The URL can be used to link to this page

2006, 02-11 Special Meeting, Council Retreat FI AGFNDA SPOKANF YALLTY CTTY COtJNCIi. RCTItEAT/WORKSHOP Suturduy, Tcbruary• 11, 2006 9:00 a.m. - 3:00 p.m. CeaterPlnce Confcrenrx Roum 2nd floor 2426 N Disrovery Place Spoknne VaIlcy, Washinetan Council Raiucsta All Eleetronie [)e%ices be Turned OCf Unring C'auncii Meeting Note: fiere aW!► be a 15-mfnuio brer►k at aFproxlmetetry 10:25 e.m., and a half hour lunch braak at noon. 1. Fteview 21006 Gauls - Nina Regor 2. Updalcd Finanrjnl farccu.qt - Iicn'Ibompson yiultiycur Financinl f'lan --1'rublcm Statemer►t 0 1 titrret Fund - Pn)blem Statcmcnt 92 C.ipitnl [mpravement progrnm Funding - problem Sratemen► a 3 :lnnual I'rujec;ted Shortffllls Multiycar Pinancial Plan, Sumnza„ of Ass-umptic,ns 3. SrR•cr Arrs Paveback - Nejl krrstcn 4. Recrcation 1'rt►grams: Filling thc l.:ap - ltikc ,luc{:son 5. T!1iDL ntatten - Vci) Korsten/Ufrl: Denenny 6. "Laaing C.ode Analysi' - Vlike Cannclly/Mariaa tiukup 7. .'lnucxutiona (I,and Cgpacity) - NIiku Coonelly/"41arina SuEcup R. Cuxlomer Sen'icr E'r»oram - Nina Regr►r 9. Informntional Atemo: 2006 WorfcplAn AdjowTi ~~CCG:i r1~~Ci:3 ~~•'lh F'S~;: 1`! ~ S U'1`k U - ~ . ' poane . Valley. 11707 E Sprague Avc Suice 106 ♦ Spolcane Valley WA 99206 509.921.1000 ♦ Fax: 569.921.1008 ♦ cityhatt@spokanevalley.org . _ . . . . . . . . ....~.r__•.y.._.s,:,._....... . ,_r , - _,.a....._~_ r,_.__ . . _ . . . .......1„_... . . . Memorandum To: City Manager David Mercier and Members of Council From: Nina Regor, Deputy City Manager Date: February 11, 2006 Re: Background Information for February 11, 2006 Retreat . 'L"he purpose of this memo is to provide a sumrnary af t:he intent of each scheduled agenda item, as well as any necessary at:tachmcnts. Auenda icem #l :~teviov 2006 Councif 13udeet Go11s At each retreat time is set aside for Council to consider its most j•ecently attopted Gottls, to ensure Chey are up ta date. C'ollowing are the tve adopted 2006 Council f3uciget Goals. Tiiey provide the basis for the 2006 Vdorkplsn, bVI11Ci1 IS aR 3C1iiCh0d lCIfUlRlatt0llal t11CTT10. ~ Drafi a ivel!-deftnei! Street Mtrster 1'lair, ►vil/t Funding Oplions thaY idenCifies the current conclition of . city streets and recornmends appropriate irnprovemencs ancl maintena.nce t:hat preseive the value vid strueturat inlegrity af the loeal trsnspolrtation system. Cniritrte Nce First Plrrrse ojthc Sprague Corridor Revitnlizatiotx Pluitning bettiveert University and the freeway by contracting with a consultant tn design a slrategy ehat would strengthen the cconomic viability of thc con•idor. C'ontinue Monilnring Significant Waste►vuter I.csues including governance of wastewater facilities; erihanced citizen awareness of Uptions For. thc future and pursuit of che mast efticienc tuid economical use of allotvcd wastewatcr clischarges. 1l1uiirtctin tt StiorrA, Fnrp/lasis on Internal and Erfernal Cofsrn:unictr[ion utiliziug the Public Inforrnacion Officer and dcpwment head positions to enHance the qualit_y, ti.meliness ancl accuracy of internal dialague and dle infarnlaT.ion provided to citizens about city issues, initiatives srid wori: plans. E.lf1lOl'B IItC' AVftLIQJ)lQ I ClL'COjTtiltltf2tCtlllnitS I/tjrtrstructirre that msy be accessed by pubtie institutions, residents anci businesses within Spokiuie Valley. Auenda Itcm 02: IJndated T'inancial Forecast The purpose of this item is to review the, latest revenue and e.xpenditure projections for the Ger►eral, $treet and Capital Funds for 2006-201 1. We do this to identify fnancial problems that may be or1 the -horizon. This allows us to be better prepared for Chese problems. (See.4gendu Itenr 42) 13sckgrouncl Information for February 11, 2006 Ketreat, contimied lzebruary- 11, 2006 PAge 2 of 2 Aeencia.Item #3: Sewer Area Paveback ~ ~ "1 he purpose af khis item is to discuss the draft Memoranclum of Understanding (V10U) betNveen the City and Spokane County for Pavement R.eplacement Cost Sharing and Drainage Irnprovement Costs for the 2006 Sewer Construction Program. A backgnound memo is included, describin5 the specific projeets proposed on the 2006 sehedule. (See Ageizda Item #3) Ap-encla Iteni #4: TZccrealion Proqrams - Filline the Gav). The ctraft Park and Recreation Masier Plan ha,S provided insight on "Fllina the gap" in recreation programming for the City of Spokane Valley. The purpose of this discussion is to solicit feeclback on incorporating Master 1'lan recommendations into reci-eation seivices in 2006. The draft 2006 program recoinmendations were presented to Council at the January 10; 2006 meeting (See Agenda Item #4) At►enda Item #S: TMDL IVYatters Councilor Denenny and Neil Kersten will provicfe an update on regional wastewater activities. Ageuda Item #b: "Lonint, Code Analvsi-, Thc purpose of this agenda item is to upciate Council on the indexing nf the develonment code. The 1"able of Contents for the existing development eode and the new proposed development codc are attached. (See Ageitda Item #6) Au,enda Item #7: Annesations The purpose of this itern inclttdes: • To provide background on t}ie annexation laws in Washingcon state • To articulate the relatiQnship between the City's draft Comprehensive I'lan, the upeoming County Comnrehensive Plan update, amd che role the populatian projection plays in boeh o Any recommencSeci revisions to qur draft Comprehensive 1'lan t;hat woutd f'acilitnte our ab►lity to grow outside oiir boundaries should we choose to do so (and are able to make the case) o The timeline of how and when all of tMese efforts merge • "1'o stimulate iniCial Council feedback on annexation areas that may bc of inteeest to pursue, i.e., which area(s) should further analysis focus on • To provide an update on rclated issues, e.g., recently enactecl or potential new lepislation (See Agenda Itern #7) Atenda Ttem #8: Customcr SetTice Prw<<am One of the 2005 adopted Council Budget Goals was to develop a Customer Service Program. A draft was distrihuced to Couricil in Decemher. The nurpose of this item is to discuss tlle components of the draft program prior to its Cnalization. The attached draft is an updated vers+on. (See Agendri Item #8) Attachments: Agendzj Item 92: Dratt 2006 Financial Forecast Agenda Ttem 93: 2006 Sewer Pavebaek Program Infonnational Memo and Draft 1vfOU betiween the City of Spokane Valley ancl Spokane County for 2006 sewer area paveback r-1gencla Iltcm #4: Recreation Program Powerpoint Presentation of 1110/06 and I.:ist oFArea Serviee Providers Agenda I[cm #6: Table of Contents for the EYisting Development Code Fuid for die proposed \ew Developmenl' Code Agenda item #7: Decisions of the Growth v'(anaDemcnt Hearings Board 1nd County Cnmmissioner Decisions on topic(s) related to anncxation Agenda Item 98: Draft Customer Service Program, versinn 10 Agencta Item 99: 2006 Work Plan - Informational Memo City oF Spokane Valloy Mulliyear Financial Plan - Goneral Fund - PrOblem Statement #1 1-27•O6 2006 2007 2008 2009 ' 2010 2011 Estfmate Estimate Estimate EsUmato EsUmate Estiinate General Fund Revanues: aales TRx S 17,340,000 $ 17,686,806 $ 18,040,536 $ 18,401,347 x$ 17,000,000 $17,952,000 PropertyTax S 8,281,000 $ 8,963,810 $ 8,648,948 $ 8,834,932 $ 9,023,281 $ 9,213,514 G2mbling T3x S 884,00Q S 400,000 $ 925,000 $ 950,000 S 975,000 $ 1,000,000 Leaseholcl Excise Tax 5 9,00Q S 9,000 $ 9,000 $ 9,000 S 9,000 $ 6.500 Franchise FeesJBus. Reg. S 717,000 $ 724,770 $ 731,492 $ 738,726 S 746,113 $ 753,574 State 5hared Revejwes S 9,121,000 S 1,121,000 $ 1,149,025 S 1,177,751 S 1,207,195 $ 1,237,375 Service Fees S 1,950,000 S 5,950,000 $ 1,950,000 S 1,950,000 S 1,950,000 $ 1,950,000 Fines & Forfe9Wres S 1,250,000 S 5,250,000 $ 1,250,90Q S 1,250,900 S 1,250,000 $ 1,300,000 Recreation Program Fees S 345,516 S 348,971 $ 352,461 S 355,flR5 S 359,545 $ 363,141 - Interfund Tiansfers $ 80,000 $ S4,800 S 89,888 S 95,281 $ 100,993 $ 107,053 Investman! Inteiest $ 220,000 $ 220,000 S 222,200 S 224,422 $ 226,666 S 228,933 Carryover 3,500,000 $ 982,875 S 3,299,676 S 4,810,922 $ 5,172,653 5 3,390,597 Total General Fund , $ 35,693,516 $ 33,741,426 S 36,667,646 $ 38,798,366 $ 38,620,412 537,602,692 - General Fund Expoiiditures: Legislative $ 304,267 $ 322,523 S 341,874 $ 362,367 $ 384,130 S 407,178 Zxeculive 8, Legislative $ 470,105 $ 498,391 $ 528,210 $ 559,903 $ 593,497 S 829,107 PublicSatety $ 16,873,541 $ 18.223,424 $ 19.681,208 $ 21,255,802 3 22,956,268 524,792,768 DeputyCltyPdanager S 499,405 $ 529,369 $ 5,61,131 $ 594,799 S 630,487 $ 668,317 Finanre S 516,895 S 547,909 $ 580,783 $ 615,530 S 652,568 $ 691,722 Legal 5 263,750 S 279,575 $ 296,350 $ 314,130 S 332,978 $ 352,957 iiuman Resouroos S 161,126 S 170,787 $ 181,034 S 191,696 S 203,410 $ 215,615 Public Works S 984,ti92 S 1,039,004 $ 5,101,344 S 1,167,424 S 1,237,470 $ 4,311,718 Planning S 1,095,808 S 11,161,556 $ 1,231,250 S 1,305,125 S 1,383,432 $ 1,460,438 Buikling S 1,040,892 S 5,103,346 $ 1,169,546 S 1,239,759 S 1,314,102 $ 1,392,948 f'ar4cs Admin S 847,703 S 898,565 S 952,478 S 1,009,828 S 1,070,208 $ 1,934,418 Recreatinn S 199,475 S 211,444 $ 224,136 S 237,578 S 255.833 $ 266,343 Aquatics $ 299,921 $ 317,916 5 336,991 S 357,211 5 378,643 $ 401,362 . Sen@or Genter $ 69,269 $ 73,425 S 77,831 S 82,500 $ 87,455 $ 92,698 CenterPlace $ 438,298 $ '454,596 S 492,472 S 522,020 $ 553,341 $ 586,542 . Transfer to Street Fund $ 2,000,000 $ 900,000 S 9a0,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 S 400,000 7ransfer to Capftal $ 750,000 $ 30+O,000 S - $ 360,000 $ - S - Transter to Serv, level $ - $ 500,000 $ 300,000 $ - $ - S - ' General Government $ 2,900,900 $ 2,900,000 5 2,900,000 $ 2,959,000 $ 2,700,OOQ S 2,800,000 Total General Fund 29,710,641 30,441,750 31,855,724 33,625,753 35,229,814 37,610,729 Cary over 982,875 3,299,676 4,810,922 5_172,613 3,390,597 (108,036) Less Constant fund bal. S 5,000,00Q '$2 milliorti moved to Serv. Level Stab. Fund x Lar+ enf, sales tax surcharge ends after 2009 Street Fund - Problem Statement #2 - January 27, 2006 2006 2007 ' 2008 2009 2010 2011 . Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Estimate Street Fund - #2 Beginning Fund Bal $ 4,000,000 $ 3,728,000 $ 2,439,080 $ 886,825 $(1,344,566) $(3,871,840) 7ransfer from General Fund $ 2,400,000 $ 900,000 $ 900,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 400,000 Motor Fuel Tax $ 2,0110,000 $ 2,200,000 $ 2,200,000 $ 2,200,000 S 2,200,000 $ 2,200,000 S 8,010,000 $ 6,828,000 $ 5,539,080 $ 3,586,825 $ 1,355,434 $(1,271,840) Expenditures $ 4,282,040 S 4,388,920 $ 4,652,255 $ 4,931,391 $ 5,227,274 $ 5,540,910 Ending Funrf Balance $ 3,728,000 S 2,439,080 $ 886,825 $(1,344,566) $(3,871,840). 5~6,812,750) City of Spokane Valley - Capital Improvement Program Funding Problem Statement #3 ' January 27, 2006 ~ Yearl 2006 1 2007 I 2008 ~ 2009 1 2010 1 :2011 RESOURCES: • - ARTERIAL ST FND S 1,180,000 S - $ - $ - $ - $ - CAP PRJECTS-REET $ 3,450,000 $1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $1,000,000 $ 900,000 $ 800,000 SPEC. CAP PRJECTS-REET $ 3,300,000 $1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $1,000,000 $ 900,000 800,000 ST BOND $ 1,000,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ ; - PARKS CAP. IMPRV. FUND . $ 550,000 . INVESTMENT EARNINGS $ 200;000 $ 100,000 $ 50,000 $ 25,000 $ - S - , SPOKANE COUNTY g - S1,600,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - PARKS GRANT . S - S 200,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 180,000 - STORM WATER" $ 350,000 $ 350,000 $ 350,000 $ 350,000 $ 350,000 611,000 STORM WATER STREET PROJECTS $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 S 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 1 150,000 GEN. FUND $ 750,000 $ 300,000 S - $ 360,000 S - $ - TOTAL RESOURCES $ 10,930,000. $ 4,700,000 $ 2,650,000 $ 2,985,000 $ 2,480,000 $ 2,361,000 EXPENDITURES: DEBT SERV. BNDS S 186,000 $ 186,000 $ 186,000 $ 186,000 $ 186,000 $ 186,000 ' PARKS $ 1,300,000 $ 2,550,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 580,000 $ 100,000 TIP (Transportation Improvement Plan) $ 1,300,000 $ 697,000 S 983,000 $1,723,000 S. 2,268,000 $ 2,395,000 RESIDEN7IAL PRESERVATION PROJECT $ 1,033,843 $ 500,000 S 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ - PAVEBACK + $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ - STORM WATER $ 350,000 S 350,000 $ 350,000 $ 350,000 $ 350,000 $ 611,000 STORM WATER STREET PROJECTS $ 150,000 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 RESERVCSlCONTINGENCY $ 250,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 1 5,069,843 $ 5,133,000 $ 3,369,000 $ 4,109,000 $ 4,734,000 $ 3,642,000 CARRYOVER TO NEXT YEAR S 5,860,157 $ 5,427,157 $ 4,708,157 $ 3,584,157 $ 1,330,157 $ 49157 ""Aquifer Protection $ available in 2011 +Public Works suggests 5750,000/yr Annual Projected Shortfalls Jan. 27, 2006 Problem Statements lt1, #2 8 #3 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 ' Shortfalls: . #1 General g $ - S (108,036) #2 Street $ $ . (1,344,566) $ (2,527,274) $ (2,940,910) #3 Capital $ Total $ - $ - $ - $ (1,344,566) S (2,527,274) $ (3,048,946) cITY or° sPoKANIE vALr EY MULT"1YEAR FII\TANCIAL PL,AN SUIviMARY OF ASSUMPT10N'S JANUARY 27, 2006 GENr]2AL FLJND: FZLSOURCLS - +$ales ta.i up*21/o/year +Seivicc fees projectcci at $1,950,000/yr. City receivcd S2.3 million in 2005 ' . LaPENDITURES +Up 6%/},r except public safety which were projectecl at 89/olyr S.TREE"1" FCJND: R-LSOiJR.CES +All :f.uel t&x to this fund for street mainte»ance. r-tn in.creasc of $800,000/yr EXYENDITLTR-ES +Up 6%/yr CAPITAL IiMPROVEMLNTS: TZLSOURCES +Real Estate Excise 1'ax projected at $2 inillion/yr. Receipts in 2005 were $2.6 uullion - +ra.rterial Street and 13onci Pr.oceed resources will npt continue inta tlie firtLue EXPEND1'1'URES -FParks improvcmenes ties to 4apil'al facilities section of Cqmprehensive Plan +Transportation lmprovement Ylan is Febniary l, 2006 version , Sjidlane Valley ,;oo 11707 E Sprague Ave Suil'e 106 ♦ Spokane Vallejl tiYA 99206 509.921.1000 ♦ Fax: 509.921.1008 ♦ cityhall@spokanevalley.org - _ _~_1i.' . ' .-.r_.~..~_ ' •.._....,".-A Informational Memo Date: February 6, 2006 To: David Mercier, City Manager and Members of City Council From: Neil Kersten, Public Works Director Steve Worley, Senior Engineer Cc: Nina Regor, Deputy City Manager Re: 2006 Sewer Paveback Program Spokane County's 2006 Septic 'I'ank Flimuiation Progratn includes three projects within thc Ciey of Spol:.ane Valley: Veradalc Heights: This includes the area north of Sprague Avenue bet"veen Everg-reen :E2oact and Adams Rnad, from Nixon Aveuuc to Vtissiou Avcnue. Thi.s is the largest of the three sewer projeces this yeax. Vera Terrace: This project encompasses the area south of Sprague Avenue betlueen Lvergreen Road and Burns ltoad, between 2`1 Avenue and 8'h Flvenue. Eteetrie RK: This projeet is an rhe west sicle of'the Town of Nlillwood behwe.en Yark Roaci and Vista Road and bcriveen Trent Ekvenue and Utah Road, which is immediately south of the Union Pacific 1Zailroad. The design of the Vcradale i-Iei;hts project is 98"/o complete. The Llectric ktR project is 80% coinplete and the design of the Vcra Terrace project is just getting star.ted. Yreliminary estimates havu bcen preparcd to determine the city's cost to providc fiill-widtli paving far each of these tluee projects. Preliminary escimates for the cost of drainage improvements have also becn prepared tor each project. A simunary of these costs are tabulated below: City of Spokane Vallcy Share 2006JEstimatecl Road & 1)raina c im rovement Costs Estitnated o . Estiiiiated Drainagew ' o - . o - Costs provenient Cost-i Electric Railroad $77,000 $56,000 Vera Terrace $241,000 $44,200 Vcraciale TIeights I $357,000 I $40,000 Contingency I $50,000 I Jncluded above Fstiinated Total Costs I $725,000 $140,004 infoilnational Memo 2/6/2006 2006 Scwer Paveback. Program Page 2 The $140,000 drainagc improvement costs arc tivithui the buclgcted allotment of the Stornzwater Fund. 11ie city's 2006 budget inchides $540,000 in the Streel Capital Projects Nund for full-widtti pZVing associated with the 2006 scwer projects. The City also appliEd for C]aBG Fundsin the amount o£ $207,815 to assist with fuJl-width paving costs associateci ~&rith the Vera Terrace sewEr project. These CDBG ftinds have bcen preliminas-ily recomuiended for approval. Final aPproval of the CDBG funds is not eYpected until the enci of vlarch or A.pril of this year. , A note about the CDBG fund amount: this ainount was estimated conservatively last fall prior to Spokane County beguining the design for the Vera Terrace project. Therc urere inany unknoNvms at that time relateti to the layout aud depth of the proposed sewer. The C17$G funds are only available to a portion of the Vera Terrace pro.ject area, specificalJy 4`h Avcnue and dll streets north ot'`4t' Avenue. Accprdulg to recent Preliminary sewer layouts and deptlis from Spokane CoLuity, the estimated costs for full-widtli paving in the CllBG cligiblc area is $130,000. A summary of the sewer paveback fuuding is as follotivs: . Total Fstimated Pavcback Costs: $725,000 2006 Budgct Amount: $500;000 C:nBG Amount: $130.000 Sh4rtfall: . $ 95,000 The actua.l shortfall Nvill be based on the final bicis the County receives. it is recomtnended that -any shortfall in funds for this year's sewer paveback prograin come from the Street Capital Projects Fiuid (303), Ottier Preservation 1'rojects linc item. As was done last yEar, Spokane County will bid the Veradale Heights and Vera'1 errdce projects xvith an a1tcnlate bici selsedule; one schcdtile witli trenching and asphalt patching, anothcr schedule with full-width paving. The ciifferencc in bids benween these eNvo schedules reflecLs the City's costs. This approach allows us to take advantage of credics ttiat Spokane County would typically pay for on a trenchlpatch pr.qjcct. ThESe crcdits include pavement sawcuttiiig, erack scaling, and pavement sLu-face sea.ling. The Flectric RR praject will nUt have an alternate bid schedule because the cost to the City is mostly related to the paving of "gaps". Since the roads in the Elcctl-ic RR projer.t area are narrow and will be c;ompletcly removed for the installation or the se4ver, thcre is no aecommodation t'or creciits as described above. In this case Spokane County pays the entire cost for pavi.ng the roads back to their oi-iginal widths. rlttachcd is a draft Mernorandiun of lJnderstaticling (NIOL) regarding the City of Spokane Vallcy's rcimbiirsemcnt to the county for our share of the paving ana drainage costs. Wc will bE bringing a final IvIOU ta Council for appr.oval 'vi the near futurc. Please let us know if you have any quesYions or comments. , Memorandum of Understanding Between the City of Spokane Valley and Spokane County Pavement Replacement Cost Sharing and Drainage Improvement Costs for the 2006 Sewer Construction Program WHEREAS the City of Spokane Valley (the CITY) and Spokane County (the COUNTY) desire to work collaboratively to construct portions of the COUNTY's 2006 Sewer Construction Program together with CITY paving and drainage improvement projects; and WHEREAS the CITY desires that the roads impacted by the construction of sewers in the 2006 Sewer Construction Program be reconstructed to the full preconstruction width for an improved roadway surface; and WHEREAS the CITY also desires that pavement replacement work be extended in some areas beyond the limits of sewer construction; and WHEREAS the CITY also desires that certain drainage improvements be constructed in areas that will be impacted by the COUNTY's 2006 Sewer Construction Program; and ~WHEREAS the costs of such full width repaving, additional length of road reconstruction, and miscellaneous drainage improvements are not funded by the COUNTY's Sewer Construction Program, and said costs will need to be paid by the CITY; and WHEREAS the 2006 Sewer Construction Program includes the Veradale Heights, Vera Terrace, and Electric Railroad Sewer Projects within the limits of the CITY, as identified in the COUNTY°s adopted Six-Year Sewer Capital Improvement Program 2006-2011. NOW THEREFORE, the CITY and the COUNTY do hereby agree as follows: 1. Prior to the bid of each project, the COUNTY shall provide the CITY with a set of project plans, together with cost estimates indicating the extent of pavement removal and replacement to be paid for by the COUNTY as a part of the sewer project. The CITY shall review the plans and estimate, and shall advise the COUNTY regarding the extent to which the CITY desires to add pavement removal and replacement, as well as the specific drainage improvements that the CITY would like to make in conjunction with the project. 