at 1116 W. Broadway Avenue, Spokane, Washington
99260 and in consideration of ten (10) dollars and other valuable consideration, conveys and
quitclaims to GRANTEE, the CiTY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, a municipal corporation of the
State of Washington, having its principal place of business at 11707 L. Sprague Avenue, Suite
106, Spokane Valley, Washington 99206, the following described real property situated in the
County of Spokane, State of Washington, hereinafter, "Property", together with all after - acquired
title of the GRANTOR therein:
All that portion of Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad Company's
Dishrnan to Coeur d'Alene Branch Line right of way, from the eastern right of
way Zinc at University Road to the center section line of Section 17, Township 25
North, Range 45 East, W.M., lying within Sections 21, 22, 23 and 24, all in
Township 25 North, Range 44 East, W.M., and Sections 19, 18, and the West %,
of Section 17, all in Township 25 North, Range 45 East, W.M.
The GRANTOR conveys and quitclaims to GRANTEE only that portion of
GRANTOR'S interest in the Property that GRANTOR acquired as Grantee of a certain quitclaim
deed from Richard B. Ogilvie as Trustee of the property of Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and
Page 1 of 6
Pacific Railroad Company, dated December 17, 1980 and recorded in Auditor's File Number
8012230081, records of Spokane County, Washington.
This conveyance is subject to all existing licenses, easements and deeds of record, and all
other encumbrances, exceptions and reservations of record. This conveyance is contingent upon
the unqualified acceptance and acknowledgement by GRANTEE as to all special conditions and
reservations herein. This conveyance is also subject to the following additional conditions and
reservations:
1. The Property shall remain that of the GRANTEE so long as it is used solely for
transportation purposes for the public and shall be properly maintained in good
condition for these purposes. This is a defeasible condition, and should the
Property be used for purposes other than transportation then it shall automatically
revert to the GRANTOR. For the purposes of this condition, the term
"transportation" shall mean the movement of passengers or goods by vehicular
means. This condition shall not prohibit GRANTEE from granting licenses for
the location, operation and maintenance of public utilities over and along the
Property. or from using said property for street, utility (public and private), and all
Other reasonably related purposes consistent with the authority of the GRANTEE
to control and manage the Property under the laws of the state of Washington. so
long as said license or use does not otherwise interfere with the transportation
purposes hercinabove or the easement reserved by GRANTOR in paragraph 2
hereinafter.
2. GRANTOR shall retain a perpetual easement itt the Property in its entirety to
operate, repair, maintain, alter, construct, and reconstruct any public utility_
infrastructure owned or controlled by Spokane County including but not limited to
its sanitary sewer lines, together with any and all necessary appurtenances thereto
(the "Sewer System) over, across and under the Property. GRANTOR shall retain
free, open and unobstntcted right of ingress and egress to the Property for access
to the said public utility infrastnucture, Sewer System and to other parcels owned
by GRANTOR abutting the Property and shall also retain the right to maintain and
re- establish the access road on the Property for the aforementioned purposes.
Page 2 of 6
PR,OVI.I)ED: that any such rights retained by GRANTOR to operate. repair,
maintain, alter, construct and reconstruct the public utility infrastructure or the
Sewer System. or to maintain and re- establish the access road. are subject to any
applicable permit requirements that GRANTEE has lawfully adopted for such
activity. GRANTEE will not cause or allow to be caused, either directly or
indirectly throat h the ,rantin of •errmts easements. licenses leases franchises
or other similar privileges. any damage to the Sewer System or access road.
GRANTEE understands that any such damage is the sole responsibility and
liability of GRANTEE„ and GRANTEE covenants with GRANTOR that
GRANTEE will pay for the acntal cost of any such damage done at any time
hereafter to the Sewer System or the access road. GRANTEE shall require a
condition of an ' erson or entity who receives a •ermit easement license lease
franchise r other similar privile e from GRANTEE to obtain liability insurance
in the amount et ual to that amount required by Spokane_Gounty public works
contractors, and shall require said person or entity to indemnify, defend and hold
harmless GRANTOR, its officers, o fficials and employees from darnaes to the
public utility infrastructure, Sewer System or access road which may arise from
such person or entity's conduct.
