Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2006, 09-12 Regular Meeting
fl AGENDA SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING Council Meeting !#100 Turo.ilac, Sepictnber 12. 2006 6..00 p.m. CITY HALL AT REDWOOD PI-AZA 11707 East Sprague Avenue, First Floor Council Requests All Electronic Devices he Turner] Off During Cuuncil'~Tecting CAI.t. TO ORDER: ]INVOCATION: Pastor Dave Smith, Living Water Community Church PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: ROLi, CALL: APPROVAL. OF AGENDA.- iNTRODUC-110N OF SPECIAL GUt_*S_1 S AND PRESENTATIONS: CO; IMITTEE, BOARD. LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS: MAYOR'S REPORT: Prrcxlamatlon: Alcoha and Drug,4ddkilon Rrrmerv .ifonrir PUBLIC CONIME:NTS: Cxccpt Nvhere indicated below for "public comment" this is an opportunity for the public to speak an any topic. When you come to the podium, please state your name and address for the record and limit remarks to three minutes. 1. CONSENT AGENDA: Consists of items considered routine which are approved as a group. A Counciimcmbcr may remove an item from the Consent Agenda to be considered separately. a. Following claim vouchers: VOUCHER LIST DATE VOUCHER #s , TOTAL VOUCHER ;WO_CJK~' 08-17-06 9764 • $<10.00~ I. 08-17-06 97660 $9,750.00 09-05-ft 98-10-9,914 S2,082,3218.43 09-05-06 9915-9927 $1,3_78,673.40 GRAND TOTAL $3,474,7.91.83 rctnuvcd from Council's 9-05-06 Consent Agenda) h. Payroll for Period Ending August 31, 2006: S?29,644.25 c. Minutes of August 31, 2006 Special Fxecuti%v Session Meeting d. Minutes of September S, 2006, Special Council Meeting NEW BUSINESS 2" reading Ordinance 06-020 Comprehensive Plan Amendment - Mike C Onnelly [public commentl I' Reading, Ordinance 06-021 Salary Commission - Mike Contrclly (public comment) .1. Motion Comideration: Spokane Regional Transportation Council 2006 Call for Projects - Steve Worley/Neil Kcrsten ]public comment) 5. Motion Consideration: Community Trade and Economic Development Regional Collaboration Grant - Scott Kuhm (public commentl 6. MaNoril Appointment- hiblic Tran;portatwn lulprovemem (`c-?ilrrcncc 4tn~l r Wilhite (public comment) PUBLIC CU111MENT's h:..ccpt whcrc indicated ahw c fOr "public comment" ttrt; is an Oppo!tunity f,_•r the puhlic to speak on any topic. When you corm., to th-- pI rliiini. [)1C+f~l ,rite `:alit ni!oic dlill iddrvss tvr the r-ccord and limit remarks to three minwc';, ADMINISTRATIVE REIIORTI~: 7. Peace Pole - Mike Jackso n K Old Senior Center- h~ikc ~:i . li 9. Annexation Goals & Politic, - `ll►rr" Sueup Mike Council'. 10. Zoning: 3.5 - UR7' SituatianslOptioni - Marina Sukup/ f r., t nnrl{ , INFORMATIONS ONLY: I I 1 .-lffic t)r>icn ;rl nl r.ltsu_nr-, - \`11 ,L:!1 1-1 - 1 *1 R1. SCIIE 1 I J. Regular Council ttitr<'Ifl7ti~ are ;;:'!II',:11li' lic(.!_'t1il:11t.1 4 Il1C)li~tl'). lli'~:1I!!t!!t" i:t 0;111J~I,11l. C(l{(nCil Stad}' SrssllUrrS Ql[gtnrrul/y /l.'Itl P', ~ ult.! ~t/r T11--)tlu; !'c•(nntrr;; at h: fttllr.nt. Otlter Trtrtathy Upcominp Ateetines/Evenft: Wcdncsday, Scptcnibcr 13, 2006, Commuriit} u '!i: ii;>ii f. r.:~l+i l)-1u. ~~:C,l} ~•.nl DeII Meeting Place & Banquet Room, 1050.1 L• Sprague Avenue i 10! Thursday. September 14, 2006, Joint Council"Planning Commission tie- -il'rt i s :~i ; ;tt•;:._ t trl ' Subarrut, 6.00 pan. - 9.00 p.m- City Hall, Council Chamber; Wodnesdav,October 4, 2006. Corwer;shim %vith the (-ornmmnity. o- 7 h lP `.11iC.li!