2. The COUNTY shall prepare bid documents that include the additional work that is requested by the CITY. The CITY may request that the COUNTY include a Base Bid Schedule and an Alternate Bid Schedule in the bid documents to allow for a more accurate determination of the true cost impact of the additional work requested by the CITY. 3. After the bids for a project are opened, the COUNTY shall prepare the bid tabulation and provide a copy to the CITY on the day of the bid, together with a calculation of the - CITY's estimated share of the project cost based upon the unit prices submitted by the low bidder. If the CITY then decides to proceed with the desired improvements, the CITY shall provide a written notice to the COUNTY within three days of the receipt of the bid tabulation. 4. The CITY's maximum cost for the three projects shall not exceed $725,000 for road improvements and $140,000 for drainage improvements without written authorization by the CITY. The COUNTY shall not proceed with any work that would increase the CITY's cost to an amount greater than the total amount authorized. The estimated CITY costs by project are presented in Table 1 below. The CITY and the COUNTY recognize that this estimated total cost is for planning purposes, and that the actual amount will be based upon final quantities and actual contract prices. 5. If the CITY subsequently elects to make additions to the scope of the project, the CITY shall request such additional work in writing. A corresponding adjustment shall then be made to the CITY's share of the cost based upon the resulting increase in pay quantities and the associated contract bid prices. For work items requested by the CITY that are not covered by the contract bid prices, the COUNTY shall prepare a change order for the CITY's review and acceptancs prior to work items being . constructed. 6. Upon substantial completion of each project, the COUNTY will send an initial invoice to the CITY for the CITY's portion of the cost of-roadway and drainage improvements. Upon execution of the final pay estimate with the contractor, the COUNTY shall prepare and send a final invoice for any additional amounts payable by the CITY. SPOKANE COUNTY: By_ Date: N. Bruce Rawls, County Utilities Director CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY: By: Date: Dave Mercier, City Manager . ; MOU - Pavement Repdacement Cost Sharing and Drainage Improvement Costs Page 2 of 3 For the 2006 Sevrer Construction Program . TABLE 1 City of Spokane Valley Share 2006 Estimated Road & Drainage Improvement Costs Estimated Estimated Road Drainage , Improvement Improvement Project Costs Costs Electric Railroad $77,000 I $56,000 Vera Terrace ~ $241,000 $44,200 Veradale Heights I $357,000 $40,000 ' Contingency $50,000 I Included above Estimated Total Costs. $725,000 I $140,000 , : MOU - Pavement Replacement Cast Sharing and Drainage Improvement Costs Page 3 of 3 For the 2006 Sewer Construction Program ~ ; i Recreation Programs ~ Existing Programs ■ Little Tykes Indoor Gym - Ages 0.3 ■ One hour, three sessionshnreek; June 20 thru Aug. 26 ■ Kindercamp - Ages 3-5 ■ 3 hr/day, Monday thru Friday ■ 6 sessions; June 20 thru July 29 ■ Summer Day Camp - Ages 6-11 ■ 9 hrlday, Monday thru Friday ■ 10 sessions; June 20 through August 26 ■ Free Activities at the Park - All Ages (Browns, Edgecliff and Valley Mission) ■ Half day, Monday thru Friday; June 20 thru Aug. 26 1 Master Plan Survey Results ~ is Thene a Need for Additional Recreabon Programs Yes 60.8% --Are There Adequate Programs for Teenage Youth No 81.3% Is There a Need for Before & After School Programs Yes 77.8% ~ Top 10 Preferred Recreation Activities - All Age Groups ■ Arts (painting/sketching) ■ Camping ■ Crafts (pottery/ceramics) ■ Dancing (social) ■ Concerts (attend) ■ Computers (personal) ■ Photography ■ Drama (attending) ■ Exercising/Aerobics ■ Gardening I 2 Types of Cultural Arts Programs of most interest Performances or conoerts in the park 24% Community arts festivals and special events 18.1% Cultural activities for children 13% Performing arts programs 11.5% Art in public places 11% I ~ Master Plan Recommendations ■ Short term recreation programs ■ Aquatics ■ Summer playground prograrns ■ Youth programs ' ■ Special events (limited) ■ Long term recreation programs ■ Instructional classes ■ Special interest programs ■ Outdoorlinterpretive programs ■ Special events (expanded) ■ Limited indoor adult sports 3 ■ Expanding on Youth Programs i Youth programs ■ Drop in programs to just "hang out" ■ Special interest programs and classes ■ Life skill/job skill classes ■ Limited recreation level sports ■ Tours and Field Trips ■ Arts and Culture ■ Provide space for cultural arts activities ■ Provide small grants to cultural oriented organizations for special events, classes and other activities ■ Partner with other local or regional providers, such as the Arts Council. 4 Recreation Programs ■ Utilization of CenterPlace ■ Classrooms ■ Auditorium/Stage ■ Dance Floor ■ Billiards ■ Arts & Crafts - Ceramics, pottery. ■ Greenhouse 2006 Program Recommendations ■ Continue with existing summer programs ■ Explore opportunities to utilize CenterPlace for City programs for all ages. ■ Focus on teen and youth oriented classes and other activities_ Investigate after school opportunities. ■ Explore "Teen Center" pvssibilities. ■ Special events - concerts in the park, art in the park, field trips. ■ Investigate opportunities to partnerlcooperate with other agencies - schools, community groups, private groups. ■ Continue to develop role in facilitating use of programs offered by other agencies and organizations. ■ Recruit Recreation Coordinator to implement and oversee year- round pragramming. Focus on recommendations (as per above) of the master plan. 5 Sp~r~zane _.~OOUal.ley FACILIT1ES/R:ESOURCES ,Parks & Recrcation llept. T'6e following is a cumPrehcnsive listing of area scrvicc providers. 'fhe arganizatioits aitcl businesses appearing un this list have not been pre-qualificd. Appearance in this data-basc does riot constitutc endorsemenf by thc City. We welcome suggcstions for aclclitional listings and upclates. Please comf.ict 6$8-0182 or email narksandrec((vspol:anev.►llcv.arg to malce sitggest'ions. AEtT/CRAFT'S • tlrtworks, 1301. N. Puies; 928-2726 • Spolcane Art School, Youth and Adult flrl . www.artwarkssnok.a.ne.coni 'Classes, 920 Nhrth i-ioward, 328-0900 • Knocs and Pots, 9717 L. Viission, 922-8167 httn://~N-A,,,v.suakane:u•lschooLor2 • Michaels, 15521 L 13roaciway, 893-0543 CAMPS . • Arts & CrafCS Sununer Catnp, Corbin Arts • City of Spokane Val]ey Da.y Camp, 11707 Center, 507 Wcst Seventh, 625-6677 E. Sprague Ave, Ste 106, 688-0182 ,A,w~,v.spc>Iranenartcs.oev./corbin www.snokanevallev.oru- • Adult Leadership Spokane Prvgraan, Catnp ~ City o.f. Spokane Valley Play Camp, 11707 I.,utherliaven/17eeades 459-4110 E. Sprague f1.ve, Ste 106, 688-0l 82 ~ «~%vw.lefldcrsllinsnakane.orgladultnroaram.hGm wWW.sDolcanevallev.or(-Y • Boy Sequts, 411 W. Boy Scout `Vay, • Conzaga Volleyball Camp, 323-4041 325-4562 hoiile.couicast.neU-zaLjrvball w,~vxv.im•<<c-bsa.ore/ca.mnuie/canit)ina.hl:m . Hiclden Creek Ranch, 11077 L. Blue T ake • Cunp Cross, 245 F_. 13th Ave, 624-5780 Rd, Harrison, (800)446-3833; wwN.CaiTlpCiOsS.Omy (208)689-3209 • Camp L)3rt-Lo, Campfire USA, 524 N. Nvi,v",.ranchNveb.com/hicldencreek Mullan Road, 747-6191 • lndoor Playgr.ounci (for preschoolers), w~+,%v.camt)fireiec.ore%,-intnld,qrtlo/index_hlml $pok.ane Eli.te Gymnastics, 5615 I~ • Camp FoiLr EchQS, Girl Scouts, 1404 N. Ash I3roadNvAy Ave, 533-9646 ~ St., 747-$091, ext. 213 www.seattle**vmnastics.com/Snok<tneJindex.html Nz~t-A'.1~-sicc.ore/eainnfourechoes.html • Musica.l Thcatre Cainp, Spokane Civic • Camp Giffprd - Salvation Army Camp, 509- TheatY•e, 1020 N. Howard, 242-2726 3846 NArlh ]aeer. Lake Road, Loon Lal:e, NvtvW.SDOkaneCiviCt11Ci1tre..Cbn1 233-2511 xvA~w.cfunp-gififord.ore • Skyhawks, 750 W. Il?stings, 466-6590 • Camp Luthcrhaven, 3258 W. .T_utherhavcn ~v,.vw.skvhaN~vks.com . TZoad, Caeur d'Alene, Erin Guniung, • Soccer'1'ots, 7311 F. Nora 963, Mario, 205-667-3459 x 1 S www.lutherhaven.com 362-1330 • Cainp Reed, Yk1CA, 2421 N. Discovery • Spokane Braves Jr. 13 Hockey Club Camp, Plac;e, 777-9622 wwtv,vmcasaokane.ora 3212 N Ldcn Rd, Michael Bay 328-8724 -•Camp SpaldinQ, 5513 TIvvy 211, Nc~vport, www.snokanebraves.com/c{.~rnn.htm.l . (509) 447-4358 • Spokane Falls Community College Sports 0 Camp Sweyola.azi; Campfirc USH1, 524 N. Caitip; 3305 NVest ljort George Wright Mtillan Road, 747-6l 91 Drivc, 279-6000 wH,%,,.camufireiec.ortr; camn/swcvoiakan/index.htnil wwNv.atliletics.sUOkanc.ce.Nva_us/Cannsldef alilt.htm + Waitts Lake Open Bible C:amp, 937-2962 • WSU Spokaric, Yotmg Women's Surnmer , w~~~+.c~a~tt~lakec~rn Science Caazp, Glynis HuIl, 35$-7638 wvvw.swkauiecxtvl ab.wsu.edLi CONUVrUNITY GFNT.UE RIS • CenterPlace S ununer 2 0 05), 2426 N. • Valley Senior Genter, 11423 E. Mi~sio.n . , Discovery Place, 688-01 S2 Ave, 926-1937 wu+w,si)okaneva1lev_orz v,wwsvok-aTievalli-,v.arg . ~ Spokacte Valley C ornmunity Center, 10 8 14 E_ 13raadway Avc,, 927-1153 ~#ww_ St70 katli-,V c'llieVCO rrirnUn.ktVC: -,ntel`, O I'g _ CC1MIFLFTFR INSTRCJCTIONfHEL.P # New 14orizon Com puter Learnin g Cej-~ter. 920 ■Vzlley L-ibrary, 12 004 E. Main Avenue, N Argonne Rd, 328-$077 926-62$3 wwv,~,~ainnutez~arai.tiin~schools.coz~~fuewl~ariz www.se1d_lib_,A.-a_usJscldbrvallc~~,httr~ onsfiii dex.~bv?sclioolID-117(} J bANCE iNSTiRXTCT'TO1V • Aca.rlemy of Drancc, 14214 E. Spraguc, +'Isa be11e's Dance Timc, 412 C) S. S ullavanRc€., 02-3023 www.svokaneacademvofduice.com 427-0972 ' . ■ Dance.Fmparium, E_ 12907 Spraguc, 927-$656 • Western .Daaace Centcr, N 190] S ullivan Rcl, wurwde#`ezisearts,ordde . 926-0717 •Donlia's School of Dance, 117{}7 .E_ Sprague, S#c B, 922- t011 A'iT11E'SS C+T+NTt1RS 4 24-hour Fitness; f 42..10.C Sprague, 926-] 241 +8 lim a3id Tone, 1140 8 F. Sprague, 92 6-86 53 wAnv_24t,Lour#itiess.comldU~club de#ail.nnerate . S len.dez•Lady, 14401 E Spzague,92 7-7546 (,Iub7n clb k1um=00587&.1D retui-Q=OFr Stroh's Fi#iiess, 9233 E_ Montgomery, 926-626$ ■ Curk+es :fo)c Women, 13 04 N. Mu1len 926-9484 . $ports USA S port s Complex., 19619 E. Ca#aldo • Donna's School o#`Dance, 11707 E. Sprag ue, 2 32 -2 822 wyvw.snorts-usa_or.!z Ste B, 922-1411 •Valley Y-itness Tnc_, 7 NT. rTerald, 927-0909 # Gior8io's Fitness Center, I 18 11 E_ l " Avenue, uww.valleAtness.cain. 922-8833 • YMC'A, 2421 N. Discovery 1'I., 777-9622 • Fx#,ness Uzllimited; 114 14 F. Spra.guc Ave, wurw_ vnicasn okatrc.orR 926-5339 • Jazzercise, P.. 10506 16'J' Avenue, 927-(}305 . baiitibridP-echri snahotn-iaii.com ~A GOLF C'OT_TRSES ` - ~ a Paiiited Hills, 4403 S. Distunaii iMica.kd., 928- *Chester Creek, 4403 S. Dishrnan M3ca Rd,, 921- 4653 1967 ~w-- w.siDokaue2olfcolr I , GYMiNASTIGS , Niorthwest Gyi-iinasties, 11712 E. lblontgomery • Spolcane Elite Gy«ulastics, 5615 E Broadway _ 17r., 924-3341 Ave, 533-9646 rvwNv.seatileeN,mn;i~stics.com/Spokane.lindex.lit:m I NTARTCAL f1RTS STiJDTOS • laefense Arts Academy, 13105 E Sprague • Kick N' Ftu1 Farriily Martial A.rts & Activity Ave, 926-0819 www.defensearts.o.rP-/daa Center, 101 I\i tlrgonne R.cl, 228-0606 • North-vvcst Kenpc) Karate, 6 S. Union Rd, • Spirit Martial Arts, 2123 N. Pines, #SN, 922-1549 924-5425 w,~i~%v.kcnnosnidio.cqmlhtml/index afffiliaEe schools.html • Elite IViartial Arts, 13318 E. Sprague, Lauren Broyles 232-0703 Nvvw.elite-ma.e.om M"CJSI?,UMS • Childrens Museuui of Spokane, 110 N. Post, • Spokane Valley Hcritage Vluseum, 12114 E Spokmie 624-0435 www.cllildrensmuseum.net Sprague Ave, 922-4570 • I'airchild Heritage Z!(useucn, Fairchild Airforce NuNu-,v:vallevhcritaizecenter.orLy 13ZSC, 244-0244 • Nor1:hwcst Ufuseuin of Arts & Cuhure, 2316 • Jundl A.rt Musetun; Gonraga Uniwersity, 202 Wesl ! sl Avenue, 363-5330 ~ F. Catalclo, 328-4220 www.norl:hwesimuseum.orr-/norCll,,vestmusewn ` ~ w~aw.~qnr,~is~a.edu,'C~muus~-ResoureesJMuseums+znd+ , Librnries/Jundt+Art+Museum./default.hcrn • Crosby vluseum; Goniaga U»iversity; 202 E. Cataldo; 32$-4220 w,ww. p-onzaea. edu/Camnus-+-Resotu•cea/dbluseum s-+-and+ Libraries/Ccosbv+M useum!defati I t.lihu YUOLS AND NYATTR PA1tKS • Park Road Pool, N. 906 Park Rd. 926-I 840 • Valley Mission Pool,E. 11123 Vtissian wtiw-w.spokanevallev.oz•e 922-7091 www.snokanevallcv.orp, • Splashdown, F 11123 ivlission 924-3079 • YMCA, 2421 N. L7iscovery Place 777-9622 snlashdownwaierpark.net www.ymcasnokane.orc-, •'1'errace View Pool , E. 13525 24`h rkvcnue 924-4707 www.snokuievallev.ortz P1ZL4 SC1400L5/DAYCARrS • AHeart for tiE Home Childcare, 905 N. 0 Comerstone Montess4ri, 921-1303 _ MeDonald Rd, Spokaiie Vallcy 922-2177 • Counta-yside Montessori; 5321 N. F3est ' ~Nww.vallevooenbible.a•L-/!•learl:4/hcar[4nl.html Rd., 891-4398 ~ All Families Montessori Schoal, 8802 E. . Christ ]3egimiings Child Center, 15112 E. Valleyruay Ave, Spokane Valley 893-0500 32"d Ave, Veradale 926-6332 • Children's Moncessori Center li-ic., 905 N. . Preeman YMCA Chilcl Care, 15001 S. Fuies Roacl, Suite L, Spokane Valley Jackson Rci, Freem-cui, 291-6553 922-6t06 • Gethsemane Lutheran School, E. 11315 • Oppartunity iNursery School, 1101 S. Broadway Ave., Spokaile Valley 922-7097 Bowdish, 926-9868 • Grace Larly Learniiig Center, 15601 E. 24`t' • Pondcrosa Carc-A-Lot Pre-School Day . Avenue, Veradale 926-1251 Care, El 1626 Sands Rd, 924-0052 • Hoeberg's Happy IIeart Child Care, Mindy • Primary Beginnings Child Developmcnt Hogberg, 1919 S. Timberlane Tar., 927-5003 Center, 18 N. Uiuversily, 926-5600 .w«<%v.sg9k<vtedavcares.corWhoeberQShanrvhcxrt.htm . Reedemer Lutheran Preschool, 3606 S. • Kid Country Day Care, 813 S. Pines Rd., Schafer Rd., 926-6363 Spokan.e Valley 922-5212 . Spokane Child Taevelopment Center, 3308 • Kindercare, 422 N. itilullan Rd., 928-3184 N. Sullivan R.d., B1dg S7, 927-2850 • Kindercare, 205 S. Sullivan Rd., 926-5551 . st. Paschal's E.ducare & Yreschool, 2521 • Little Dickens I.,earning Cenier, 2500 N N. Park Rd, 922-7616 P111eS, 891-8437 www.clioceseofsnokane.~rPSehoofs."chnoLc/St I'nschal.htm • Little T..earner Child Development Center, • Valley Assembly Pi•escllool, 15618 E. 512 S. TJniversity 922-7075 m►ww.liitle- Broadway, 924-0466 lEarner..com 0 Valley Day Carc Center &e Day Caze, • Little Sprouts i7Aycare, Jacque, 891-1$84 E. 10909 32°l Ave, 924-1566• wti{,v;.snokanedavclres_comllittlc sacouts davcare.hhn • Valley Montessori Sehool, 14711 E. • Montessori Certifiecl Pre-Scbool and Broadway, 924-6629 Kindergartcn, 13900 E. Nlission Ave., . Wishin; Wells T)aycare; Snow Wells, 924-6629 891-7974 • Montessori School on Fvergreen; 910 S. tivww.snokancuHVCtUes.com/wiShinLwellStitlvcnre.hUn Evergreen, 922-2202 0 Woocilanci vlontessori School, 402 S. . • 'Niortheast Youth Center, 4001 N. Cook St., Caleman Rd., 924-1324 Spokatie, 482-0708 SCE[OOI,S CVSll • Greenacres vliddle School; 17409 E. Sprague Av<: Greenacres, 228-4862 Vcrn 17iCiovaiuu, F'ruicipal • Adaais Eleni-e.ntary, 14707 Fa,se Eighth %u-,vw.cvsd.orvlp-reenacrc;s/SndE:c.html 228-4000 Phyllis Belts; Principal •Horizon Middle School, 3915 S. Pines, 228-4942 wt.ti,",.cvsd.orgIAdams/index.htm Laurie ShefEler., Principal • Barker Center, 1512 N. Barkcr Rd., 921-6292 -,v%vnv.cvsd.orv!l-lorizon/index.htm ~vwxv.cvsd.orelter•lu►olop-v/flnnualrenorisr73arkerCenter! . Keystone Center Flementary, 612 S. 1VICDOnalC1, mission.htm 228-4290 Karin Carter, Principal •Bowdish Middle School, 2109 S. Skipworth, .MeDonald Elementary, 1512 S. McDonald R.oad, 22$-4702 I3ob Jahnson, Principal 228_4350 Kelly Shea, Frincipal ~~~v,,.N,.cvsd.orfz/Bowdish/Tndex.htrn ~N,,~v.evsd.ord~vlcdonald/index.htnil •Braadway Elementary, 11016 E. Broadway, • Norkh Pines Middle School, 701 N. Pines, 228-41 00 Princi al: Lileeu Utecht p 228-5022 Dave Bouge, Principal ,,N,rvw.cvscl.or-/broadwavlindcx.html ~,-ww,cvsd.or Jnorthpineslindex.hcm • Central VallcyHigh School; 821 S. Sullivan . Opportuiuty Elementary, 1109 S. Wilb«r, 228-4550 Rd., 22$-5100 Iviike Hittlc, Principal Tammy Campbell, l?rincipal ,,Ntiv-vv.cvsd.org-/centralvallev/index.htm ww,,v.cvsd.orJOunortunitv/indet.htm • Chester Elcmentary; 3525 S. Puies Road, • ponderosa Elementary, 10105 E. Cimmaron Rd., 228-41 SO Principal: Terri Weishaar 228_4450 Jerrol Olson, Principal wN.vw.evsd.orJChestertinciex.han ~~rtiv.cvsd.or~/i?onderos~~linciex.himl •~vEr~een l~fiddle School, 14221 F. 16 th Ave, . progress Elementary, 710 N. Progress E2d., ~Vcradale__ Veradale, 228-4780 Dave Nelclhusen,l'rincipal 228_4500 Bcnita Gallatld, Pruicipal «ww.cvsd.ore/everp-rcen/indeY.htnil ~v~kw,,cvsd.ora/Proaress/index_htni Greenacres Elemecltary, 17915 E. 4t' Ave., South Pi_nes Flementary, 12021 E. 24`h Avcnue, CJreenacres, 228-4200 Principal: iVlrs. Terry 228_4400 tiTValt Clemons, Principal E.llifritz ~,,\Yw.cvsd.orJereenaci-eselernJindex.him ~v\Ww,evsci.arzlsouthpineslitidex.htin • SLunmit Eleuientary, 13 3l 3 E. Broaclway, 0 Ness Flemenrary, 9612 l; Catalcla; 922-54701~,fik.e 22$-4050 T.,yle Krislock, Prulcipal T.,oll ar; Principal . wNvzv.cvsd.ort,ISiurunitSchool/index.lii7nl • Setfi Wqodard Elementary, 7401 E Mission, • Sunrise .F_.lementary, 146U3 E. 24`}' Ave, 921-2160 Parn Francis, Principal Veradale, 228-4600 Susan McCOlliun, www,wv~scLcom/llefault.asox?inclx=I&.Subdx=ORpaecid=127 ~-Principal w~v-Nv.cvsd.orVJSLufisf;/inde:cJitr»l • Spokane Va11ey Contract Fduc:ation, S. 123 ]3owdish, • University Flemen[ary, 1613 S. Uriiversiey, 927-1100 .Jeff Smilh; Principal 228-4650 Sue Leilnick, Pr1nCipAl WW%v.wvsd.c.otn/Uefautt.asnx?indx-]&.subdx=0&Uaeeid=80 • University Hi~h School, 12420 E. 32"d, 228- 'SPQlcane Valley T-~igh School, 2011 I~T I-Tucchinson, 5251 l~~ryl Hart; Yrincipal 922-5475 Larr}~ F3ush; Principal wtvNv. wvsd.cnmlDefault. a spx?indx=l &subcLv=O&naQe i d=72 wNv~v.c<<,-,d.orJuniversitv/index.htm . GVest Valley City School, 3920 E Valley-vvay, 921-2836 Larry Bush, Pruicipsl L V:S.I) wNvNv. wvsd.cotn!Ue Fau tt. asnx? indx-1&subdx=OR:QaL,e i d= I 19 • ~Vcst Valley High School, 8301 F F3uclceye, • Continuous Curric•uhun School, E. 16924 922-5488 Tar. Gene Semcnti, Principal Wellesley, 927-9541 Chicre IVlartyn, Principal www.~vvsd.corn/Deflult.asL~x?indx=l&subdx=0&QaP-eid=9 wwnw.evsd.ora/ccs . West Valley Outdoor Learning (:enter, 8706. E. • East Farms E•lementary School, E. 26203 Upriver Drivc, 340-1028 Tom Moore; D'u•ector Rowan, Newman Lake 226-3039 GharlenE wwNv.%v~,sd.com/Def'aulcasnx?indx=l&subdx=08:na~',cid-209 Bieber, Principal %vww.evsd.or~/e.f. • East Valley Coruiections School, GED SUlZIZOUNI)TNG CUVIMUNITi.FS AVll YlZIVA'1'E Progi-am; E. 15711 Wellesley, 927-3200 SCtY(70LS 4vww_ evs d. ure/e vhslconnec-ti on s. Dhp •Ea,st Valley VfidcilE: School, N. 4920 Prpgress • Central Valley Christian Prc-Schoo(, N. 905 Rd, 924-9383, Taoris Hoffman, l'rincipal McDonald, 922-2177 \v~~%,\,v.evsd,orQ/evn-is • Children First, (Special Ed) 3308 N. Sullivaii Rd, t Fast Valley High School, E. 15711 `Vellcsley, Rldg. S7, 924-2850 927-3200 wNvv.evsd.or.