3. GRAMME represents and warrants that GRANTEE is acquiring the Property "as-
is, with all faults" and with any and all patent and latent defects including those
relating to the environmental condition of the Property. GRANTEE represents to
GRANTOR that GRANTEE is aware of and assumes the risk that hazardous
substances may be present on, under, in or about the Property. GRANTEE shall
indenmify and hold harmless and hereby waives, releases and discharges forever
GRANTOR, its officers, employees and agents from any and all present and
future, known or unknown, claims, demands, causes of action, damages, losses,
penalties, court costs and attorney fees arising from or in any way related to: a)
any latent or patent condition oldie Property; b) any bodily injury or death or loss
or damage to the Property of any person in any manner arising from the acts or
omissions of GRANTOR, its officers, employees and agents in connection with
Page 3 of 6
the envy upon or use of the Property; and/or c) any presence, use, storage,
generation, manufacture, transport, release, leak, spill, disposal or other handling
of any hazardous substances in, on, under or about the Property.
The term "environmental condition" includes those conditions
encompassed by any federal, state or local statute or ordinance, regulation, code,
rule, order, judgment, decree, injunction or common law pertaining in any way to
the protection of human health or the environment, including without limitation,
the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and Liability Act, the Toxic Substances Control Act, the
Model Toxics Control Act, or any similar or comparable federal, state or local
law. The term "hazardous substance" means any hazardous, toxic, radioactive or
infectious substance, material, contaminant, or waste defined, listed or regulated
under any environmental law, and includes without limitation, petroleum oil and
any of its fractions.
4. GRANTEE shall provide an unobstructed easement to G.RANTQR Spokane
Coln free of charge over, across and under the Property for, and shall fully
cooperate in, the future joint use of the Property for public transportation
purposes„
5. Wherever referred to herein, the term GRANTEE shall apply to GRANTEE, its
successors, assigns, heirs, executors, administrators or designees, who shall be
severally and collectively liable for any and all performance hereunder. Wherever
referred to herein, the GRANTOR shall apply to Spokane County, its successors,
assigns, heirs, executors, administrators or designees, who shall be severally and
collectively liable for any all performance hereunder.
DATED this day of , 2005.
13OARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Page 4 of 6
Deleted: including, but not limited to,
public high capacity transpmLUioo,
including any and ell Gunn otli
moourusl, and the tile, and GRAdd1'E£
shall °che ise maintain she property so AS
to enures that it remains eomp71 '1e with
transit - oriented deieloparxnt of any and
all types
ATTEST: Todd Mielke, Vice -Chair
By:
Daniela Erickson, Deputy Mark Richard, Commissioner
Clerk of the Board
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) ss.
County of Spokane )
Phillip D. Harris, Chair
On this day of , 2005, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public
in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared Phillip D.
Harris, Todd Mielke, and Mark Richard, to me known to be the individual(s) that executed the
within and foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary
act and deed of said individual(s), for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated
that he/she were authorized to execute said instrument, and that the seal affixed is the seal of said
County.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my seal the day and
year first written above.
NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of
Washington, residing at Spokane.
My commission expires:
Acknowledged and Accepted by:
DATED: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY:
Attest: By
Its:
City Clerk (Title)
Page 5of6
STATE OF WASHINGTON )
) ss.
County of Spokane )
On this day of , 2005, before me, the undersigned, a Notary Public
in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and sworn, personally appeared
to me known to be the individual(s) that executed the within and foregoing
instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said
individual(s), for the uses and purposes therein mentioned, and on oath stated that he/she were
authorized to execute said instrument, and that the seal affixed is the seal of said County.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed my seal the day and
year first written above.
NOTARY PUBLIC in and for the State of
Washington, residing at Spokane.
My commission expires:
Page 6 of 6