~11:1 :11 11: C:. (ltii._11, Church Sancn!.lrv N011M Wn'tdlttils plannin4 *Ix t:;'lul : ,i;:. i! .il' l' ^l C ti; .l f. '^,t!;UtlurC 1'i S SIC`I, CIII~, 11 a;ii C1 i impaitnmit% picax wnu :l Ulc Icy Cla k al (509)921- LOW as s x~tr as passible so that to '=Ii;rlncnb may be made I S C'''•'o p Kane Valle - (PROCLA3A2ION Akohof and Drug Adfiiction Wfcovery Wonth C1gT 0 ' STOYA,E VALLET, ` ,4S7 797 G2'ON WHEREAS, Substance abuse in Washington State is an ongoing challenge to the economic and physical health and weUiire of our communities; and WHEREAS, Every day, men, women.. and youth enter into treatment for substance abuse. while families seek hope and recovery in support programs offered through community resources and counseling; and WHEREAS, Treatment and recovery programs help thousandv of individuals to get their lives back through restored health and productivity which in turn helps our young people succeed in school, provides children with capable and caringparents, and returns valued mernbers.of*society back to their communities; and WHEREAS, 717e key to eroding social stigmas about addiction is to: first, recognize addiction as an illness; second, to treat people who are struggling with addiction, in recovery, or at riskfor alcohol and other drug problem.%, with respect and dignity; and third, to educate others about illnesses such cis addiction to create better understanding and avenues for support; and 0 WHEREAS, Acknowledging National Alcohol and.Drug Addiction Recovery .month offers those involved in substance abuse treatment and prevention an opportunity to educate the public, community organizations, public officials, and civic leaders about the impact of alcohol and other drugs on our community and the hope of recovery; and WHEREAS, The U.S. Department of Health and.khiman Services, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's Center for Substance Abuse Treatment and the Office of National Drug Control Policy have proclaimed September 2006 as National Alcohol and Drug Addiction Recovery Month: NOW, THEREFORE, 1, Diana Wilhite, Mayor of the City of Spokane Valley, on behalf of the citizens of Spokane Valley do hereby proclaim the month of September 2006, as ALCOHOL AND DRUG ADDICTION RECO VER Y MONTH in the City of Spokane Valley and urge citizens to join me in promoting the benefits of drug and alcohol addiction treatment and recovery. I, Diana Wilhite, Mayor of, jpokane Valley, do hereunto set my hand and cause the seal of the City of Spokane Valley to be affixed this 30`k dory ofAugust in 2006. f w&. Diana Wilhite Mayor CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: 09-05-06 City Manager Sign-off: Item: Check all that apply: x consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Approval of the Following Vouchers: BACKGROUND: VOUCHER LIST DATE VOUCHER #s TOTAL, VOUCI=I:ER AMOUNT 08-17-06 9764 * $40.00 08-17-06 9766 * $9,750.00 09-05-06 9870-9914 $2,082,328.43 09-05-06 9915-9927 $1,378,673.40 GRAND TOTAL $3,470,791.83 RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Approve claims for vouchers as listed above. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: STAFF CONTACT: Jason Faulkner ATTACHMENTS Voucher Lists vchlist Voucher List / 2 Page: 08/17/2006 11:45:07AM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Descrip0on/Account Amount 9755 811712006 000101 000101 CDWG (Continued) Total: 1,875.02 9756 8/17/2006 000863 CENTURY WEST ENGINEERING CORP. 023208 40976 CENTURY WEST TRANS. PLANNIN- 3,429.51 Total : 3,429.51 9757 8117/2006 000379 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY 081606 PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 63.80 Total : 63.80 9758 811712006 000109 COFFEE SYSTEMS INC 42755 COFFEE & TEA SUPPLIES 150.99 Total : 150.99 9759 8/17/2006 000606 COLUMBIA FIBER SOLUTIONS 081706 CUSTOMER ID# 3856 119.46 Total : 119.46 9760 8/17/2006 000235 DATA BASE SECURE RECORDS DES. 8995 CUSTID 200336 60.00 Total : 60.00 9761 8117/2006 000686 DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING 081706 LICENSE #0036449 100.00 Total ; 100.00 9762 8/17/2006 000693 DEPT OF INFORMATION SERVICES, ST/ 2006070229 CUST ID E870-0 183.53 Total : 183.53 9763 8/17/2006 000246 EAST SPOKANE WATER DIST#1 081506 2051000 1,251.27 Total : 1,251.27 9764 8117/2006 000999 EASTERN WASHINGTON ATTORNEY, SE 12444 SUMMONS & COMPLAIN'' 40.00 Total : 40.00 9765 8/17/2006 000010 FEDEX KINKO'S OFFICE SERVICES 289700001946 SUPPLIES 38.02 289700001947 SUPPLIES 4.34 Total : 42.36 9766 8/17/2006 001113 FLOORMART 081506 SENIOR CENTER FLOORING 9,750.00 Total : 9,750.00 9767 8/1712006 000839 GENERAL FIRE EQUIP. CO. 18821 41212 ANNUAL FIRE ALARM SERVICE 342.09 77310 41212 MISC. SERVICES 151.23 Page: 2 vchlist Voucher List 09/0512006 9:27:42AM Page: 1 Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 9870 8131/2006 000924 ELLER CORPORATION 7131/06 41026 BARKER ROAD IMPROVEMENTS 274,923.29 Total : 274,923.29 9872 9/5/2006 001072 3V PLUMBING 083005-10 DATE 811108 2,136.21 Total : 2,136.21 9873 9/5/2006 000921 A TO Z RENTALS 56263 CENTERPLACE CHAIR RENTAL 127.71 41129 56693 CHAIR RENTAL 170.28 67595 41239 SERVICE FOR A TO Z RENTALS 24.33 Total : 322.32 '9874 9/5/2006 001081 ALSCO Ispo63121 SERVICES FROM ALSCO 49.18 Total : 49.18 9875 9/5/2006 001012 ASSOCIATED BUSINESS SYSTEMS 101702 COLOR AND BLACK & WHITE COPT 1,382.69 Total : 1,382.69 9876 915/2006 000030 AVISTA UTILITIES 083006-8 SERVICES FROM AVISTA UTILITES 6,203.04 Total : 6,203.04 9877 9/5/2006 000918 BLUE RIBBON LINEN SUPPLY, INC. 8746516 LINENS CENTERPLACE 243.26 s0030993 DELIVERY SERVICE FOR CENTERf 34.47 Total : 277.73 9878 9/5/2006 000109 COFFEE SYSTEMS INC 43117 COFFEE-ORDER-8129106 154.75 Total : 154.75 9879 9/5/2006 000508 CONOCOPHILLIPS FLEET 8701667255608 . ACCT. NUMBER 87016-6725 FUEL 2,617.41 Total : 2,617.41 9880 9/5/2006 000326 CONSOLIDATED IRRIGATION DIST, #19 083006-3 WATER SERVICES FOR CENTERPI 381.50 Total : 381.50 9881 9/5/2006 000035 CORPORATE EXPRESS 