-,'evhs • Cetllseinane Luthcran School, E. 113 15 Broadway • Mountain View I\!Iiddle School, North 6011 t1vc., 922-7097 Chase, NeN«nariLake, 22b-1379 Jitn • Orchard Center Elcmentary, East 7519 Buckeye, McAdam, Principal w,,anv.evsd.orV/mvms 922-5473 Dale VicDaniel, Principal • Olis Qrchards Llementary School, L. 22000 • Pioneer. Sehool,lT. 618 Sullivaii Road, Bctty 13urley- Wellesley Avenuc, Otis Orchards, 924-9823 Wolf 922-7818 www.i)ionecrschool.c;am T'amcn}r Fuller, Principal vvw-w.evsd.org/otis • St. Jo1tn Vianncy, SOl N. Walnut; 926-7987 • Skyview Elemeiitax~, School, E. 16924 Dr. Judilh Morbeck, Principal www.sr.iohnviatuiev.con, Wellesley tlvcntie, 927-3210 Chiere Ivlaxtyn, • St. N1ary's, 14601 r. 4th Ave., 924-4300, Lauri Principal \arww.evsd.org/,9kvv1G\V ~jaUdltt, Principal w+vwsmiarvssookxnc.ornJdcfaul[.asii?D=8 • 1'rent FletTientar_y School, NT. 3303 Pines Road, • St. Paschal School, 2521 N. Park Rd, 924-5090 924-2622 MikE Uphus, Principal Richard Felkie .ir., Principal ~&,i,N-,v.evscl.ore/trent wur%v.diocescofmokana.orHJSchwIs/SchoolsJSt JohnViaitinev.hhr . Trentwood Elementary School, E. 14701 • Spakane Vallcy Adveutist School, 1603 S. Sullivau Wellesley Elvenue, 927-321 5 Sigrid Bratuiaii, , Rd, 926-0955 www.vallevsda.or(-, Principal www.evsd.orp-/tur • Valley Christian School, S. 2303 Bowdish, Wes FvanS, Administrator 924-9131 "rVSp ~,vtiNv.vallevchristianschool.orp, • Centennial Middle School, 915 N Llla, 922- . 54$2 °I im Aines, Principal , tivwlv.wvsd.com/Deffluit.asu'rindx=lSsubdx=0&uaQeid=87 SPECIAL Nf;1rDS PROGRAiviS QR RESOURCIF~S • ARC, 127 W Boone Ave, 328-6326 • Camp "You l3et I Can", Cauip Fi.re Camp , • Camp Fun ui the Sun, 'Yvvinlow Camp, Taart-Lo or Sweyolakdn, 524 N. Mullan Rd., Rathdruin, ID, Inland i~I~W IIealth 747-6191 wvvvi.campfireiec.ora Services/Coirununity Health Lducation anci 0 Coalition of Responsiblc Disabled (CORD), Resources, 232-8138 61.2 N. vIaple, 326-6355 www.camofuninthesun.ora . Eastern Seals af WA., Camp Reed, 326- • Funshinc Da.y CamP, Spoka.ne Park.s and 8292 rwnv,wa.easter-seals.orq Recrca.tion Therapeutic Recreation Services, • I-Iospice of Spokane, Camp Lutherhaven, Mission park 625-6245 LakE Coeur d'Alene, 456-0438 www.st)o'kanenarks.org www. hosoiceofspokane.ora Camp ST1X llia.betes Camp;l3ear Paw • M1aA Sturuner Camp, "I'winlow Camp, Camp, Ncwport, 509-484-1366 R.athdrun; 11), 325-3747 w%uw.campstix.orFz www.spokaneservices c(D.MDAUSA.orq SENIOk2 RESOU1tCES AND REFE17l.2A7~S • AARI' $00-424-3410 • Mcals on `Vheels (Spokazie Valley) 924-6976 •AARP/Scnior Lmploynaent Progrun 325-7712 • Medicarc Information 800-444-4606 • AL1CFW (Aging and L,ongterm Carc of • Social Security tldministr.ation 800-772-1213 Lasterii tiVashington 458-2509 •Alzheimer's Association 483-8456 • Fldcr Services 458-7450 • RSVA 344-7787 • Chore Servit;es 458-7450 • Senior Energy Outreach 495-4086 • IIeallh Information L'uie 800-989-9180 • Senior INutrition Program 324-1 532 • Insurance Commissioner 800-562-6900 • University Legal Assistance 323-5791 • TRS Taxpaycr Assistance $00-829-1040 SPU.LZ'l' COMPLEXE-S • Flante's Ferry, Spok.anc County, E. 12308 0 YMCA, 2421 N. Diseoverp 1'1., 777-9622 Upriver Drive, 477-4730 www.ymcaspakane.org www,_~p4)ksniecowln,.arg/o,irkqtt):irAcl iscine,. htm,'Plantts • Sports USA, 19619 E. Cataldo, 232-2822 N;nv-%u.saarls-usa.or.a . sPOKi'S GRQUPS • City of Spokane Parks & Recreation • Spokaiie Valley Jr. Soccer A.ssociation; 625-6200 vv~vw.sookalecitv.orQ 12505 L. Sprague Ave, 922-7910 • Skyhawks, 750 W. Hascings, 466-6590 www.sv'sa.orQ ~Nr«w.skvhawl::s.com • Spokane Valley Girl's Soft-baU, 12505 E. • Soccer. Tocs, 7311 E. Nora 4163, Mario Sprague Ave, 922-3979 362-1330 • Spokane Youth Sports Associacion, • Spokane County T'arks, R.ecreation and Gol:f 536-1800 www.svsa.com . (Adults oiily), 404 N. Havana, 477-4730 0 Sports USA, 19619 E. Cataldo, 232- 2822 wwW.sooltanecoLmtv.or:loarksldata/recreatiUn.asU , wLVw.SqOPtS-USa..bT- • Spokane Valley Baseball, 12505E. Spragiic . Tcnnis lessons (Julenc Osboni) 924-5465 Avenue, 922-0420 . YIvICA, 2421 N. Discovery Pl., 777-9622 www.sno.kaneval.levbasebatl.com -,vtiytiv.vmcastiokane.orsz TENN1S CQiJRTS • Central Valley Higl1 School, 821 S. Sullivan Rd., 228-5100 www.cvsd.oralcentra,lvallcv/iudex.htm • Last Valley High Sehoal, F. 15711 Wellesley, 927-3200 www.evsd.Uru/evhs • Ld;ecliff Park, S. 800 Park Rd., 688-4182 www.snokancvallev.ore • University Center (oId U-high), 10212 L 9`h Avcnuc 228-5460 • University High School, 12420 L. 32"d, 22$-5251 www.evsd,orrJuniversitv/index.htm • Valley Mission Park, E. 11123) Mission, 688-0182 ~ww.suokancvallcv.or~ ~ West Valley High School, 8924 E. Valleyway, 921-2836 ,vwtiv.wvsd.com/Dcfault.aspx?indx=l &suhdx=O&Uageid=9 . CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: 02-11-06 City Manager Sign-off: Item: Check all that apply: 0 consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information admin. report ❑ pending legislation - AGENDA ITEM TITLE : TMDL Matters GOVERNING LEGISLATION: ' PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: ' Councilmernber Denenny, and Public Works Director Kersten will give an update on TMDL (total maximum daily load) matters. OPTIONS: RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: BUDGETJFINANCIAL IMPACTS: STAFF CONTACT: Neil Kersten - ATTACHMENTS DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CODE 2/7/06 Title 17 GENERAL PROVISIONS 17.05 Adoption of Development Code (010) Enactment (020) Purpose (030) Jurisdiction (040) Rules of Construction (050) Consistency with Comprehensive Plan (060) Severability 17,10 Application Procedures 17,15 Fees 17,20 Concurrency 17.30 Compliance and Enforcement 17.30 Administration (010) Planning Commission (020) Hearing Exarniner (030) Community Development Department • - (1) Building Official . (040) Public Works 17.40 SEPA 17. 50 Floodplain Regulations 17.60 Critical Areas 17.74 Shoreline Regulations 17.80 Airport Hazard Regulations Title 18 (Reserved) Title 19 ZONING REGULATIONS 19.05 Jurisdiction and Authority 19.10 Rules of General Application `(010) Zoning Distncts Established ~ (020) Zaning District Map 1 - DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CODE 2/7/06 (030) Zoning District Boundaries (440) Newly Annexed Territory (050) Non-conforming Uses (060) Changes & Amendments (070) Administrative Exceptions . (080) Variances 19.20 Conditional Use Permits (1) Purpose . (2) Permitted Uses (3) Approval Process and Procedure 4) Revocation of Conditional Use Permit 19.30 Temporary Use Permits . SPECIFIC ZONING CATAGORIES 19.40 cR-1" Single Family Residential Estate District 19.50 "R-2" Single Family Residential District. 19.60 "R-3" Single Family Residential District. 19.70 "R-4" Residential District 19.80 ""MF-12" and "MF-22" Multifamily Residential District _ 19_90 "13-1" Local Retail District 19.100 "13-2° Shopping Center District 19.110 "B-3" Corridor Commercial District. 19.120 CC City Center district . 19.130 CM Corridor Mixed Use District 19.140 MUC Mixed Use Center District 19.150 0 Office District . 19.160 1-1° Light Industrial District 19.170 "I-2"-lntermediate Industrial District . 19.180 u1-3" Heavy Industrial Districts 19.190 PUD Planned Unit Development SPECIFIC PROVISIONS APPUCABLE TO ALL ZONES 19.200 Permitted Principal & Accessory Uses (010) General Provisions (020) Matrix of Permitted and Prohibited Uses 19.210 Height and Area Regulations (010) General Provisions 2 DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CODE 2/7/06 (020) Residential Height and Area Regulations (030) Non-Residential Height and Area Regulations 19.220 Hospital District Overlay Zone 19.230 Historic Preservation (Reserved) Title 20 SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS 20.05 Rules of General Application (010) Purpose (020) Jurisdiction. ' (030) Applicable Law (040) Superseding Regulations (050) Amendments i . (060) Administrative Approval of Certain Minor Plats, Amending Plats/ Replats 20.10 General Development Plan 20.20 Preliminary Plat . 20.30 Final Plat 20.40 Binding Site Plan 20.50 Combination Plat 20.60 Replat Procedure 20.70 Vacation.of Plat Title 21 ' DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS . 21.05 Generally (010) Purpose (020) Application 21.10 Streets, Sidewalks and Public Places 21.20 Utilities 21.30 Stormtivater Mangement 21.40 Design Sfandards 3 DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CODE 2/7/06 21.50 Performance Standards 21.70 Landscape Irrigation Systems '21.80 Sign Regulations Title 22 BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION REGULATIONS 22.10 Building Code (0 10) Building Codes Adopted (020) Amendments to Referenced Code (030) Rules of General Application (1) Conflict Between Codes (2) Design Requirements (3) Qualifications Necessary to Prepare Plans (4) Plan Requirements (5) Permit Requirements (6) Fees . (7) Certificate of Occupancy 22.20 Excavation, Fill and Grading ' Title 23 Developer Contributions APPENDICES A. Definitions B. Filing Fees and Charges . , 4 Il~t.l~EX TO D4CUATVNTS I:,nE.NT.iFTE.la ANl) AnO.T.''I'.F•D .BY THE CITY O.F SPOIe, Tl+: VAL:LE-Y N1CTN1CI1'AL, COllE '1`ll'LL 10 UYMORt1~I DEVi+aLOPMF.NT CC)nF A.S ".E~THTBTT A" ' . (A.s of llecember 23, 2005) EXHI$IT A(all documents are docated at the City Clerk's office urtle,ss othenvi.re intlicated helow) '1"ab A-1 Spokane County Staqtdards for Roud und Sewer Construction, adopted by SVIviC 1.0.05.410 (Official copy ma.intained by i:be Public Work.s Director) . Tab A-2 SPol;ane Cazrnty Guidelanes for Stormtivater Martagerrtent, dated January 1981, adopted Uy SMVC 10.10.120 (Pages 5-1- 5-6, Section 5, control o.f. . Water quality havc bccn rcpEaled and replaccd by ordinaucc 05-013 effective March 23, 2005) (Official capy maintainEd by Public Works director) Tab A-3 Spakune Errviror2naental Ordinance, ado.pted by SI_~fC 10.20.010 . (Sections 11.10.010 - 1 l.10230, Nvilh Appendices A-E) , Tab A-4 Shoreline Progrmn, adopted by SVMC 10.20.060 (Spokane C;ounty Shoreline Program, Maa-ch.1995'prinCing) ~ Tab A=5 Critical.A. reas Regulatiori, adopted by SVMC 10.20.110 (Sectious . 11.20.020-11.20.090) Tab A-6 Crirical Aretrs A2ap(s), adoptcd by SVMC 10.20.160 (O.f.fieial copy iiiauitained by the Cornmunify 17cvelopment :[7irector) Tab A77 Siihdivision Regitlation, adopted by SVMC 10.25.010 (Sections 12.100- . ] 2.600.144) . , Tab A-8 Interirri Comlarehensive Ijlcin, adopted by SVM:C 10.30.010 . . Tab A-9 Interim ZUning Cocle, adopteci by SVIv1C 10.30.060 (Spokane Couilty Zoning Codc chapfers 14.100-14.822 vvith Appendices A, :E3 and C) See detailcd "uidcx at bcginning of Tab A-9. (Specific changes to the adopted interiiu zoniug code a.nd the authorization For those ehanges are idcntificd.) . : ' Tab A-9A Zoning Map, adopted by SVMC 10.30.620 (().fficial copy . maintained by the Directo.r of Coinmunity Development.) . Tab A-10 Pliase .117eveloprnent.Tlegulcctiorrs, adopted Uy SVVIC 1030.060, - (Spokane County Resolution 2-0470.) Tab A-10-a Revisions to Zoning Iv1ap Desiguations and matrix 1 ab A-10-b Rura1 Cluster Dcvelopment (Chapier 14.824) . Tab F1-10-c Rural-5 (R-5) Zone (C.hapter 14.6089) ' Tab A-10-d RESidential Lones vlatrix (Chapter 14.605, 608, 637) . T'ab A-10-e Miscellaneous (Chapte.rs 14.605, 608,637,300.100,506, 816) ' . Tab A-10-f Iudustrial "Gone Tvlacri.Y (Chapter 14.629) 'T'ab A=10-g General Agricultural (GA) Zone (Chapter 14.640) Tab A-10-h Exclusivc Agricultural (EA) Zone (Chaptcr 14.638) . Fqrestry (F-Z) Zone (Chapter 14.644) Tab A-10-i Urban Reserve 7.,onc (Chapeer.l4.643) Tab A-10 j Agricultural/Urban Reser.ve Yiatrix (Chapter 14.637) Tab A-10-k Rural Conservation Zone (chapter 14.646) 7'ab A-10-1 Concurr.ency (Section IV) . Tab A-11 Application Revie►v Procedure for 1'rojecf Permits, adopfed by SVIVC 10.35170 (Chapter. 13.100 -13.1000 with A.ppendix I) --IN.DEYS TO llOC(JAZENT"1'S ]:DENT11:L IEll llN 17LVLLOFiVLENT RFGLjLAT10NS f15 ' N,-T.Aj\TATORY STFINDATZDS (As of llecember 23, 2005) Exhibit B: Tab R-1 1Vfunual on Unafo,-m Traffic Control Devices; WSDOT Standard Specifications for Road, Bridge, and Muriicipal Corrstruction; applicable standards of the American 1'ublic WorksAssociation; aclopEed by SVMC . 10.05.120. (Official co.py maintained by the Public Works llirector.) -Tab B-2 Building and Construction Codes; adopted by SC`4C 10. 1 5.010. (Official copy maintai.ned by the $uild'uig Officixl.) 1`ab B-3 Resolution 05-024, Master Fee Schedule; adopted by SVVtC 10. 15.020. , Tab I3-4 Cesting Stundurtls; adopteci by SVMC 10.15.070. (Official copy available th.rough khe Public Work-s Director.) , Tab B-5 DOE 17arn Safety Regulutions, cbapter 173-175; adopted by SVV1C 16.15.130. (Official copy available through fhe Public Works ciireccor.) Tab B-6 Comn:ute Trip .Redr.tction 1{egulaiions; adopted Uy SVMC 1.020.230. 1`ab 13-7 Plood Insuru,zce Study, Spokane County, 5/17/8 $ and F-lood Insurufzce Rate Mup (TlltAl); adaPted by SVi~tC 10.20.350. (Official copy _ maintained by the Con.tmiuut), Developinent Director.) - 1'ab B-A Hearing Ezumir2er Rules for the Scherlt.rling und Conduct oftlearings, adopted by SVMC 10.35.160, (R.esoluiion #f• 96-0294.) ' . '.l'ab 13-9 Regiorral Pavement cr.et lyolicy, adopted by Luotion June 14, 2005.(See SVMC 10.05.120 ...All work vvith ttle city right-of-way shall be in . acc;o.rdauc;e witti adopted City Stxndards in effect at the time of tlle appli.caeion for filie penzut...; Sce also S*VN1C 10.05.200 ...tlie directOr under the supErvision of the City Manager, may dc-velop and adopt , rules...) MDF-X TO 011llINANCE5 AD4PTLD BY THE CI'1`Y 0F SPOTCANE VALLFY, AFFE CTZNG DEVELOPiti1`.EiN'1' REGULATIOi\iS AND NOT YET C017Ik'IED (As of Dececuber 12, 2005) - Exhibit C: . Tab C-1 Ordinance 04-033 Dimensional Standards for Re.radential and IVon- 1Zesidential Developmerit, amending SVIvZC 10.30.060 by amendi.ng and iepealing portyons of chapters14.b16-812 and creating SVMC 4.15.1 and • 4.15.2. Tab C-2 Ordi.nance 04-034 Administrarive Yariances and Ezceptions, ariaendinD SVIvIC 10.30.070 by repealing adopted chapter 14.404.090 and amending SVMC 10.30.060 by amencling adopted chapter 14.506. (The revised amended version of 14.506 is incorPorated in Fxhibit A( Tab A-9), Chapter 14.540 Admiuistrarivc Procedures.) T'ab C-3 ' Ordinxnce 04-035 Urban Resiclentiul,Estute (UR-1), arnending SVMC 10.30.060 by crcating section 14.615 and amending SVMC 10.30.610 by . - ameuding the zoning map, on an interim basis. (The newly created secrion 14.615 is incorporated iu Exhibit A('X'ab A-9), Chapter 14.615 , , Urban Resiciential Estate.) . 7'ab C4 Ordinance 04-038 Clear View Trirrngles, a.mending SVivIC 10.30.060 by'amending Section 14.810.020, creating SVN4C scction 7.06, and amen.ding SVMC 7.05.040(A)(2) and (13)(1) and (2).(The amended scction is incorporated iu Eahibit A('C'ab A-9), Chapter 14.810, Special, ancl Modifications to, Aeveltipment Standards.) . Tab C-5 Ord.inance 04-046 .Plarined Unit Developrnenls, amending SVMC 10.30.060 by amending Chapter 14.704 and renumbering ehe amended. . version as SVMC 4.08.19 - 4.08.19.09. • Tab C-6 OrdinancE 04-047 City of Spokane Yalley Building Code, amending . SVMC 10.15.010 and 03 0. Tab C-7 Ordinauce 05-0:12 Sh,-eet Yacations, repealing SVMC 10.05.220 - 380 , and creating SVMC 10.09.04.10.01- SVVIC 10.09.04.10.1$. Tab C-8 Ordinance 05-013 Stormlvater, Atne.ndi.na SVvIC 10.10:.120 by - repealing pages 5-1 throug,h 5-6, Section 5, G`uidelines for Svokane CQuntv Storniwater. Manaacment and cruating SVMC 10.09.08.01- 10.09.08.13. Tab C-9 Ordisiance 05-015 IlerzurnUering Uniform Developmenl Code - anenciing portions of dtle 2 and 10 by renumbering specific chapter and section nuxnbers. Tab C-] 0 ordiuauce 05-016 Sign Regulation, repealing SVMC 10.30.660 Nvhich adopted chapters 14.804.010-14.804.160 and creating SVVIC 10.07.09.01- 10.07.09.10. . Tab'C-11 C?rdinance 05-021 Appeal Procedures frorn Hearing Examiner to City • C02lnCTI, annending portxons of 10.35.150. Tab C-12 Ordinance 05-026 PlanMed Unit Developments (arnencling ordinarice 04-046, spccifcally remunbered SVIvIC 4.18.19.15) Tab C-13 Ordi.nance 05-034 Storimvater Utility Charges, atncntling SVI+IC 10.10.40. , ~ . S~okane ~ 11707 k: Sprague Ave Suitc 106 ♦ Spok.iliC V~tIICy ~~~A 9~JZQb 4;00 Valley 509921.1000 * rax: 509.y21.1(08 * cityhall{u)spi)kancvallcy.urg Memorandum To: David Mercier, City Vtanager and Members of City Council From: Marina Sul:up, Co►n.munity 17evelopment i.)irector Cc: Nina Itegor, Deputy Cily Manager Datc: February 3, 2006 Ke: Reviscd Lanci Capacity Analysis As part of khe regional growtt1 managetnent. plan.ning requirements, prescribed by t.he Spokane Caunty CTrUwth Ma,nagement Steering Committee, lhe City of Spokane Valley is required to estimatc its future land capacily. The Plaivung Division has usea aparcel-based, Geogr'aphical Informaliun System (C1S) approach lo generale estimated grovvth eapacity within our City lim.its, adjacetit lJrban Growtlt Areas (UGAS), and IJrban R.eserve Areas. 1'his process included estimating the number of gross acres of vacant and redevelopablc land in each lznd use classification, applying a series of percctitage ciiscounG% to arrive al an estimale of net acres in each classification, and applying zoned riensitiez lor estimaling the \ number of housing units. !\ttached is a matrix identifying vacant and partially used land, net devclopable acres, polential new dwelling units, and populaticm capacity. I'he urban reserve analysis docs nol exclude critical areas, Platted pa,rcels, or parcels issued building permits due lo time restraints and the undcrstanding that the data for these areas eesides with Spakane County. Urban reserve area c:alculations are providcd to assist the Council in determining potential new UCAs to aeeommociate Spokanc Valley's estimatcd population growth. - Attachments: I,.and Capacity Analysis Matrix and Map City of Spokane Valle, __and Capacity Analysis • Area IVscant and Partialy Used LarM INet Devebpable Acres I Potential New DlUnits I Population CaQsc City of Spokane Va11eY I 2.9231 1.4821 9,3761 20% Nooeast UGA 431 241 971 244 Northwood UGA 7291 4081 1,6341 4,065 East UGA I 7691 4311 1.7241 4,309 soutr,eas: ucA I 4961 2781 1.1101 2,776 South UGA ~ 5911 3311 1,3241 3,310 Ponderosa UGA ~ 51 31 111 26 Ed IiffUGA I 2341 1311 5251 1,312 AUGA ~ 1841 1031 4131 1,033 Tolal ~ 5,9741 3,191 1 16,2141 37,574 Urban Reserve Area Vacant and Partlally Used Land I Net Develcpabie /lcros I Potertttal New D/Unks (Populstlon Capat 1 1.1011 (V/Al 2,4661 6~ 2 I 531 WAl 1191 75 3 ( 1311 N/Al 2941 735 4 I 331 WAl 751 188 5 ~ 3551 WA 7961 1,991 8 ~ 801 l WA 1,3471 3,368 7 I 9661 M/Al 2,1651 5,412 8 ( 8111 N/Al 1,8161 4,540 9 1 1,1021 NlAl 2,4701 6.172 Total I 5,1531 N/Al 11,5481 28,6471 E'.dAce6R UGA. 1 J12 Pooderoea UGA. 26 Akatt t'GA, 1,033 tiouth l G,%.3,3 10 f'ih of tipoluac Vaflr~. 211A79 Soutbcau t GA.2??G L• ast 1 t:A. A." ol or Nnrthwood 1 4,085 Nurtbwt UC:A.241 2/312006 ~1~Pban Rt'S'c'1"1^e 1 ~~li~ ~ ~l~rla~ari ~tcsc~ri~c• "+~'r,. ~1 rfitrra R ~•ti~•r~~e 1i,. 3 - ~ , - - - r r'rbriq Ul''ban Reserve 77 ftc'serve AIZalysls I r~ f No. 4 ~ ~ - - \ ~ . s,t+~l~ ~ r , 'T r;+F~~I r~,f,, 7 yr'~' ,r { ~y~`~r-• r~' Legend I'+Mium Q~,yir}R~wec~ntiul Reserre ; Of - HfgllDcn3ity Residential : . U ri ~ ~ I . i~lRL4~~~94 r~ ~ , 16,V EiF31L 4,c ~ n I ~rv ~ CVlfFldll' M13LCd LJSV7 j M e e ~ C ~ ~ . ~tY 'y,~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ' r ` ✓f./~~ ~ }1~1CC hiFt~nM1 ~ d ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ C'ity CC31SCr ~ . ~ ~ a' .r.!.. viti'fi M1te 4 o ~ ~ y,~t ,,~51) C I ff~.[ , + rU .L_::If:A f1II~~JL• P,C I 1 ~ TR ~ ~ 1 , , t~~~ --`3~r ° ' "i ~ ~ . ~ ~ Ncighborf~i Commerr4d. ia J.T' 0 r ~ Carnrnwnity commtmial .f , { . ~ f; ~ • L I~~ i - R.L'OUIIW Comi13Ch,"SAl r --r- Light ircduaviW ;Po , I Ip ~ ~v ~r f I ' ~ r , r ~j ` ~ ~ ~ ~ ' - ~-4, _ { - . . , .9 : L u L~rbnrs Gmv%lh Arcn L ~6 ~ [ x,fi+lilI M { , '~j # I Q .;A,t W ~ ~ f~,^ r f , ~ D~(R 8nd ~iHl~~titfQ6 . ~ ~ ~v i c~ ~s (75 bu~eP1 ~ ~h• C y a~ ~ ~ ~ IIS9i A.~ e t ~'l~ ~1` tZ@YPC: AI Ep ~y Wd~f B{d1~ (L5Q'buffcf) . ~ • ' ! rbrrrr 9k Ri'serve Mip 1.L1C9Ildn 17J1d A6 - . F i L. . ` al ` ` ~15 ~ I i_r ° ~j8 Rexen~t D1tl: 2.4M6 ~ + 1 ? ` . I k''' ,~.s• ° r ~ ~ ~ti R ~ • ~ ~ K~R t k~• p , LL ~ ~ ~ . ' ME~:~ ~ Y I ~ I l .l .I I IJ r~, ,1 u P .'J J .4i,rr w'~~•~ r,~~ranmrlid.ur s~u~~F+i rFn i~ri ~ ~~rr 3~ s ~ r~ry~dir ~l~r~ru «rar;vrr ~I IipPlIJ Re'i'f°fl't'Nrd„ q VFurLr.P fun191 ,Uhjecrtn4•rXuWmfrvW.1l,rn lrwitn'mulrarru rFWlt'u r w~ or ,grt4VzP+trar ofNnre lhr arturara-nr M•rr+m' q1 trrr,r mtn? Jm+I N.. ❑ p~rrE r~l~' a~4C~udiK1 ~~d~dlifl.fwt~rrcr.Y ~rt1?r~ruvlcmd in ip CcAaMnfi En c nqfirm rxv'ur1u;IV rcuaw7dIM Cin t?lS;auQerm+ G1if.7.V i0111rmrJrA e l:4nrfr~++~M1 fAr{xutnrea~t, Urke«iu+ ~~(PG~Ii~~ r{+1'?: V. t-P+~1,7 ;~3 : PRune~.r ~e~ s u, ~,r s~~~.~ ~'FNA. L4MIqYNI1Y I4Y1~ri ~IW~MI I M~Y'Mik d!I 1 2 State of Washington 3 GROWTH.MANAGEMENT HEARINGS BOARD - FOR EASTERN WASHINGTON 4 5 JULIA McHUGH, PALISADES Case No. 05-1-0004 NEIGHBORHOOD, and NEIGHBORHOOD 6 ALLIANCE OF SPOKANE, FINAL DECISION AND ORDER 7 - Petitioner, 8 . . v. . 9 ' 10 SPOKANE COUNTY, . . 11 Respondent, ~12 GREG and KIM JEFFREYS, GJ L.L.C., and 13 G.J. GENERAL CONTRATORS, . ~ ' . 14 Intervenors. 15 16 I. SYNOPSIS 17 On April 25, 2005, Spokane County adopted Resolution No. 2005-0365, which 18 amended the Spokane County Comprehensive Plan for 2004. The Petitioners object , 19 particularly to Amendment 04-CPA-01, which changed the designafiion of approximately 80 20 acres of land abutting the West Plains Urban Growth Area (UGA) From existing Rural 21 Traditional (RT) ko Low Den'sity Residential (LDR), and expandetl the Urban Growth . 22 Boundary (UGA) speciFcally to encompass this parcel. The Hearings Board found the County cleariy erroneous on three Issues: 23 First, enlargement of its UGA requires more than an attractive proposal from a 24 developer to add urban densities to a certain part of the County. The Growth Management 25 Act (GMA) requires the UGA to be sized sufFicient to permit the urban growth that is 26 Easaern Vk(ashington ~ Grawth Management Hearings 8oard ~ FINAL DEClSIOtd AND OfZDER 15 W. Yakima Avenve, Suite 102 Gase OS-I-QOOa Yakima, 1Nn 98902 Uooembpr if, 2005 Phflne: 509-574-6960 Page I Fax: 509574-6964 1 • ' 1 projected to occur in the County for the succeeding twenty-year period. RCW36.70A.110(2). 2 GMA cases have found that such a requirement limits the size of the UGA and requires a 3 shoiving of work demonstrating how they arrived at sucfi the size of the UGA or its 4 expansion. The County has only the proponent's arguments that an expansion in this area is ' 5needed. This is not enough. 6 Secand, tfie County failed to formally consult with airport owners and managers, . private airport operators, general aviation pilots, ports, and the Aviation Division of the 7 Department of Transportation as is required by the GMA. $ Finally, the County's Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) covers only 2000-2006 and does not 9 include the area which is the subject of this change. The Board finds the Petitioners have 10 carried their burden of proof in Legal Issues #1, #4, #5, #6, and #8, and have shown the 11 action taken by the County in adopting Resolution 2005-0365 is clearly erroneous. Spokane 12 County failed to adequately plan for capital facilities, utilities and transportation facilities for 13 the UGA expansion and, in addition, failed to follow the OFM population allocation . C14 guidelines when determining the fnal size of the UGA expansion. The County further failed to show their work as to how they arrived at the need for enlarging the UGA to 15 • accommodate the population given to them by the OFM estimates. 16 ' II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 17 On June 24, 2005, JULIA McHUGH, PALISADES NEIGHBORHOOD, and 18 NEIGHBORHOOD ALLIANCE OF SPOKAME, by and through their representatives, ]ulia 19 McHugh, Robbi Casdeberry, and Bonnie Mager, filed a Petition for Review. 20 On July 18, 2005, the Board received Greg and Kim ]effreys, GJ L.L.C. and G.J. 21 General Contractors, Inc.'s Motion and Memorandum in Support of Motion to Intervene. 22 On July 22, 2005, the Board heard the Motion to Intervene before the Prehearing 23 conference. The Respondent did not object to the intervention. The Petitioner objected, 24 confiending Greg and Kim Jeffreys, GJ L.L.C., and G.]. General Contractors, should not be 25 allowed, as they did not own the property in the area. This being deemed by the Board as 26 Eastern Vdash(ngton r" - Growth A1aizagemant Hearings Board ` FINAI DcCISION AND ORDER 15 W. Yakima Avenue, Svtte 102 Gase 05-1-0004 Yakima, WA 98902 Noember 16, 20U5 Phune: 503-574-6960 . page 2 rax: 509-574-6564 i RN ' i f•l- 1 k 'I nat a requirernent, allowed, the interventiora, there beirrg not evidence that it will disrupt 2 the managernent of the case. ,I 3 On July 22, 2005, the Board held the Prehearfng conference. Present weref Dennis 4 Dellwa, Presiding Officer, and Board Members Judy Walf and John Roskelley. Present for 5 Petitione rs vvere Julia. M c H u gh, Robbi Castleberry, and Bonnie Mager. Present for £ Respondent was Markin Ro Ilins. Present for Tntervenars was Stacy Bjordahl, . ' . On July 26, 20D5f the Board issued its Prehearing Drder. 7 Qn August 12, 2005, the Board received Petitioner's Motions lisking nine mations.. 8On August 12, 2005, the Board received Intervenars' Motion and Mernorandum in 9 Support of Motian for Partial Disrnissal of Issues, . 10 On August 12, 2005f the Board received Respondent Spolcane County's Motian to 11 I]oin Tntervenors' Motien V Partial pismissal of Tssues. . ~ ~ 12 On August 26, 2005, khe Board received Respondent and Intervenors' Respanse to 13 Petitioners' Niations. 14 , On September 2f 2005, the Baard received Petitioners' Request for Expedited Review ~ '15 and Rebutkal. On Septernber 9, 2005, the Board -held a telephonic Motion Hearing. Present were, 16 Den nis Dellwo, Presiding OfFcer, a nd 6oard M ernbers Judy 1fUall an d John Roskelley. Prese nt 17 fof Petitioners wer.e Julia N1cHugh and Bonnie Mager. Present for Respondent was Martin 18 ftollins. Present for Intervenors vvas Stacy BjordahL ' Orr September 16, 2005f the Board issued aks Qrder on Motions. . 20 bn September 16, 2 005,_th e Baard issued its Amended Prehearing Drder.' 21 On Qctober 7, 2005, the Board received Petitioners' Hearing on the Merits Brief. 22 . On October 27f 2005, the Board received Respondents' Hearing on the Merits 6rief. On October 28f 2005, tne 6oard received Ir~tervenors' ~iearir~g on the Merits BrieF. . 24 On Novernber 4, 2005, the 6oard received Petitioners' Hearing an the Me.rits Repfy - Brief. 25 26 - e2SleYi1 VV2Sflirkg1an - Grawth Menagematrl Flearings 8oard ~ FINAL QECI510N AND ORDER 15 W_ Yakime Aveme, SuiEa yaz - Gase05-7-0004 Yaklma,VfA Sti902 DeC2mbof'1fi,2005 - Phona:5D9-5741'i96p Page 3 34~574-r)964 I _ ~ ~ _'I Dn Novernber 16, 2005f the Board held the Wearing on the Merits. Present were, 2 Dennis Dellwo, Presiding Officer, and Baard Members Judy Wall and John Roskelley. Present 3 for Petitfoners were Julia McHugh, Robbi Castleberry, and Banrrie Mager. Present for 4 Respandent was Martin Ftallins. Present Far Tntervenors was Stacy 6jordahl. ' 5 .IFI. PRESUMPTION OF 11ALIDITY, BURDEN OF PROOF AND STANDARD OF REVIEW • 6 . Comprehensive plans and development regulations (and amendrnents thereto) 7 . adopted pursuant to Grawth Management Act CGMA" or 11Act"~ are presumed valid upon 8 adoption b}r the iocal government. RCW 36.70A.320. The burderr is on the PetitioneE-s to . 9 demonstrate that any action taken by the respondent jurisdiction is not in campiiance with 10 the Act. 11 I The Flearings Boartl will grant deference ta counties and tities in how they plan 12 under Grawth Management Act {GMA). ftCW 36.70A,3201, 8ut, as the Court has statecf, - . , . 13 "local discret«n is bounded, however, by the goals and Fequirements of the GMA." lfirrg ~ 14 Coun ly v C'en tral Puget ,Soun d G'rokvtb Marra_qern on t ffea rvrgs Board, 14 2 1+Vn.2 d 543, 56 1, - 114 P.2d J.33 (2000). It has been further recagnized ti~at 45[c]onsistent ~rith fCir~g C'or~r~t 5 y, and . , nolwithstanding the ;cleference` language of RC1+V 36.70A.3201, the Board acts properiy . 16 when itforegoes deFerence ta a... plan khat is not `consistent wikh therequirements and 17 . . goals of the GN1A." Thcrrston C'ounty v. CooperPoirrt ,4ssocrafrorr, 108 Wn. App. 429, 444, 31 18 P.3d 28 (2001), • 18 I Pursuant to RC1fti1 36.70A.320{3) we "ShaEl find compliance unless fwel determine 20 that the ackion by [Jefferson County] is clearly erroneous in view of the entire record before 21 the Board and in liyht of the goals and requirements af (the GMA]." In arder ta find the 22 Countyfs actian clearfy erroneousr we must be "Ieft with the firm and definite conviction that 23 a mista ke h a s b e e n made." Departrrrerrt ofEcola_qy v. Pcr6fic.[It~ififyDisf. 1f 12 1 W n.2 d 179, 24 201, 849 P.2d 646 {1993}. The Nimrings Board has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the Petition for 25 . Review. RCW 36.70A.280(i)(a). 26 Grawih h4aitegemenl He;;rings Hoard t. ~ FINALDECISIOM AND ORD.:R 15 4"1. Yekim2 kvenue, Suije 142 Cas¢4S-1-0OQ4 - Yakirna. Wfl 98902 Deceoibet 16, 24U5 Phane: 5Q9-574~'i960 , Page 9 Fax- 509-574-6064 /I . 1 IV. ISSUES AND DISCUSSION 2 Issue No. 1: . 3 Has Spokane County violated the fundamental planning goals of RCW 36.70A.020(1)(2)(5)(.10) by approval of Comprehensive Plan amendment 04-CPA-1 to 4 converfi 80 acres of Rural Traditional farm land, one dwelling per 10 acres, into urban 5 residential development supporting a minimum of 320 single family residences, with a maximum allowable density of 480 dwelling units, as listed on the application, and in g placing this development site within the West Plains Urban Growth Area = Joint Planning Area without adequate public facilities and services. Further, did Spokane County disregard 7 its Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies to protect the rural character and lifestyles of its 8 rural Palisades residents by approving conversion of this site to urban and including it within the West Plains Urban Growth Area - 7oint Planning Area (Goal RL.1 UL.18, Policies RL.1.1 g U L.181 - U L.18.4)? 10 The Parties' Position: 11 Petitioners: 12 The Petitioners state that on April 25, 2005, Spokane County adopted Resolution No. 13 2005-0365, which amended the Spokane County Comprehensive Plan for 2004. The ~ 14 Qetitioners object to a portion of that Resolution, Amendment 04-CPA-01, which changed 15 the designation of approximately 80 acres of land abutting the West Plains Urban Growth ' Area (UGA), From existing Rural Traditional (RT) to Low Density Residential (LDR), and 16 expanded the Urban Growth Boundary (UGA) specifically to encompass this parcel. 17 The Petitioners contend that RCW 36.70A.110(1) prohibits urban growth outside 18 urban growth areas. They believe the County's actions make it possible to have urban 19 growth where no public facilities or services exist. It hastens the inappropriafie conversion of 20 undeveloped land into sprawling, low-density development. 21 Further, the Petitioners contend that GMA goals 2, 5, and 10 discourage sprawl 22 unequivocally. They contend the County Commissioners (BOCC) for Spokane ignored these 23 goals and achieve the absolute opposite. They contend that the introduction of 320 to 480 24 homes infio any rural neighborhood is devastation to all things "rural". These are contrary to 25 Spokane County's Goals RL.1 and UL.18 which require a distinct boundary betinreen urban 26 Eastem 1Nfashington Growth h9ansgem=ni Hearings Soard ~FINAL DECISION AND ARDER 15 W. Yakima Avenue, Suite S U2 ' Case 05-1-0OQ4 Yakima, INA 989d2 December 16, 2605 PfioRS: 509-574-6980 Page 5 Fax: 509-574-6964 1 and rural land uses and provide adequate land to accommodate anticipated growth. The 2 County is claimed to have placed urban density development in the middle of rural land. 3 The reply brief of the Petitioners contends that the actions of the County have 4 allowed a sixty-fold increase in dwelling units on the property. They state that, if the UGA 5 had not been moved, the Rural Traditional zoning would still be intact, one dwelling unit per 6 10-acres. They further point oufi that all existing residences surrounding the property and most of tfie Palisades IVeighborhood, are on individual wells and septic systems - no sewer 7 or water services for such development exist at the property. 8 The Petitioners contend that Spokane County has not updated its Capital Facilities 9 Plan since 2000; that the subject property is not wifihin the CFP area; and the County action 10 makes possible urban development where no public facilities or services exist. The 11 Petitioners state that the County's action places urban density development in fihe middle of 12 rural land; that this is spot zoning and an extension of the UGA specifically to accommodate C 13 such. : 14 Respondent Spokane County: 15 The County believes the Petitioners arguments and analysis are-at best insufficient for the Board to reverse the County's actions, and at worst, an attempt to shift the burden, . 16 . of proof to the County by providing virtually no argument and only partial as well as 17 insufficient citation to the record. The County contends that the Petitioners provide no 18 analysis or citation to the record to support their conclusions. The County believes that fihe 19 petitioners rely on bald assertions. They say that the Petitioners do not show in the record 20 where no public facilities or services exist, much less identify which public facilities or • 21 services are laeking or how this amendment results in inappropriate conversion to sprawl. 22 The Counry contends that they do not permit urban growth outside the UGA but 23 changed the UGA boundary and thus is not in violation of that provision of the GMA. 24 Further, they claim the record shows that public services either are or will be available when 25 needed. The County's Plan and its amendment does not require concurrency until the time of development. (SCC 13.650.104 and .112). 26 F_asfem bVashington ~ Growfh Management Mearfngs Soard ` FINAL OECISION AND ORDER ' 15 W. Yakima Avertue, Suite 102 Case 05-1-OOQ4 Y3kfma, WA 98902 December 16, 2005 Phone: .`•A9-574•6960 Page 6 Fax: 5019-574•6964 ~ ; 1 The County points out that the SEPA checklist from the applicant addresses , 2 firansportation and public services issues. The City of Spokane has indicated that water and 3 sewer are available and that transportation impacts should be studied further as well as 4 coordinated with the DOT. The County admitted that additional traffic studies would be 5 required upon application for specific projects. Spokane County sewer and water 6 concu~ rrency requirements would be met at the time of development. The County further contends that the Petitioners provided little analysis to support 7 . their claims lfiat these changes encourage sprawl and discourage economic development 8 and environmental protection. This area is not now considered rural lands and so the 9 arguments claiming such densities would violate the nature of rural areas is baseless. 10 The County finally contends that the GMA does not prohibit the annual amendment 11 of the UGA boundary rather than limited to a five-year review. This amendment is claimed 12 to provide much needed land to accommodate growth in an area where adequate land for 13 housing is sorely lacking, especially in close proximity to jobs. 14 Board Analysis: The GMA requires urban growth to be located within urban growth areas. Urban 15 - . growth is permitted within the County's UGA. Under the GMA, if land is properiy included 16 . within a UGA, urban growth may be allowed upon such lands. Here, the Petitioners are 17 contending that the County is placing urban growth outside UGAs. This, of course, is not 18 the case. The County has included these lands within its UGA and, if such change were 19 compliant, any growth occurring thereon would be within such UGA. - 20 The Petitioners further contend that the County disregarded the Goals and Policies of 21 its Comprehensive Plan fio protect rural character and lifestyles of the rural Palisades 22 residents. Here again the Petitioners are arguing for the protection of Rural Character while 23 the land is zxpected to now be within the newly enlarged UGA. These arguments of the 24 Petitioners are objecting to the nature of the developmenfi when and if it is builfi upon the land within the UGA. - 25 Zs , Eastem UUashington i Growth Managamont Hearings 3oarci ~ FIhAL CIECISION AND ORDh_}2 15 W. YakEma Avenue, Suile 102 Case 05-1-0004 Yakirna, bVA 38902 DecembEr 16, 2095 • Phane: 509-574-6960 Pagz 7 Fax: 509-574-6964 _ ~ 1 In their other arguments on fihis issue, the Petitioners object to the enlargement of 2 the UGA to include the subjecfi land. A key argument here contends that there was no 3 Capital Facilities Plan update prior to the enlargement of the UGA. As this Board has held . 4 before, (Rotrerts & Taylor v. Benton County EWGMH6, 05-1-0003, FDO 10/19/05) the . 5 amendment of the Comprehensive Plan to expand the UGA requires a new review of the 6 Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) so the County would see that services are available for the area added to the UGA and how they would be paid for. This was not done here. The Record 7 shows that Spokane County prepared a 6 year CFP approximately 6 years ago and it does $ not cover the area that is the subject of this enlargement of the UGA. One of the primary 9 tenants in the GMA is RCW36.70A.020-Planning Goals. Under that statufie, subsection (12) 10 Public facilities and services, it provides: 11 "Ensure that those public facilities and services necessary to support development shall be adequafie to serve the development at tfie time the ~ 2 development is available for occupancy and use without decreasing current .13 service levels below locally established minimum standards." C. 14 A county-cannot fulfill the requirements of Planning Goal #12 without a futuristic 15 look at its community using a detailed capital facilities 'plan element, among the other 16 elements of its comprehensive plan. A county must have a forecast of future capital facilities 17 needs. A new CFP needs to make the corresponding population revisions, if they exist, to . 18 the CFP whose present analytical foundations are derived from the old population 19 allocations. Then there must be an analysis of the adequacy of capital facilities in the area. 20 The GMA, under RCW 36.70A.070(3), requires a capital facilifiies plan element in the 21 City or County's Comprehensive Plan. The Legislature recognized that planning is foryvard 22 looking, so mandated at a minimum a six-year Capital Facilities Element (CFE), to ensure financing of projected capital facilities and sources of public money were clearly identified. 23 They also required a forecast of future needs for such capital facilities. The County has a 24 six-year CFP, for the period of 2000-2006. ' 25 26 EasEern bVashington ~ / Growth tvtanagement Weadngs Board ~ FINAI DECISION A,ND ORO[12 15 W. Yakima Avenue, Suits 102 Gase 05-1-0004 . Yakima, VVA 98902 ' LTecember 16, 2005 Phone: 509,574•6960 Page 8 Fax: 509-574•6964 • 1 The reference in the record, that the City of Spokane will be able to provide services' 2 to the area, does not eliminate the need to develop a CFP that determines what is needed, 3 how much the infrasfiructure is going to cost and afinancial mechanism to fund it. For fihe 4 County'to know if they can provide services at the time of development without the 5 reduction of services to others they neeri to plan ahead and this has not been done for this • 6 expansion of the UGA. . In Bremerton, et al., v. Kitsap County, CPSGMHB 95-3-0039c (FDO,, Oct. 6, 1995), 7 the Central Board determined that, 8 "[Although] the GMA does not designate a specific six-year period for Capital g Facilities Element planning, it is illogical, and contrary to one of the bedrock . purposes of the GMA - planning to manage future growth - to suggest that 10 the Capital Facilities Element's six-year financing plan can be, in whole or in 11 part, an historical report of capital facility financing for prior years." 12 The minimum six-year CFP is a living document. It is supposed to help cities and 13 ~ counties understand their current and future financial capabilities as they grow, how to pay 14 for that growth and, in some respects, how to_grow. They may find it is more cost-effective . . 15 to increase density within their present UGA to absorb their populafiion allocation, rather 16 than run expensive urilities into expanding territory. An up-to-date CFE is a tool that can do 17 this. 18 Spokane County has not updated its plans in anticipation of adopting Resolution: 2005-0365. ThE County believes that the services will be provided at the time a specific 19 development is proposed. That is certainly when they can be provided, but planning for . 20 those services has to take place much earlier. RCW 36.70A.070(3)(b). 21 "The purpose of the capital facilities element of a comprehensive plan is to see 22 what is available, determine what is going to be needed, figure out what that will cost, and determine how the expense will be paid." Achen v. Clark County 23 95-1-0067 (FDQ, Sept. 20, 1995). 24 Under Bremerfon/Port Gamble v. Kitsap County, CPSGMHB Case No. 95-3-0039c, 25 Order Dismissing Port Gamble at p. 41 (Sept. 8, 1997), the Central Board determined, : 26 Eas?em 4Vashingtun iGrwvtM A4anayoment Heaiings BQard ~ FINAL DECISION ANt7 pRDER • 15 W. YKkima Avenue, Sui;e 102 - Case 05-1-0004 Yakima, WA 98902 December 16, 2005 Phone: 509-574-6960 !'aye 9 Fax: 509-574-6964 4 1 "If a county designates a UGA that is to be served by a provider (other than 2 the county), the county should at least cite, reference or otherwise indicate where locational and financing information can be found that supports the 3 UGA designations and GMA duty to ensure that adequate public facilit:ies will be available within the area during the twenty-year planning period." 4 5 The County did not update its CFE (RCVI/ 36.70A.070(3), its utilities element (RCW g 36.70A.070(4), or its transportation element (36.70A.070(6) prior to adopting Resolution . 7 2005-0365. Considering the impacts this amendment will have to the citizens of Spokane 8 County, an update of these comprehensive plan elements was essential to good planning 9 required by the GMA. Conclusions: 10 The Board finds the Petitioners have carried their burden of proof and thafi the 11 County's actions are clearly erroneous. The County failed to adequately plan for capital 12 facilities, utilities and transportation within the land adopted by Resolufiion 05-057 and thus ' 13 did not comply with RCW 36.70A.070(3), (4) &(6). 14 Issue No. 2: 15 Did Spokane County abandon its own Statement of Principles within its Countywide . Planning Policies (as required by RCW 36.70A.210), for "Urban and Rural Character" by not 16 protectirig the rural character and avoiding the need for extensive government services and ' 17 facilities in the Palisades rural area by approving 04-CPA-1. Further, did Spokane County violate its Countywide Planning. Policy Topic 1(5) by not initiating an amendment to the 18 Urban Growth Area (UGA) and ]oint Planning Area (JPA) boundary to the Spokane County Steering Committee of Elected Officials for its review, analysis, consideration of the merifis - 19 of this UGA request, and consideration of public participation through a public hearing on 20 the need to amend the West Plains UGA/JPA? 21 The Parties' Position: 22 Petitioners: 23 The Petitioners believe that while meeting the letter of the GMA by establishing 24 countywide planning policies, the County ignores the intent by approving this amendment. The County is claimed to be dismantling the neighborhood's rural character. They contend 25 26 Eastem lVashington i Growth tutanagemeitit Hear(ngs Board FINP.L DECISION AND ORDER 15 W. Yakima Averwo, Su7to 102 Case 05-1-0004 Yakime, UVA 98902 Deoember 16,2005 ' Phone: 509-574-6960 Paye 10 Fax: 509•574•6964 . 1 the development will require numerous urban infrastructure services in a traditionally rural 2 neighbofiood. - 3 The Petitioners further believe the County ignored RCW'36.70A.210(3)(b)(O(h). ' 4 They believe that there is no record of the County reaching out to or providing opportunity . 5 for the Spokane County Steering Committee of Elected Officials to consider changing the 6 UGA boundary for this Comprehensive Plan amendment, or any analysis of the fiscal impacfi • to its planning partners. 7 The Petitioners' reply brief argues that the County ignores the Countywide Planning 8 Policies, (CPP) and contend the County violated its CPP Topic 1(5) by not sending this 9 amendment of the UGA and ]PA boundary to the Spokane County Steering Committee of 10 Elected Officials for its review, analysis, consideration of the merits of this request and 11 consideration of public participation through a public hearing. The Petitioners contend that 12 there is nothing in the record reflecting the involvement of the Steering Committee. . ~ f 13 Respondent Spokane County 14 The County contends that Policy Topic 2, which states that UGA proposals outside a city must be based on the jurisdiction's ability to provide urban governmental services at a 15 minimum level of services, is addressed in its response to Issue 1. Services are available or 16 will be available for any development, which will, occur in the added area. 17 Public Topic 8 is further addressed in issue 1. However, the Countywide Planning 18 Polices requirement for outreach to the Spokane County Steering Committee of Elected 19 Officials (Steering committee) needs to be addressed. The County claims the Petitioners' 20. argument is misplaced. 21 Policy 2 was amended affier the subject application was received and does not apply. 22 Policies 5 and 6, now numbered 4 and 5, were amended after the application and require . 23 the revisions to the existing UGA must go through the Steering Committee process. This 24 section was not in effect at the time of the application and was not required to be followed. 25 ! 26 Eastern Washington i~ • GrovrtN tvtanagement Hearings Board ~ FINAl. QECISION AND QRDER . 15 W. Yaklma Avenue, Svtte 102 Case U5-1-OUD4 ' Yakima, VdA 98902 December 16,2005 Pnone: 509-574-6880 - Page I 1 Fax: 509-574-6964 ~ 1 The County further contends that, while it must review and evaluate the UGA 2 boundaries every five years, there is nothing in the language to suggest that it may not be g amended annually like any other Comprehensive Plan amendment. • 4 Fnally, the County contends that the Petitioners' claim that there is no analysis of . 5 the fiscal impacts to the County's planning partners is false. They state that tfie claim does not reflect any requirement of rhe GMA, any CWPP or of any of the Goals and policies of the 6 Comprehensive Plan. They contend the statement is meaningless. They contend the County 7 did have interjurisdictional coordination. ° $ Board AnalMsis: 9 The Petitioners have not carried their burden of proof on this issue. If the County 10 amendment were found in compliance, this land would be within the UGA and would be 11 allowed to have urban growth. 12 While it is unclear, the Board need not find the County out of compliance on this _ / 13 issue for the County's failure to provide an opportunity for the Spokane County Steering _.l. 14 Committee of Elected Officials to -consider changing the UGA boundary by this amendment.. 15 The CPP requiremenfi for submittal for review to the Steering Committee came into effect af.ter the application was filed. The fact that when the application was received, the 16 Countywide, Planning Policy requiring submittal to the Steering Committee was not in affect, . 17 does not necessarily mean that tiie old policy prevails throughout the consideration. This is 18 a GMA amendment to the UGA. Whether policies existing at the fiime an application were 19 made for a Plan change remain in effect throughout the consideration of such an 20 amendment is not clear and we need not decide this issue at this time. It is hoped that 21 upon remand, the County will do as the GMA requires in RCW 36.70A.100 and 210 and 22 involve the representatives of the jurisdictions within the County and the established 23 Steering Committee. 24 Conclusion: 25 The Hearings Board need not determine the present effect of the Countywide Planning Policy requiring submission of such an amendment to the Steering Committee. The , 26 Eas.em YA+ashington ~ Grrnvlh bl3nagement Hearings Board FINAL DECI5ION AND ORDER 15 W. Yaldma Avenue, Sui~e 102 . Gase 05-1-0004 Yaklma, VJA 98962 December 16, 2005 Phone: 5U9-574-6900 Psge 12 Fax: 509-574-6964 i . 1 County has been found out of compliance in other areas. It is, however, important thafi fihe 2 members represented in the Sfieering Committee of Elected Officials be included in the 3 consideration of changes in a UGA border. The County is not found out of compliance on 4 this issue. ' Issue No. 3: • • • 5 Has Spokane County violated RCW 36.70A.100 by approving conversion of fihis rural 6 land to urban land, by altering the West Plains UGA-JPA to include this parcel only, and not . 7 coordinaGng this with the City of Spokane, the City of Airway Heights, Spokane International Airport, Fairchild Air Force Base, or other urban service providers in this area, 8 as evidenced by agency letters and a SEPA appeal by the City of Spokane, contained within , 9 the staff report, discouraging approval of this amendment? . 10 The Parties' Position: 11 Petitioners: • The Petitioners contend there is no record of County outreach or coordination with ~ 12 . 13 any other jurisdiction with which the Counry has "common boarders or related regional ~ issues" regarding 04-CPA-1. The SEPA appeal by the City of Spokane was rejected by the 14 County's Hearing Examiner. Further the Petitioners contend that-the County failed to 15 consider the objections of the representatives of the Fairchild Air Force Base, a Federal 16 facility. 17 Respondent: Spokane County 18 The County contends that it has engVed in intergovernmental coordination and 19 consisfiency with ofiher comprehensive plans pursuant to RCW 36.70A100. Twenty-five 20 agencies were notified of the amendment and were requested to provide comments. Many 21 agencies provided comments to the County. Ample notice was given to surrounding property owners and members of the public in general. 22 Board Analysis: 23 RCW 36.70A.100 requires the coordination of comprehensive plans and their 24 amendments with the plans adopted by other counties and cities that share common 25 borders. Here, the County shows that it has contacted 25 agencies and the surrounding 26 ' Eastem bVashlngton Growtli Managemeitit Hearfngs Board l` FINAL DECISION AND ORQER 15 W. Yaklma Avenuo, Sulte 102 Case 05-1-0004 Yaklma, LVA 88902 Decemner 16, 2005 Phone: W-574-6960 Page 13 Fex: 509-574-6964 , . . . , 1 property owners and interested public. The Petitioners have not carried their burden of 2 showing that the County has, in fact, failed to comply with RCW36.70A.100. Mere 3 statements of their failure to coordinate with other jurisdictions are not enough. 4 The County did not comply with RCW 36.70A.530, which requires the County to 5 protect the land surrounding our military installations from incompatible development. This statute also requires the County to notify the commander of the military installation of the 6 County's intent to amend its Comprehensive Plan or development regulations to address 7 lands adjacent to military installations to ensure those lands are protected from 8 incompatible development. While the statute provides that amendments adopted under that 9 section shall be adopted concurrent with the scheduled updates provided in RCW 10 36.70A.130, the statute could be infierpreted still as requiring counties to recognize the 11 State of Washington's priority to protect the land surrounding our military installations from 12 incompatible development. The language specifies that amendments to a plan or . ~ 13 regulations should not allow development in the vicinity of a military installation which are 14 incompatible with the installation's ability to carry out its mission requirements. The 15 representative of the military base objected to the location of the new urban development, . . but this did not change the County's action. 16 While we are surprised the County Commissioners ignored the legislative intenfi and 17 the priority of the State, this Board need not determine if the legislation could be 1$ interpreted as a current requirement of the GMA. This is true because we have otherwise 19 found the actions of the. County out of compliance. However, we would recommend that the 20 County honor tfie priority voiced by the Legislature and consider the objections of the 21 representatives of Fairchild Air Force Base. 22 Conclusion: 23 The Board does not find that the Counry is out of compliance in its failure to consult . 24 with local governments and its failure to consult with military base representatives and limit . 25 development incompatible with the installations'.ability to carry out its mission requirements. The Board does not need to determine whether certain provisions of RCW 26 F~stern iNdshinglon ~ Growth A4anagement Heartngs Board - ~ FINAL DECISION AND ORDER 15 W. Yakirtsa Avenue, Suite 102 ' Case 05-1-0904 Yakima, WA 98282 Deaember 16, 2aa5 Pfion=: 569-574-6960 Page 14 Fax. 5a9-574-6984 ! _ . 1 36.70A.530 need be implemenfied afi this time. The Resolution is remanded for other 2 reasons. . 3 Issue No. 4: 4 Did Spokane County violate RCW 36.70A.110(1)(2)(3)(4) and RCW 36.70A.130(1)(3) by approving urban growth in a distinctly rural character neighborhood, by failing to show 5 their work with a State 'of Washington Office of Financial Management population projection or by demonstrating support through a land quantity analysis report consistent with the s adopted Steering Committee land quantity methodology, to determine the appropriate 7 amount and location of additional land to add to County UGAs or JPAs, as established in fihe County Comprehensive Plan, Urban Reserve Areas (Policies RL.1.11 RL.1.12 RL.13(a)-(e), 8 Goal CF.S), enunciating analysis of capacity within iYs adopted Urban Reserve areas prior to approving urban development in long-standing rural areas; by approving urban growth 9 without provision for greenbelt and open space areas; by not coordinating this work with 10 other jurisdictions and agencies? 11 The Parties' Position: ~ 12 Petitioners: 13 The Pedtioners contend that the applicant submitted a population allacafiion 14 statement with tfie Comprehensive Plan amendment applications tivithout a land quantily ~ 15 analysis consistent with the methodology adopted by the Steering Committee of Elected . Of-ficials,. which determined the amount of vacant and partiatly used land to accommodate 16 the populations assigned to the West Plains UGA/JPA when adopted in 2001. The 17 petitioners contend there are no changes in the OFM projection for Spokane County's 20- 18 year planning horizon. The Petitioners further contend that the County did not show their 19 work through an updated land quantity analysis which would show the current inventory of 20 vacant and partially used land, along with the recent rate of land consumption and ' 21 population grotivth, to justify the need to include additional Low Density Residential land in 22 the West Plains UGAJJPA. 23 The Petitioners also point out that there are no provisions for greenbelt or open 24 space within the amendment application approved by the BOCC. There was also no letter of agreement to provide infrastructure utilities or services to this project at the time of 25 approval. 26 • ' Easiem Washington Grovrih hslanagemenf Hearings Board FINAL DECISION AND ORDER 15 W. Yakima Avenue, Suite 102 Casq 05-1-0064 Yakima, WA 98902 December 16, 2D05 r'hane: 509-574-6960 PaQe 15 Fax: 549-574-6964 r I t 1 The Petitioners cified Port Townsend v. Jefferson County, 94-2-0006 {FDO} 8-10-94) 2 where the County was found out of compliance with the GMA for inappropriately extending 3 an urban growth boundary, without first conducting an analysis of, and having available for 4 elected officials and members of the public, information on land capacity, fiscal impacts and 5 Capital Facilities Plans. The Petitioners contend that there is no evidence in the file or the Staff report on 04-CPA-1 that could be construed as a land quantity analysis, or an 6 assessment or citation of any OFM population projections. The Petitioners say that the 7 "Land. Quantity & Populatlon Allocation" cited by the County has no date and was not $ referred to in the Staff Report or in public deliberations on the amendment. 9 Further the Petitioners fault the inadequate population allocation statement 10 submitted with the amendment application. They contend this is inadequate and does not 11 justify the need to enlarge the UGA. 12 RespondentSpokane County: i 13 The County contends that the Petitioners bear fihe burden of proof in showing the .C 14 County did not comply with the GMA. TheY claim the Petitioners continue tossin9 out bald • 15 assertions without any arguments or reference fio the record to support their position. 16 However, the County cites that the applicants supplied additional data and gave additional ' justification for the increased need for housing in the West Plains area. The County further 17 states that there is no GMA requirement or CWPP requirement that the individual property 18 owner must adopl the exact methodology of fihe Steering Committee's land quantity 19 analysis when proposing an addition* to the UGA. The County was satisfied with the analysis 20 of the applicant. The County thought that the analysis was sufficient and to require more 21 would be difficult burden. . 22 The claimed lack of a greenbelt or open spaces is claimed to be unsupported. The 23 County contends that the Petitioners gave no rationale why the addition of this land to the 24 UGA will not have greenbelt or open space or whether any particular level of service will be . decreased. 25 26 Eastern 'Afashington ' GrB%vth Phanagomern Hsarirtgs Board _ l` FINAL DECISION AiJD ORDER • 15 tiN. Yaklma Avenue, Suite 102 Case 65-1-0004 Yakima, WA 98902 Docembcr 16, 2005 ' Phone: 509-574-6960 Page 16 Fax: 509-574-6964 1 The County does not understand the assertion that the Petitioners contend that there 2 is no agreement to provide infrastructure or service to the project. There is no analysis by 3 the Petitioners and it is difficult to respond. Services are available and this was addressed 4 in issue 1. 5 Board Analvsis: ' Spokane County is required to plan under RCW 36.70.040. As such, RCW 36.70A.110 6 • requires the County to designate an Urban Growth Area or Areas. Under RCW 7 36.70A.110(2), tfie County must "include areas and densities sufficient to permit fihe urban 8 growth that is projected to occur in the county or city for the succeeding twenty-year 9 period." The projected growth is "based upon the growth management population 10 projection made for the county by the Office of Financial Management" (OFM). "The Office 11 of Financial Management projection places a cap on the amount of land acounty may 12 allocate to UGAs" [Diehl v. Mason County, 94 Wn. App. 645, 654, 972 P.2d 543 (1999)]. 13 36.70A.110 provides in relevant part: f ~ Each county that is required or chooses to plan under RCW 36.70A.040 14 shall designate an urban growth area or areas within which urban growfih shall 15 be encouraged and outside of which growth can occur only if it is not urban in nature. Each city that is located in such a county shall be included within an 16 urban growth area. An urban growth area may include more than a single city. 17 An urban growth area may include territory that is located outside of a city only if such territory already is characterized by urban growth whetlier or not 18 the urban growth area includes a city, or is adjacent to territory already characterized by urban growth, or is a designated new fully contained 19 community as defined by RCW 36.70A.350. . 20 (2) Based upon the growth management population projection made for the 21 county by the office of financial management, the county and each city within the county shall include areas and densities sufficient to permit the urban 22 growth that is projected to occur in the county or city for the succeeding 23 tventy-year period, except for those urban growth areas contained tofially within a national historical reserve. Each urban growth area shall permit urban 24 densities and shall include greenbelt and open space areas. In the case of urban growth areas contained totally within a national historical reserve, the 25 city may restrict densities, intensities, and forms of urban growth as 26 Eastem UVaShinyton ~ . Growth Wlanagemsnt Hearings B.oard FINAI. AECISION AND OitDER 15 W. Ya;,clma Aventte, Suite 162 - Case 05-1-0004 Yakim3, VJA 98802 L7acsrnber,l6, 2005 Ahone; 5d9-574-6960 Page 17 Fex: 509-574-6964 1 determined to be necessary and appropriate to protect the physical, cultural, or historic integrity of the reserve. An urban growth area determination may , 2 include a reasonable land market supply factor and shall permit a range of 3 urban densities and uses. In determining this market factor, cides and . counties may consider local circumstances. Cities and counties have discretion 4 in their comprehensive plans to make many choices about accommodating 5 . growth. . 6 (3) Urban growth should be located first in areas already characterized by 7 urban growth that have adequate existing public facility and service capacities to serve such development, second in areas already characterized by urban g growth that will be setved adequately by a combination of both existing public facilities and services and any additional needed public facilities and services 9 that are provided by either public or private sources, and third in the 10 remaining portions of the urban growth areas. Urban growth may also be located in designated new fully contained communities as defined by RCW 11 36.70A.350. 12 (6) Each county shall include designabons of urban growth areas in its - ~ . 13 comprehensive plan. " 14 36.70A.210 provides in relevant part: 15 (1) The legislature recognizes-that counties are regional governments within 16 their boundaries, and cities are primary providers of urban governmental services within urban growth areas. For the purposes of tfiis section, a 17 "county-wide planning policy" is a written policy statement or statements used solely for establishing a countywide framework from which county and city- 18 comprehensive plans are developed and adopted pursuant to this chapter. 19 This framework shall ensure that city and county comprehensive plans are consistent as required in RCW 36.70A.100. 20 21 Nothing in this section shall be construed to alter the land-use powers of cities. 22 The sizing requirements and locational criteria in RCW 36.70A.110 apply to UGA 23 expansion as well as to tfie initial UGA designation. (Bremerton v. Ki[sap Counly, CPSGMHB, - 24 04-3-0009c, FDO August 9, 2004). RCW 36.70A.110(1) specifically contemplates that UGA 25 boundaries may expand over time to allow for additional urban development, and it . 26 Eastem 1hlashington Grrnvth hAanagement Hearings 8osrd FINAL DECISION AND ORDER 15 W. Yakima Avenve, Suite 102 Case 05-1-00Q4 Yakima, t^!A 88902 Oecember 16, 2005 Phons: 509-574-83v0 • ?age 13 Fax: 509-574-6834 ~ ` r' ~ 1 specifies the locational criteria that limit that expansion. A UGA may include an area not in a 2 city only if that area already is characterized by urban growth, is adjacent to an area 3 characterized by urban growth, or is a designated fully-contained community. See Ass'n of 4 Rura/Residents v. Kitsap County, CPSGMHB Case No. 93-3-0010, Final Decision and Order,. 5 {]une 3, 1994), at 48. A UGA must provide for suff`icient area and densities to accommodate the urban 6 growth that is projected for the succeeding 20-year period. RCW 36J0A.110(2). This 7 subsection specifically expects that UGA boundaries may expand over time as necessary to • $ meet population projections, imposing another limitation on their expansion. Counties must . 9 review, and if necessary, revise their UGAs at least every ten years to accommodate urban ' 10 growth projected for the succeeding 20 years. RCW 36.70A.130(3). A countywide land 11 capaciry analysis must accompany these statutorily mandated periodic revisions of UGAs. 12 Master BuildersAss'n v. Snohomish County, CPSGMHB Case No. 01-3-016, Final Decision ~ 13 and Order, (Dec. 13, 2001), at 9. . 14 An expansion of a*UGA is essentially a redesignation. Such expansion must be consistent with the requirements of RCW 36.70A.110. Changes in the size of UGAs must be 15 ' supported by land use capacity analysis and the County must "show its work:" "If UGAs are 16 . altered and challenged...this Board requires an accounting to support the alteration." Id, at 17 12. "The Board has been clear that Countiies must show fiheir work when a/tering UGA 1$ boundaries." Id., at 22 (emphasis in original). See: Kitsap Citizens, eta/. v. Kitsap County 19 (Kitsap Citizens), CPSGMHB Case No. 00-3- 0019c, Final Decision and Order, (May 29, . 20 2001), at 12-16; and Hensley(IV) v. Snohomish County, CPSGMHB Case No. 01-3-0004c, 21 Final Decision and Order, (Aug. 15, 2001), at 29-34. 22 When UGA expansions are made, the record must provide support for the actions the 23 jurisdiction has taken; otherwise the actions may have been determined to have been taken 24 in error - i.e., clearly erroneous. Accordingly, counties must "show their tivork" when a UGA is expanded. Kitsap Citizens, FDO, supra afi 12-16. To find that tfie record does not support 25 a County's action, does not amount fio "burden shifting." It is also extremely important, in 26 Easiem 1+Vastiingtan Growth hdenayement Hearings eoard ~ FINAL DECISION AND ORDER 15 W. Yakima Avenue, Stlte 102 Gase 05-1-0004 . Yak(ma, VVA 98902 DecEmber 16, 2005 Pfione; 509-574-69E0 , Page 19 Fax: 509574-6964 : 1 managing growth, for the public to understand the basis for legislative policy decisions and . 2 how they relate to the jurisdiction's gaals and policies as articulated in its adopted plans and 3 regulations. Even with the requirement that the County sho4v its work; the burden of proof 4 remains with Petitioners. 5 The land capacity analysis required in RCW 36.70A.110(1) and (2) is a vital 6 component of the work that must be shown. Director of the State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Deve%pment v. Snohomish County, (CTEO I), CPSGMHB 7 . Case No. 03-3-0017, Final Decision and Order, (Mar. 8, 2004), at 20-22. 8 ' The record before the Hearings Board clearly shows that the County did not perform 9 any land quantity analysis. Resolution No. 2005-0365 makes no mention of an analysis or 10 review of land quantity in its findings or decision. The County also conceded in the Hearing 11 on the Merits that the County did no land quantity review. The deyelopers/Intervenors ' 12 supplied the only analysis alleging a need for additaonal land within the UGA for Spokane. ( 13 This report was included in the Record without any verification of the claims contained ` 14 therein. This is not enough. , The County did nothing to verify whether or not the present UGA is sufficient for the 15 existing or fufiure population growth since it designated its original UGAs. The records 16 reflect only the unverified contentions of the developer that additional lands are needed. 17 The County did. not show their work and in fact does not claim to have done anything itself 18 to ascertain the need to expand the County's UGA. 19 Conclusion: 20 The Petitioners have carried their burden of proof and have shown that the acfions 21 of the County are clearly erroneous in its failure to perform a population and land quantity 22 analysis showing that an expansion of the UGA is needed. The record clearly reflects that 23 the County did not show its work, if any was performed. 24 Issue No. 5: Is the- County out of compliance with RCW 36.70A.070(1)(3) by not providing fior 25 protection of quality of domestic wells in the Palisades Neighborhood; by not updatirig its 26 Easlorn VJaslitngton . . Graivth Managemenl Hearfngs Baard - ~ f FINAL DECISION AND ORDER 15 W. Yakima Avenue, Suite 102 Case 05-1-0004 Yakima, lNA 88902 becember 16, 2005 Phone: 509-574-8960 Page 20 • Fax: 509574-6964 / " . ~ 1 Capital Facilities Plan and Capital Facilities Plan Element (Chapter 7) of its Comprehensive 2 Plan, nor demonstrating the ability to provide the development approved in 04-CPA-1 with adequate capacities for_ the requisite urban services consistent with adopted Levels of 3 Services in the Countywide Planning Policies, along with a financial plan that cleariy provides storm and sanitary sewer systems, domesfiic water systems, roadway upgrade and 4 maintenance services, flre and police protection services, public transit service, library, 5 school, and other public utilities associated with urban areas and normally not associated with rural areas as described in RCW 36.70A.030(19) and stated in the Spokane County g Comprehensive Plan (Goal UL.7 CF.3, Policies UL.7.1 UL.7.12)? 7 The Parties' Position: ' g Petitioners: g The Petitioners contend that the subject land is assigned a"High Suscepribility" 10 rating as part of the Wesfi Plains Critical Aquifer Recharge Area. They point out that the 11 County Storm Water Management Plan indicated "high groundwater levels, shallow depth to 12 bedrock and low permeability soils... not conductive to on-site infltration of storm water and can cause flooding and failed drainage facilities." The Petitioners contend that the . 13 C Comprehensive Plan policy RL1.13A provides that sensitive environmental features should 14 not'be included in Urban Reserve Areas outside Urban growth Areas. 15 The Petitioners contend that 280 to 480 homes and septic systems will endanger all 16 WeIIs down gradient to the site by septic seepage and cumulative storm wafier runoff, which 17 is contrary to RCW 36J0A.172. The vast majority of the homes in this area draw their 18 drinking water from the Grand Rounde-Wanapum Aquifers. 19 The County has not updated its County Capital Facilities Plan since fihe 2000 draft ' 20 and there was nothing on file as to the provision of services and financing of said services 21 for the development, including storm and sanitary sewer systems, domestic water systems, roadway upgrade and maintenance services, fire and police protection, etc. 22 In fiheir reply brief, the Petitioners reemphasize their contention that the source of 23 drinking water in the area is vital and the property is in the "High" Susceptibility area and 24 there were no geotechnical reports or indication oF sewer and storm water-runoff disposal ' 25 methods available from the file or County staff at the time of this appeal. . . . 26 Easkem INashington Grrnvlh Phanagement Hearings Board FINAL DEGSION AND ORDEF2 15 W. Yakima Avenue, SUIIe 162 - Cas9 05-1-0064 Yakima, V1.4 889d2 . December 16, 20Q5 Phone: 509•574-6960 Paqe 21 Fax: 509-574-6964 ~ 1 Intervenor: Greg and Kim Jeffreys, G.J.L.L.C and G.J. General Contractors 2 The Intervenors contend that the Petitioners fail to offer any agreement or evidence 3 related to the High Susceptibility rating and fail to meet the burden of proof. 4 Further, the properly is not in an Urban Reserve Area and the Petitioners are wrong 5 to assume that the project will use septic systems. The property is to be connected to 6 public sewer when developed. Therefore the claimed damage is unsupported. The Intervenors further contend that there is no development proposal before the 7 Hearings Board and the Board has no jurisdiction or authority to reyiew a specific 8 development proposal. The Intervenors contend that public services either are or will be 9 available when needed. They contend that the GMA does not require public facilities and 10 services to be available at the time of application. Impact and available services will be 11 reviewed at the time a specific development project is proposed for the property. 12 Board Analvsis: , ' 13 The Board has already addressed the Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) in Issue 1. _ 14 Conciusion: • 15 To the extent this issue is resolved in Issue 1, the question of compliance is . answered Yherein. To other issues raised in No. S, the Board does not find the County out of 16 compliance. 17 Issue No. 6: 1$ Is Spokane County committing a breach of RCW 36.70A.070(5.c.i-iv) by propagating 19 rather than controlling development within and adjacent to a traditionally rural area; by approving development density incompatible with existing rural conditions; by 20 inappropriately converting undeveloped land into urban residential development in the rural 21 neighborfiood; by not protecting a critical groundwater recharge area for domestic neighborhood wells designated as medium susceptibility in tfie County Critical Areas 22 Ordinance? . 23 . 24 25 26 - Eas4em UVash[ngton ~ Growth Ddanagement Mearings Board FINAL DECISION AOD ORDER 15 4V. Yaktma Avern.,e, Suite 102 Case 05-1-0004 Yakfma, WA 98902 Occembcr 16, 2005 Phone: 509-574-6960 • Page 22 Fax: 599-574-6964 1 The Parties' Position: . 2 Petitioners: , 3 The Petitioners contend that the County failed to protect fihe rural character of the 4 area surrounding the subject parcel of land. They contend it serves to spread growth in an 5 area without the requisite urban services and does so in a manner that will engender additional low-density sprawl as the development strives to recoup investment through 6 addibonal housing units. 7 ' . The Petitioners contend further that the County's action is negligent in protecting this 8 highly susceptible critical ground 4vater recharge area designated by the County. They 9 contend that once designated they must protect these areas. 10 In their reply brief, the Petitioners cite But/er v. Lewis County, WWGMHB 97-2-0027c ~ 11 (FDO 6-30-00) as holding that "the County may not determine that avater quality and 12 quantity issues will be resolved in the permit process." Intervenor: Greg and Kim Jeffreys, G.J.L.L.C and G.J. General Contractors ~13 14 The Intervenors contend that the Petitioners' statements are conclusory and only 15 their opinion. The Pefiitioners claim the County failed to protect groundwater. Yet, the Intervenors claim, no evidence is cited by Petitioners to support their conclusions. 16 Residential development is not even a regulated activity in a High Susceptibility rated area. 17 Petitioners are claimed to fail to offer any argument or evidence related to the High 18 . Susceptibility rated areas. . 19 The Intervenors contend that the Petitioners failed to provide briefing concerning fihe 20 alleged breach of RCW 36.70A.070, by inappropriately converting undeveloped land into 21 urban residential development in the rural neighborhood. 22 Board Analysis: 23 The County will be required to complete a current CFP for fihis area. Within that Plan 24 will be a discussion of the ability to provide the needed services to this area. The claimed failure of the County to protect critical areas and the provision of services will be considered ~ 25 _ i26 Easfem 1h'ashington ~ Gro►vih PAanagement Hearings 8oard FINAL DEC1510N AND ORf7ER 15 VL Yakima Avenue, Suife 102 Case 45-1-0004 Ya3tima, UVA 98902 December 16, 2005 Phone: 509-574-6960 Page 23 Fax: 54iJ-574-6964 ~ 1 at that time. The key reason for the preparation of a CFP is to insure that sewer, water, 2 police, etc. services are available or will be available for the UGA. See Issue 1. • 3 Conclusion: . 4 To the extent this issue is resolved in Issue 1, the question of compliance is 5 answered therein. To other issues raised in No. 6, the Board does not find the County out of 6 compliance. Issue No. 7: 7 Did the Board of County Commissioners, as representatives of Spokane County, 8 disregard RCW 36.70A.035 and its own adopted Public Participation Program BOCC Resolution 1998-0144) for public by neglecting to notify affected jurisdictions and agencies 9 of its hearing on 04-CPA-1 on April 25, 2005. Further, after rejecting the unanimous 10 decision of denial of 04-CPA-1 by the Spokane County Planning Commission, did the County Commissioners Spokane County fail to provide notification of its public hearing, make it 11 known to the public on its website; in press releases or public service announcements, as hard copies available for public review in County Libraries, as a display advertisement in the 12 local newspaper of circulation, or hold a public meeting at a facility within close proximity of 13 the area affected by 04-CPA-1 to inform or involve Palisades citizens in the decision making process as stated in its Public Participation Program? Did Spokane County further fail the 14 Palisades Neighborhood and other concerned citizens by atypically holding the hearing in the middle of a workday? 15 • 16 The Parties' Position: 17 Petitioners: 18 The Petitioners contend the County has not complied with the Public Participation Program of the County and the requirements of the GMA. The Petitioners point out that the 19 County published one legal notice in the Spokesman Review. There was nothing on the 20 County's website, libraries or other places indicating notification of this action. 21 The Spokane County Planning Commission unanimously rejecfied the application and . 22 the County failed to provide notification to the public or have a public meeting to inform or 23 involve Palisades citizens in the decision making process as required by its own Public 24 Participation Program. The Petitioners again cite Butler v. Lewis CountyLsupra, as stating 25 "the public participation goals and requirements of the GMA impose a duty on a local 26 • Eastern Washington , ° Grovrtli Mlanagoment Moarings Board - 1 FhNAL DECISIQP! AND ORDER 15 W. Yakima kvenue, Sulte 102 Case 05-1-0004 Yakima, WA 389U2 D€cembor 16, 2005 P"none: 508-574-6954 Page 24 Fax: 508-574-01J&L . . . 1 governmenfi to provide effective notice and early and continuous public participation." The 2 Petitioners contend that there was no notice of the Planning Commission hearing on fihe 3 amendment or the County Commissioners hearing where they reversed the unanimous 4 planning Commission decision and approved the amendment. They contend that there is no 5 record of public notification. None were claimed to be held in the Palisades neighborhood. . 6 Intervenor: Greg and Kim ]effreys, G.7.L.L.C and G.J. General Contractors The Intervenors contend that the Petitioners failed to carry their burden of proof. ' 7 There was basically no briefing of the GMA, Counfiy regulations or case law. It is merely an $ expression of their opinion and dissatisfaction that the County declined to accept the 9 recommendation of the Planning Commission. This is not required by the GMA. 10 The Intervenors poinfi out that the Planning Commission was not unanimous, it was a 11 recommendation formed by only 3 members of a 7-member board. . 12 The Public Participation Plan (PPP) of Spokane County was complied with according 13 to the Intervenors. They listed the numerous public participation opportunities available and 14 not menfiioned by the Petitioners. The .Intervenors contend that there was clearly sufficient - 15 notice of the Amendment and opporfiunity to comment. The Intervenors contend fihafi the Petitioners failed to brief a portion of the issue, the 16 holding of the hearings in the middle of a workday. They believe that this was abandoned. 17 Board Analvsis: 18 The County has a compliant Public Participation Program (PPP) and is required fio 19 follow it. The Petitioners have not shown where the County failed to comply with their own 20 PPP. In fact, the Petitioners admit that the Planning Commission had adequate public 21 participafiion and complain that there was inadequate public participation before the County 22 Commissioners. This objection is understandable where the County Commissioners did not 23 follow the recommendations of the Planning Commission. However, public participation 24 includes both thafi before the Commission and the County Commissioners. The Petitioners have failed to carry their burden of proof. They have failed to show where the County failed 25 to follow its own PPP. . _ i 26 Eastem V-lasliington ~ Grrnvtfi hAanagement 1-Eearings Baard FINAI. DECISION AND ORDER 95 W. Yakima Avenue, Sulte 102 Case 05-1-0004 Yakima, WA 98902 December 16, 2005 t'tione: 509-574-6960 Page 25 Fax: 509-574-6964 ~ . 1 Conciusion: 2 The County is not found out of compliance on this issue. 3 4 Issue No, 8: . 5 By approving 04-CPA-01, has Spokane County violated RCW 36.70A.547 for incompatible uses near Spokane International Airport (SIA) and its flight path and Accident g Potential Zone `B'-(APZ-B) illustrated in SIA's master plan for an additional runway, which crosses a portion of the amendment site as depicted on the public hearing notice map? 7 Further, has Spokane County violated its own Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies (air 8 Transportation T.3g, T.3g1 - T.3g6) which discourages new residential development near airports and by having ignored SIA comment letters discouraging 04-CPA-01, as included in - g the stafF report and County Planning Commission recommendation of denial? 10 The Parties' Position: . 11 Petitioners: 12 The Petitioners contend that RCW 36.70.547, General aviation airports - Siting of - r' 13 incompatible uses, requires the distouragement of siting of incompatible uses adjacent to such general aviation airport. The Comprehensive Plan and development regulations may 14 15 only be adopted or amended after formal consultation with: Airport owners and managers, ' private airport operators, general aviation pilots, ports, and the aviation division of the 16 department of transportation. The proposed and adopted plans and regulations shall be 17 filed with the aviation division within a reasonable time after release for public comment. 18 The Petitioners contend that the County did not do this. 19 Intervenor`. Greg and Kim Jeffreys, G.J.L.L.C and G.J. General Contractors 20 The Intervenors contend that the Pefiitioners failed to meet their burden of proof on 21 Issue 8. They contend that the Petitioners spent their entire argument for this issue to a 22 verbatim restatement oF RCW 36.70A.547. However, the County is claimed to have 23 addressed any impacts to the Spokane International Airport (SIA). The Airport manager sent a memo, which states, "...with the exception of a small corner of the parcel,. the area in 24 • . question is outside fihe airport's APZB for the proposed runway." It was recommended by ' 25 SIA that a notice be sent to homebuyers that the homes are in areas within proximity of the 26 Eas4em Washington GrrnvIn rAanagoment Mearings Board • ~ FINAL DECISION M'D ORDER 15 4V_ Yaklma Avenue, Suite 102 • Case 05-1-0004 Yaklma, 'P/A 93902 December 16, 2005 Phone: 5Q9-574-6960 PaQe 2b Fax: 509-5746964 ! , 1 airport and the associated noise of aircraft. The Znfiervenors contend that the retord clearly 2 demonstrates that any impacts associated with the Airport have been addressed. 3 The Intervenors further contend thafi the Petitioners abandoned part of the issue by 4 failing to brief it. This portion of the issue was dealing with the discouragement of new 5 residential development near airports. Board Analvsis: 6 The GNiA was amended in 1996, to recognize the inherent social and economic . 7 benefits of aviation and require thafi land use planning include consideration of general 8 aviation airports. RCW 36.70A.510 provides: 9 Adoption and amendment of comprehensive plan provisions and development 10 regulations under this chapter affecting general aviation airports-are subject to RCW 36.70.547. 11 12 RCW 3670.547 provides as follows: 13 Every county, city, and town I which there is located a general aviation airport t.' . that is operated for the beneFit of the general public,... shall, through its , 14 comprehensive plan and development regulations, discourage the siting of incompatible uses adjacent to such general aviation airport. Such plans and 15 regulations may only be adopted after formal consultation with: airport 16 owners and managers, private airport operafiors, general aviation pilots, ports, and the Aviation Division of the Department of Transportafiion. All proposed 17 and adopted plans and regulations shall be filed with the aviation division of 18 the department of transportation within a reasonable time after release for public consideration and comment.... (emphasis added). 19 20 It is contended that the County notified the Spokane International Airport of the 21 subject application and received a letter back, which is part of the Record. That letter made 22 some suggestions regarding the handling of the development regarding the noise level. The County further stated that a letter was sent to the Department of Transportation, when 23 asked if the Aviation Division of the DOT was contacted. The Record does not reflect other . 24 formal consultation with fihe Airport or the Aviation Division. The Record also reflects 25 representatives of the developer meeting with a Spokane International Airport - , . 26 Eas#em SVash3ngtnn r Grrrwih hdanagement Hearings Board l, FIN,AL DECISIflN AND ORqER SS W. Yskima Avenuo, Sulte 102 Case 05-1-0004 Yakima, WA 989a2 December 16, 2005 , Phone: 509-574-6960 Page 27 Fax: 505-574-6554 ' 1 representative, together with a County planning stafF. This is not enough. The Statute 2 above requires formal consultation with airport owners and managers, operators, pilots and 3 the Aviation Division of DOT. This was not done. The limited contact did reflect that the 4 change in designation would affect a general aviation airport. The record clearly shows that 5 the Petitioners carried their burden of proof and that the actions of the County are clearly 6 erroneous in this portion of Issue 8. Conclusion: ' 7 . . The Petitioners have carried their burden of proof and shown that the actions of the 8 County were clearly erroneous due to their failure to formally consult with the airport 9 owners, managers, operators, pilots and Aviation Division of DOT as required under 10 RC1N36.70.547. 11 V. FINDINGS OF FACT 12 1. Spokane County is a county located East of the crest of the Cascade (r.. 13 Mountains and is required Co plan pursuant to RCW 36.70A.040. ` 14 Z• Petitioners are citizens of Spokane County that participated in the 15 adoption of Resolution No. 2005-0365 in writing and through . . testimony. 16 3. The County adopted Resolution No. 2005-0365 on April 25, 2005. 17 4. Petitioners filed their pefiition herein on Resolution No. 2005-0365 on 18 June 24, 2005. ' 19 5. Spokane County enlarged its Urban Growth Area (UGA) in proximity to 20 the Spokane International Airport, a general aviation airport, and 21 Fairchild Air Force Base, a military airport. 22 6. The amendment enlarging the UGA was done without the County 23 performing a land quantity analysis or verifying the one prepared by , 24 the Intervenor, the potential developer'of this property. 7. 25 Spokane County Board of County Commissioners included no findings of fact or conclusions in Resolution No. 2005-0365 referencing an . 26 Ea&Eem Washington ' i Grrnvth h6anagement Hearings 9oard ' 1 FINAL QrCISION APJ'D ORDER 15 W. Yakima Avenue, Suite 142 Case 05-1-0004 Ya?cime,lNA 98902 December 16, 2005 Phane: 509-574-6960 Page 23 Fa)c 509-574-6954 , . 1 analysis or review of land quantity supporting such expansion of the 2 UGA. 3 8. The County did not have formal consultation with airport owners and 4 management, general aviation pilots, and the aviation division of the 5 depar-tment of transportation. 6 9. The present Capital Facilities Plan was based on a 2006 population countywide of 459,929. (Spokane County Capital Facilities Plan). There 7 • is nothing in the record reflecting an increase in the population of $ Spokane County higher than that planed for when sizing the original 9 UGA. 10 10. Notices of the application to change fihe designation of the subject 11 properry were sent to the Spokane International Airport, the 12 Department of Transportation and Fairchild Air force Base. 13 14 VI. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 15 i. This Board has jurisdiction over tiie parties to this action. 2. This Board has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action. 16 3. Petitioners have standing to raise the issues listed in the Prehearing 17 Order. 18 4. The Petition for Review in this case was timely filed. 19 S. Spokane County is required to update its Gapital Facilities Plan before a 20 UGA is created or modiFed to include additional lands not covered by 21 the previous CFP. 22 6. Spokane County is required to have formal consultation with airport 23 owners and managers, private airport operators, general aviation pilots, 24 and the aviation division of the department of transportation, prior to 25 adoption or amendment of the Comprehensive Plan or its regulations affecting such airports. 26 @astem VJashington Grovrth h/~anagemenE Hearfngs Bqard C FIYAL DECIStON AND Of2DER 15 W. Yakft»a Avenue, Suife 102 Caso 05-1-0004 Yakima,lVA 98902 December 16, 20Q5 Phone: 509•574-8960 Page 29 Fax: 5M574-6964 ~ . 1 7. Spokane County is required to perform a land and population analysis 2 prior to an enlargement of a UGA within the county. 3 4 VII. ORDER 5 1. The County is found out of compliance on Issue 1 due to its failure to 6 review and amend the existing Capital Facilities Plan prior to the expansion of the UGA, which extends into areas not covered by the . . 7 existing CFP. . 8 2. Spokane County is found out of compliance on Issue 4 because the 9 actions of the County are clearly erroneous in the County's failure to 10 perform a population and land quantity analysis showing that an 11 expansion of the UGA is needed. The record cleariy demonstrates the . 12 County did not show its work, if any was performed. 13 3. The County is out of compliance on Issue 8 and the Petitioners have ' 14 carried their burden of proof and shown that the actions of the County were clearly erroneous due to its failure to formally consult with the 15 airport owners, managers, operators, pilots and Aviation Division of 16 DOT as required under RCW36.70.547. 17 4. To the extent that the Counry has been- found out of compliance on 18 issue 1, Spokane County is found out of compliance on Issues 5 and 6. 19 5. Spokane County must take the appropriate legislative action to bring 20 itselF into compliance with this Order by March 16, 2006, 90 days 21 from the date issued. The following schedule for compliance, briefing 22 and hearing shall apply: 23 Compliance Due March 16, 2006 , 24 Statement of Action Taken to March 30, 2006 , Comply (County to file and serve on - 25 all parties) . 26 Eastem Washingtan , . Growih Managem2nt Neadngs Board FINAL OECISIaN AND ORDER 15 1M YakimA Avenue, Suite 102 Case 05-1-0004 'fskima, VJA 98902 December 16, 2005 Phone: 549-574-6960 • Page 30 Fax: 509-574-6964 ( ' 1 Petitioners' Objections to a Finding April 13, 2006 2 of Compliance Due County's Response Due. April 27, 2006 3 Petitioners' Optional Reply Brief Due May 4, 2006 4 Telephonic Compliance Hearing. May 9, 2006, 10:00 a.m. 5 Parties will call: 360-709-4803 followed by 524313 and the # g sign. Ports are reserved for Ms. McHugh, Ms. Castleberry, Ms. . .7 Mager, Mr. Rollins, and Ms. 8 Bjordahl 9 If the County takes legislative compliance actions prior fio the date set forth in this 10 prder, it may file a motion with the Board requesting an adjustment to this compliance . 11 schedule. 12 . fr_J 13 Pursuant to RCW 36J0A.300 this is a fnal order of the Board. 14 Reconsideration: Pursuant to WAC 242-02-832, you have ten (10) days from the mailing of this Order to file a petition for reconsideration. Petitions for 15 reconsideration shall follow the format set out in WAC 242-02-832. The original and four (4) copies of the petition for reconsideration, together with any 16 argument in support thereof, should be filed by mailing, faxing or delivering the 17 document directly to the Board, with a copy to all other parties of reoord and their representatives. Filino means actual receipt of the document at the Board . 18 office. RCW 34.05.010(6), WAC 242-02-330. The filing of a petition for 19 reconsideration is not a prerequisite for fling a petition for judicial review. 20 7udicial Review: Any party aggrieved by a final decision of the Board may appeal the decision to superior court as provided by RCW 36.70A.300(5). Proceedings 21 for judicial review may be instituted by filing a petition in superior court according to the procedures specified in chapter 34.05 RCW, Part V, Judicial 22 Review and Civil. ' 23 Enforcement: The petition for judicial review of this Order shall be filed with the 24 appropriate court and served on the Board, the Office of the Attorney General, and all parties within thirty days after service of the final order, as provided in 25 RCW 34.05.542. Service on the Board may be accomplished in person or by mail. 26 . Eastem Washington ~ Grrnvth PAanagement Meartngs Board FfNAL DECISION AND ORDER 15 W, Yakima Avenue, Suite 102 Case 05-1-0004 Yakima, VJA 98902 Qeoeml)er 16, 2005 Phane: 509-574-6960 , Page 31 Fax: 509574-6964 ~ - . . , 1 Service on the Board means actual receiDt of the document at the Board office 2 within thirty days after service of the fnal order. 3 Service: This Order was served on you the day it was deposited in the United 4 States mail. RCW 34.05.010(19) 5 SO ORDERED this 16th day of December 2005. . 6 EASTERN WASHINGTON GROWTH MANAGEMENT 7 HEARING5 BOARD 8 g Dennis Dellwo, Board Member 10 11 ]ohn Roskelley, Board Member ' 12 - 13 Judy Wall, Board Member 14 15 . 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 • Eastem Washington / frowth A-lanagement Heartngs 13oard FINAL DEC1510N AND ORDER 15 W. Yakima Avenu=, 5uite 102 Casa 05-1-0004 Yatdma, VJA 98902 DeGembor 16, 26Q5 Phone: 563-5746980 Page 32 Fax; 509-5746964 ' SNo. 6 0083 . BEFORE TffE B0ARD OF COUiNTY COiMMISSIONERS OF SPOK.ANF COLNI"I', WASH.Il,,7GT0\T h-4 THE -MATTER OF AINNDT~IG ) . T.HE COMPIZ:E;l=ILNSIVE PLAN RFGARDIN'G THE URBAN GROVVTH ) ARE.A DESIGiNATION ADJACENT ) D E C I S I O N TO THE CITY OF Sl'OKANE XND ) COMMONLY RE-r~ERRED TO A.S ) "NVEST PLA1`uS/TH0.R.PE" ) MIST'ER CI3A.IRNIAN: Tociay is the date that the Board of County Commissioners has set to render its, Decision in - conjwiction with that area c;ommonly known as "VVest PlainsJThnrpe". 'rhat area is currently designateci as an "LTrbart Growth ArealJoint Planning ArE;a" of Spokane Couniy: In the Settlement Aareement execu[ed hy the Board on Juiy 29, 2003, under Resnlution io. 3-0710, thc Board ageeci to hold public hearing(s) its tn whether ar not the "West Plains/i`horpe" area should be dcsignated as "Spokaiie County - City of Spokane Urban Growth Arca/Joint Planning Area". After carefully considering lhe record submittecl to the Board at the Board's 2001 public , hearing(s), Uie J7nuary 20, 2004, puhlic liearuig ancl ihe December 20, 2005, puUlic heariiig, I ffEREBY M0VG to designate that area eeferred to as thc West Plains/Thorpe UGAIJPA as a Spokane Coimty - City of SpokanE Urban Growth Area/Joint Planning tlrea (UGA/JPA) comprising approximalely 11,$80 acres wilh the exception of that area contiguous lo the City of Airway IIcights on either side of State Highway 2, apProximating 641 acres whieh is identified in the attached map oF the area. The excepted area will retain its designation as a Spokane County Urban Growth A.realJouit P13auiing Area. I believe it is important to noce that the Count}wide Planning Policie-s t•equirc that deference be givett to the continued viability of the Haiechild ,4ir Porce Base, the Spokane [nternational Airport, and other smaller airports in the County. Accorcling[y, my motion also requires that a notation be made on the finiil map regarding the NVese Plains.rl'horpe Spokane County - City of . Spnkane Urban Gro«ql1 rlrea/Jaint Plwuung Area (UGA/JYA), that land use activities on the property owned by the Spokane hiternational Ai.rports is subject to the Tnterlocal Agreement beriveen Spokane Cpunty and the City of Spokane rcgarding the operation of the airport, the A.irport Master Plan, and the applicablc statutes ancl regulations relating to airports. ( Page 1 pf 2 This motion is not only based on the record, but also the Plar►ning Goals set fnrth in the Growth iManagement Act and the County Wide Planning Policies. GATA Planning Goal Number 11 requires the County to ensure coordination between communities and jurisdictions and to reconcile con.flices. Count}wide Flanning Policy No. 2 aciopts this ,oal in recognition of the Gounty's obligation to pravide for ` joint county and city planninp witbin urban gmNvth areas." • The record before tre Board indicates that the City of Airway Heialits desires to participate in the planning of that area which is not includeci in the Spokane County-Cily of Spokane Urban . . Growth ArealJoint Planning Arca. The City of Spokane urgcs the County to ignore the desires of - the City oFAinvay Hcights witli respect to this area wtvch is adjacent to Airway Heights' boundary. The Ciiy argues that the County is committed to include this area with tbe Spokane County-City of Spok3ne iJrban Growth tlrea/Joinl Planning Area under the Settlement Ac.,~eement. Although the Board is niindful of the City of Spokane's desire, it must he guided by the policies in the Growth Management Act and Cotmtyvvide Planling Polices in. making its decisions. Vloreover the Settlement acknowleciges the Board is responsible to holcl a public hearing on ttvs area and consider all pubfic testimony such as that submittcd by Airway H.eights. In making khis decision, the Board is not determini.ng that the exempt area is aSpokane County-City of Airway Heigllts Urban Gi-owth Area/Jnint Planning Area. 'I'he Board cannnt make that designation.• Instead, the area will retain its status as a Spokanc County Urban Growth Area/Joint Planning Area. As such the City of Airway Heights can petition the Steering Committee , and make a case to include this area witlun its Urban GroNvth Area or. a Spokane County-City of Airway Heights Urban GrUwth Area/Joint Planning A.rea I would request that legal staf.f preparc Findings of Fact, Conctusions of Law and Decision)(7 reflecting this motion to be presented to the Board at a subseq«ent public meekinb. DATCri this, ,~~day o . _ 2006. • BOARp OF COUNTY COM:lVIISSIONERS p4 Gp~,u~lr OF SPOKANE COUN'1TY, WA.SIUNGTON o s~o ' : • T M1EL , air o. . ATTEST: ~17 AZ~ J. NLf►.1Ce-C 1~'al'F • DAIVIELA ERICKS01 D. HARRIS, Commissioner Clerk ofthe Rnani bvi4h d-n ctaded r~ol-e ~ha1-4hr's c~ecr5-Go~ does hpf scc'yyes~ Ae a,rea -~o be D~~s~ha~e~- a_s ~dr~ Spo,~ane C'ou~f~ C,:fy Glr6r~,~ Crow~h At-vW Planhi~y 4r,-a shvu/d. he arr.ezeo( fv fGie Pabe 2 uf 2 C; /-y of S'~,~a~e .~ln) exa~, on 1s an e/o de dec'ded 6y r~ vote o~' Ae ~ e,9p/&, No. 6 00~84 . L, . F COIJi~'T'I`Y COvivIISSIONERS BEF(7RE THE BOARD O OF SPqKANE COUNTY, WASH]NGTON IN THE iNATTER OF AbIFNDTNG "1'IIE COv1FREHENSNF PT AN ) . R.ECARDiNG THE URBAN G.R.OWTH ) - A1ZEA DESIGNATTON AJJJACEN'I' ) D E CIS I O N TO T'HE C1I`Y OF SPOKEINE AND ) COMMQNLY REFERRE17 TO AS ) "7ORTH METRO" ) NIIS'1'ER CHAMZAN: Today is the date that the Board of County Commissioners has also set to rcnder its • Decision iu conjunction with tlaat aeca commonly knovvil as "North Metro": That area is curresltly designated as an "lJrban (irowih Area" of Spokane County. , tu the Settlcment Ageeement execiatcd by tiie Board on July 29, 2003, under Resolation No. 3-0710, the 13oard agreed to hold public hearing(s) as to whether or not any portion of the "NQrih Metro" Area should be designated as "Spokaue County - City of Spokane Urban Gro«4h Area/Joint I'lanning Area". tlfier carefWly consiclering the record submittul to the 13oard at the Board's 2001 public . hearing(s), the January 20, 2004, public hearing and the December 20, 2005, public hearing, I HFREBY iV14VE to designate a portion of the area referred to as lhe iNarth Mctro UGA that lies ea.st of State Highway 2(New•port X I.ighway), comPrising approximately 1,443 acres, whicl-area is identified iLi dhe attaclled map as the Spokanc County - City of Spoi:ane vorth Metro Urban Growth Area/Joint Planning Area (UGA/JPA). The remainder of [hc North Metto Area will retain its dcsignation as thc Spokanc County North Metro Urbau GroN;'th A.rea: This metion is not only based on the record, but also the Growth Management Act and ihe County Wide Pliuming PolieiE:s. GNtA provides that each city that is lacated in a cotulty shall Ue iucluded within an urban ;ro~~rth area. GNIA also recognizes tliat ati urbati gcowth area may include territory.that is located outsicie of a city only if such territory already is characterizetl by urban o owth or is adjacent tn territory already characterized by urbaii growth. 'fhe Cauntywicle plannicig policies recognize GMt1 and furthcr recognize the tuuque circiunstances of Spokane Coant,y. Speeifically, the Counly%vide Planni.ng Pol.icies acknowledge that Urban Growth Areas may be established. . Page t of 3 . irldependent of incorporated areas. In such areas, urban govemmental services maybc providecl by ' other than cities. The Countyvvide Planni.ng Policics Further set forEh the criteria which the Board must use i~~ . establishing Urban Growth Areas. They include the following: (1) The deterniination and proposal on an Urban Growth Area outside existing incorporated limits shali be based on a jurisdiction's ability to provicie urban ' govemmental services at the minimum level Af service specifiod by the Steering Connnittee (2) The municipality tnust doctunent that iu-ban governmenlal services will be provided within its existing city lirnits priar to the designation of an Urban Grnw[h Area outside of existing city limits. To propose an Urban Growth Area designation outsicle of their existing city limits, municipalities must provide a full range of urban governmenlal services based on the municipality's capitai facifities element of its comprehensive plan. 7'he Recorci before the $oard supports designating a portion of the hiorth Metro area ' describect above to be a Spokane County - City o.f Spokane Urban Growth ArenlJoint Planning Area (UGA/JF'A). The City of Spokane is desigaatM as the primary provider of public sewcr scrvice in this area. Public water scrvice in this area is provided by a number of separate public ' water purveyors. Desigmation of this area will not have an impact on adopted levels of se[vices. Ideniifcation o£ the area as a Spokane Caunty - City of Spokane ~TOrth Metrn UGAl31'A recognizes the recently adopted Greater Morgan Acres Sub-area Plan and iniplementing zoncs. The Record before the Board does not support desigmating the remainder of the Nor[h Metro Area, mqst of wtuch lies west of State Higltway 2, as a Spokane County - City of SPokane Urban Growih Area/Joint Plancung Area. Accardingly, it shall retai.n its current designation as the Spokane County-vorth Metro Urban Crowth Area. Ttie record indicates that Spokane Courity aiid acher public service purveyors cuiYently provide the full range urban services in much of this area and have the capacity to provicie urban services in the euti.re area. This area is almost totally outside of the City of Spokane sewer scrvice area boundary. It is served by multip(e water purveyors. A.lthougi the Comprehensive Plan and Capital Facilities Plctn of the City of Spokane refc,-rence this area it does not substantiate that the City has the ability to provide andJor m~untain ' adoptul levels of service in that area. hi designating a pnrtion of the North Metro Area as a Spokane County - City of Spokanc Urban Growth Area/roint Planning tlrea, the Board is not suggesting that this area should be annexed Co the City. The Boarcl's decision also does not imply or assume that the populalion allocation assigned to this area has been re-allocated to the City of Spokane. Such a re-allocatiou . would require formal action by the Steering Committee of EIECCcd Officials and Bflard of Cotmty Commissioners, pursuant to the Coiuitywicle Planning Policies. 1'Age 2 'of 3 , 1 would request that Iegal staff prepare T'indings of Fact, Conclusions of L,axv and Decision refleeting this motion to bc presentecl to tlie Board at a subsequent public meeting. nATFD tttis`j_Z.-T 2~day o. 1,~ 2006. BOARll O.F COUNTY COMMTSS.[ONERS Ok SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHING'X'ON : UY co tius:ssi ' . ATT~ST: AkR1C1hQ r-D--V~c-chair , ' • . DA.N]ELA ERiCKSON IiARRIS, Conunissianer Clerk of the Bvard . ~J . I ~ l Page 3 of 3 CITY UF SkOKAiNE, VAI.,LLY CUSTOMER SLRVTCL PR4G1:tAM Our goal is to deliver service that is complete, consistent, and equitable to all olir customers, and is based on the principles nf intcgrity, rESpect, and responsiveuess. Regardless af ehe rEason for, or the method or frequency of cpntact; our customers will be treated with coiirtesy, respece, and pr.ofessionalism. 1. .Ideneify UiLr Customers - Ouur customeis are nnt just ihose NNrho live or do business here, or with whom we have peisonal contacl. Our customcrs, ulclude auy inclividual, group, or entiq, impacted by or interacting Nvith the City of Spokane Valley. Fach has . interests and concerns ttiat may be shared by otliers ar may be unic{ue to him/her. Among others, ottr customers are: a. Direct - those with whom we havc contact of any kind. b. Ynciirect - those who as•e impacted by us but witti whoin "rc have no Personal COn1aCt. c. Lxternal - residents, business operators and their employees, prospective investors, visitors, civic institutions, community organ_izations, and other local, regional; state and tederal agencics. d. lnternal - GUUncil Niembers and staf-f. 1I. Taefine Customer Service a. Build on the hvo existin4 documents atliculatc a cc►nimon detinition of customer scrvice: i. CiCStoiuer Care 101: 12 Steps ui the Rigfit Direction ii. Attributes of CustUmer-friendly Government b. Cr.eate an interdenartmental teain of emnlovzes from all levels to discuss and dcfine internal customcr ser-vicc. '[he tuam should review the draifi Custai7ier Sea-vice Ouiline aild infiise it -vvith the=l=tcam's own ideas., c.Enlist einplnyee assistance in estabiishing benclunarks for customer service standarcis such as response time, successful resolution, and follow up. ~ Gd. Set goals for custoIIier service relating to i•esponse time, success.ful resolution, and fallow up. i. R.ecogniie that di f:ferent customer sets mav have comnetin2 an&or conflictina vercentaons of ttic servicE received. ii. Standard for service will bc differenC based on the custoincr set. iTI. Coiiicnunicate 4ur Goals and Standarcis a. Incorporate into jnb deseriptions. • b. Include in new cmplo}°ee arieutations. e. Include custamer scrvice tips in etnployee newsletter. d. Viake ctzstpmer serviee perforinance a factor in employee evahiations. e. Planned_ . ; ~ Ctrstomcr Service Proeram Pae.e l of3 i. -Incoroorate customer service stanciards on website so customers know the level of service thev should expecl•. . fi i. P&+r-inuEl-1'ost customer service stanclarcis at point oFservice. IV. Assessment and Improvement - Assessing our st,•engths, opportunities for improvement aiici icientifying barriers to delivering gaoci eustomer service is eonstant. a. Maintain existing areas of high quality customer service. b. Identi£y anci devclop area.s needing improvement. i. Survey employees to identify opportunities to improve customer service. c. Eliminate or minimize ban-iers: Rccoiznize that customer service, is not just about attitude. It is also about comnetent emnlovees and cf_fective vroc•esscs.- i. Providc resources supporting high quality custonier service. Recent e:camnles- includeing: 1. Statc F-nviroiuilental Policy Act (SFPA) trairung. 2. PLiJS systEm (permit database) trai_ning. 3. Fublic recorcis request training. 4. FverSafc Driver training. , 5. ".k3reakthrough Conflict and HardNviruig Teamwork" training. 6. Itidividualizecl software training. ii. Planned:- -T.-Communications trninine in 1•bistening and nNonverbal communication. 1. 9-2.Phuuied-Media traiiuug. 9-.iii. Cross-traini~ng between positions that can Eacilitate delivery of good customer Service. iv. Ongoing~- 1. Foster a aualitv worlcina environt-nent. 2. Staffinp-. J. racilities. 44-A. 9fteiAg-;quipment/supplies. ii-v. ReN~ise processesi or-policies and reeulations to °•~'~~~s-~€ s"nsi.ire tliev are clear and conr.ise. Reccnt examoles includeiRg: 1. I7evelopment proccss and fees restruchiring. 2. Sign ordinance notification and exlension. • 3. Binding Site Plan procESS evaluation/improvement. ~ ~~vi. Assess and improve delivery systems such as: 1. Website improvements/updates. . 2. Planuecl - review/revise/create customcr information. 3. Automated telephone messages. d. Oblain custoiner feedback. i. Formally: 1. Conduct periodic statistically significant surveys with the commtuuty. 2. Provide service questionnaires at point of service. I Customer Serviec Proeram l'aize 2 of 3 3. Use online or mailed surveys or feedback forms. ~ 4. Follaw up on contacts to gct feeciback on customer service performance. - • ' S. 1'rack public comment at city meetings for anecclotal informatipn, i i. Iuformal l y: . 1. Track customer seivice comments in: a. T etters sent to City. b. T etters to meciia editors or eciitorial eomment-ary. . c. General meclia coverage. c. Convcrsations with thc public. e. Reinforce success by recognizing and replieating successful transactions and relationships. i. Share positive feedback and customer service success stories in eiuployee newslctter. . ii. Ask ernplpyees to recognize and encourage tlleir coworkers for providing good custamer service. . iii. Providc other opportunities f.or asscssrnent of our customer servicc performance by employees. - f. Mpdify service as appropriate bv seekuia anct -incorporating and-seek~sg innovations. Shau-e modiiications witli lhc uublic and ~vith olher cusiumcrs. , ~ Custamer Service Proerarn Pam 3 oE3 CS 1Tlp6kane ~ ~ l ..;oOValley - Annual Work Plan for 2006 , Operations & Administrative Services Public Woxks Police Parks & Recreation Community Development 2006 Budget Goals T'he 2006 budget reflects the distribution of resources cunsistent with the Council's detErmination of corc 5crvices priorities. 1 he foU<>wing goals represent just the very broad areas of concentralion important to thE well beulg of the community. llraft a well-defined Street Master Plan, with Fundine OnNdns., that identifies the current condition of city skreets and reeommcnds appropriate improvements and maintenance that preserve the value and strvctural integrity of the local transportation system. Initiate the First Phase of the Sprazue Corridor Revitalization Planning betweeil Uiuversity and the freeway by contracting with a c4nsultant to design a strategy that would strengthen the economic viability t>f the corridor. Cantinue Monitorine Significant Wastewater Issues includulg governance of wastewater facilities, enhanced citizen awareness of options for the future anci pursu.it of the most efficient and ecnnomical use of allowed vvastewater discharge:s. Maintain a Strong Emvhasis on internal and External Communication utilizing the Public Informatinn Of.fice.r and department head positions to enhance the- quality, timeliness and acCuracy of ulternal dialog-ue and khe information proviaed to citizens about city issues, initiativeS and work plans. Explore the Available Telecommunications Tnfr.astructure that may be accessed Uy public institutions, rESidents and businesses within Spokane ValIey. 2 Fstruct a wctl-dcfiacd Strcct Mstxter P4ct, with Fundint ()ptioaa, that idcntifics the current c:onditian y qtreL~.s und recommrndti ~pmprintc impmve.•ments and muinlenancc that presen,e the ~~aluc and ural integrity of the Icxal transFx►riation system. Public Works - Tasks and Timeline: - Hire Cortsuttant Review Stree! Conditlons Develop Projects and Estimete Coats Fviabill~ity e Firat P6~ of the SarxLue Corridor Revitalwation Pisnninc tx:twecn tlniversity and thc y contracting w7th a consultnnt to design a strategy that would strengthen the economic f thc corridor. Commu nity Development - Tasks and Timeline: Secure COnsultaM Servlces Cammuniry Invdvement O"ign Alternativea I Phasin9 Plam I - Inthate Implementation - ' Finandng Prefemed Altemanve _ 3 ~ ('oatinue Monitorina Si,gtiGcant Waut mater lsspes including bovcrnanc:r of wagtcwaicr facilities, enhanced citi•rxn awFUetess of nptions for the future and pursuit of' ttu most ef'ficient and economical use of allawed wastewater discharges. Public Works - Tasks and Timeline: 1 ~ u ps cipa e wi mw enb es and is$u9s. I Maiwtain a Strone Empha.Ria an lntccnal and External Commuaicstion utilicing the Public Infarmation Officer tv►d drpartment head pc~sitions ta enhnncc the qunlity, timCiiness and ar.curacy af internal dialobue and Lhe information provided tn citi~~eng ak~aut city issues, initiatives and woric p lans. Operatians and Administrative Services Tasks and Timeline: Q 1 QE 0206 0306 W 06 .hn Frb Msr Apr May lun 1W Aup Sep Oct Nov l7rc IZ8 I O ~O Gte3 OfT118 U G R ~'R18tn O I and Procedures I Revise Wetisite eve op im ment s an a s Ci ublicatians 8 use of Ci o eve op dy ews etter or pu ic ~ distribution I ~ I 4 Cornmuei.ity C7eveTogment Tasks and Timeline: ontinue up trng u aing PLUSf PRISM s $temI_ I of flla IFZ-e cotarijwnatpDn wl~ire, ater D'l~1f~~p, SR!~D 8 ~'~~1k~.-rpaiB in ProfessionaC and trade I o(ani4a4ions1s m os+:a alwoi' ; 4vtlh lOGdI jUPi of3:3 1o ■ dt~v^Iop uniform stattd n " f9LePac'1FVe Ing - thrauh ~~'~)M' - u ~ p ~riil Iarmallon €rn vVe6site, update vreekiy . . ■I EWlorc tbe A3railable Tclecommunicalions lnl'mstructure Ihnl may he acc:~~ ~y public institutiom. rtsid~nu anrJ husinesses wilhin Spakane Vallev- . !~pt-rations anci Admiftis#.rative Servires '[°asks and TimeCine: rove~ sjjppor# on Gc~unci - dofeLCIvoS nCl~~~l~pl~~~it ~ Ca~y9eil r~. ~~r~ni s~lus & ~}'~0s 15e1 wrt 4c With area+r,rride ~gencWs re' curr~snt s~#u _s & neecis Ea~io~~ r~glonal netwark capabilities ~ I'olice Tasls and Timeline. , Eslablish, desMgrt ~nd impfement a mulfi-year rraul#a-}urisdietMorta9 pian khat addresse5 a regional partner5hip for a total communica4MC+ns i nFrastruclure bulld-ou4 Analyze currenl and proje0ed mrndors. for best use o{ wireless communicalFOna for rnobile daRe cornpulers (MDCs) and oiher r.camput$r-rekated connrraLnicatlons. 5 Citywide Objectives Promoting the Key City Value of Excellent Customer Service Citywide - Tasks and Tirneline: Finalize Customef Senr►oe Program I a►►d implement 1 st year objectivea Conduct employee Customer Serwce Trairnng, tocusing on commun{cation ~ and teamworlc Croaee sn intetdepertmental team to: 1 Develop a remmmended IMemal ouslomer servloe standard; and Flesh out the components af the draR Cuatomer Serwce Proprsm I Operations & Administrative Services - Tasks and Timeline: Create and insUtute a Qusrterty customer servict tEport to describe rotated acdvitEas and deckslons Streamline business rogiatration appUcatlons Police - 'Casks and Timeline: Nurturc and enhance commwnity volurneerism artd Invotvemeni In prograrts auch as SCOPE, Neighborfiood Wehch, Reserves, Cadets, etc. Increese oppartunNies for appllcable empbyee ca►eer development withfn the egency. 0 Promoting the Key City Value of Excellent Customer Service - coit't Community Development - Tasks and'Timeline: - ~ ~ - - Eliminate intemal bottlenecks in clevelopment revlew processes Provide advance noticx to oontractors 01 updates in Code requiremetits Conduct quarterly survey to ideM~r areas fnr improvemerit Business Plans Initiative Citywide Taska and Timeline: Rese$rch madels and aeate Departmerttal lemptate Perform demand analYsls end work d[stributwn analysis on the buifding pemnit - ceMer tor departrnent's ptsn DepaMteMs draR busfness plans ba6e0 - on foreseeebk operatfonal needs Identffy periannance Mandsrds and measures for Cfty butiness fundions Preaent draR Business Plan tn Cfry _ Coundl Inoorporete finandtl "mnparta ot BuBiness plan Irtito draA straReglc fhwcial plan end 2007 Budyet fot teAew Finsl¢e City 8wlness Plan I 7 Deparfment Objectiv~s Op~.=ratians & Administaativ~.~ Services . va ua e an revi&e uman sUSaUrGLfts Up" XeAFn4w employee ssLated . proceases DevaTup p4srtican necruitment checklist it co rp~a~t~ustorner n~nuaf e~lua~~or~s e~+rea6~ ' dii~iio!~ w+elopnnenfi° aslons for emD9c~vL-es , EvaRuate regional anirnal CaOntrai plan wormadize rnanagect compeit;tG~n pragram and denlrFy ~teps ta use in a'll aer►rdce deoartrnents Continue to negotlate cabCe iranchise Final~~e dra#t pn4ces & proe~8durgs Create gudeElnes for implementatidn ~ s!abksh arder trme Ifar ~~ch Departrrren#`s convers1on - ~ ~ Public Wvrks ~~v~r,~a ~+x-y~ar ~rs7?wa~r ~i~i 1rry~f+~F[►E'rq RL~+ 10~1%t!' & ra=rrnt~nd t1eer OrCiOCtl I irrnft sv yeaer putn ( 9Dr~~w sW+~ k 1~ i5ig ArWr"e I - - UM%IC+' RaGom and InBtAli raw awnlmkrs I Cane,a tfaunlnp suy r►ew =lrollare Mmlwhw"k tllctenp pws m b m~~++ir+an~ I ~ I a~li+n~u~a p E:d I~I~ I ~ f I Ex! sw~pinf~ ~I ~ ~ Efid VaCh,4+r pArhM'~7~~"r"~3gf Tm~9~Q7f1&F~~flnn W~~~ uI Fie~ttivr~y5 .I iOgrllity A f[~:flo!'IPYT&hfi i!3ew pnf,d[, IPua'ie hnanN an drg p4t" I 5aa§t Councli sPprravel ad plun I N ~ ~ &h„it STP.~~~ ~ ~groM ,amjOfti ■ 1~ captraH valMny c:orrldflc - Envku+,rs%WMnlMI _ I Aisesvmn1 arnt WeqmIrsat+F enZ.neamq I Pine~elM#kf unlarsackn - desstit ~ R€)W o;qua4ft;on, uryn&hXkan - I ~ vom rwt" -deggn a umsDuebm ~ E3"% Ri3 - dcwQ+s & Co+76GUdort ~ d I VvI'ada* 34#tglhFi ¢moF pmBO ' . B3IrkaT Rd. Urltlpa -17e"n ~ alopmon lulirg 1ehahllflal4m -1 to fiwa a ro 5Fagse Ave ~arwer Ra w+dtmnW - Oac~ Ave do I Spa7gAm Ftlm - Aeelr_ RC4'V s~ast~u4yK5[1 { C. dFf i~5te wwew RfOfra - cunsb?cliQn ~ P~arks Rd swM pro,sd - MmIrUOlo, rW-x'A-a--I"i-XW r A - ~ t1~J"alis7 I kpanno. ua ery - rx'i+a►►a ALe y Are oveday .T ss F2d Qo Selfkvnn Rd - eaonmtumlJDn t,Venray Awe FkarmeErtrckn - ~ ~ TooiirioY Ad 1lo 40dp+d8 d~RCDW& arta(n,,cLiars ~ Foiiee ~ . Address l~sues surrounding curren# j,ail avetanwding and other cdm'rnal justice needS a17d M171pacts, Continue #o Wner with schoo1s, businesses artd other c.onnmunity en1ities tq address gurts., drugs and gangs , Establish arld evafute a pilot new hire tpatnirrg program 1hat is based arourrd the concepl oi problem-solwfng ~ aamimunity oriented pvlicing ~statrlish a cGmmiltee to desigr~ and finalize khe implemenlation and u5e of a new departrnent uniforrn patch that frls in wilh lhe poli~ ~epattrrrenk - cjommunity ideniifiy Contirrue to discuss Iong-rerrn police serrtlces cantrac# options _ I l~~ Parks & Recreation Parks & Recreation Master Plan Council adoption ~ tlevelop and implement 1 st year prfoMles ~ Park land acqursition Identify potential sites Council deliberatbns _ NegotiationsJpurcfiass ~ Renovate and Repair Parks KBCOnstnaciloNrepair ot Mirabeau Overlook Patk signage replacerttent Browns Paric Renovatbn ~ Pool ConatructioNRenovations Resolve operatiens issues ~ Determine locatlon _ Select archilect _ Public review ~ Preliminary ptan Cotmcil de!iberehons ~ Final plan ~ Sslect Conttactor Construction ~ Evaluate use of okd Senior Center budding II Community Development I - - - Complste Comprehensive Plan Finalize draR and pubUc hearings p ate ore une anagement Pro ram omp ete ity ni rm eve amen - - Code c e u e permiE R uses and definitions ntegrate nwsance enfarcemenf#or - ROW in Code Comptianoe Zonirig Regulations Administrative Regulabons SuDdtvisfon reguladons Design Standards -Rezantng acfions of m-plemenMe ' Com rehensive Plan ' Camp{ete Nazard Mitigation Plan azer en ca on vu neraBiity analysis ~ Caordinatkon o} Plan partnerships Complete Plan draR Public pardc:ipation I I l~ i