72269370 41226 CUSTOMER NUMBER 13058354 421.85 Total : 421.85 Page: 1 vchlist Voucher List Page: 2 0910512006 9:27:42AM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 9882 9/5/2006 000152 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION re-313-atb60815054 CUSTOMER 710914710 7,102.79 re-313-at560815065 CUSTOMER #710914170 11,488.58 Total : 18,591.37 9883 9/5/2006 000059 DEVLEMING, MICHAEL 083106 REIMBURSEMENT FOR TRAVEL 106.68 Total : 106.68 9884 9/512006 000912 DEX MEDIA WEST 083006-5 SERVICES THROUGH DEX 90.47 Total : 90.47 9885 9/5/2006 000246 EAST SPOKANE WATER DIST #1 083006-1 WATER SERVICE FOR EDGECLIFF 9,072.09 Total : 9,072.09 9886 91512006 000028 FARMERS & MERCHANTS BANK 1225 CC FOR SUE GOLMAN 851.82 1829 CC PAYMENT FOR GEN. CARD 2,447.76 1852 BILLING DATE 8/14106 1,328.10 Total : 4,627.68 9887 9/5/2006 000002 H & H BUSINESS SYSTEMS INC. 148681 EXCESS COPY CHARGES 378.73 Total : 378.73 9888 91512006 001112 HARRINGTON INDUSTRIAL PLASTICS 02128210 41250 QUOTE # 0009-06 VACTORING DISI 2,0511.46 Total : 2,051.46 9889 9/5/2006 000313 INLAND ASPHALT COMPANY INC. 41109 0019 BROADWAY AVE. CONSTRUC 190,556.88 Total : 190,556.88 9890 91512006 001131 J.M. COOK CONSTRUCTION 09106-1 PERMIT REFUND 50.00 Total : 50.00 9891 915/2006 000117 JOURNAL NEWS PUBLISHING INC. 28038 NOTICE OF BID WITHDRAWAL 26.60 28042 NOTICE OF NO MEETING 25.00 28043 DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFI( 66.75 28044 DETERMINATION OF NON-SIGNIFI( 80.00 45488 CUSTOMER ID SVCIT117 80.00 45629 CUSTOMER ID. SVCIT117 80.00 Total : 338.35 Page: 2 vchlist Voucner List Page: 3 0910512006 9:27:42AM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date' Vendor' Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 9892 9/5/2006 000864 JUB ENGINEERS, INC. 0040587 41269 JUB TRAFFIC ENGINEERING SERV 4,790.48 0040588 41269 SPOKANE VALLEY/ADDL FLASHER 4,515.02 0040837 41166 SPOKANE VALLEY CITY/STREET M 139,396.06 Total : 148,701.56 9893 9/5/2006 000069 MERCIER, DAVID 083106-2 AUTO ALLOWANCE 400,00 Total : 400.00 9894 9/5/2006 001130 MOTION PICTURE LICENSING CORP 12387910 MPLC LICENSE - 445.00 Total : 445.00 9895 9/5/2006 000062 MUNSON, RICHARD 083006-9 REIMBURSEMENT 175.33 Total : 175.33 9896 9/512006 001035 NETWORK DESIGN & MANAGEMENT 14197 AUGUST SERVICES 2,455.00 Total : 2,455.00 9897 91512006 000193 NORTHWEST CHRISTIAN SCHOOL INC 083106-1 AUGUST 2006 RENT 2,083.33 Tota1 : 2,083.33 9898 9/5/2006 000121 NORTHWEST MAILING, INC 36631 SUPPLIES:POSTAGE MACHINE FOI 204.01 Total : 204.01 9899 915/2006 000469 NORTHWEST PLAYGROUND EQUIP INC 27558 41216 SERVICES FOR NORTHWEST PLA` 32,849.57 Total: 32, 849.57 9900 9/5/2006. 000512 OFFICETEAM 16556061 _ SERVICES FOR CHARREL SANABF 660.00 16573245 SERVICES FOR KIMBERLY WILLIAt 660.00 Total : 1,320.00 9901 9/5/2006 000119 PIP PRINTING INC. 1330035099 SERVICES FROM PIP PRINTING 147.88 1330035120 TITLE PLATES 104.01 1330035149 SERVICES FOR PIP PRINTING 35.66 Tota 1 : 287.55 9902 9/5/2006 000494 PRO PEOPLE STAFFING SERV INC. 15,496 SERVICES BY PRO PEOPLE 1,110.78 15,686 SERVICES BY PRO PEOPLE 1,116.00 Page: 3 vchlist Voucher List Page: 4 09/0512006 9:27:42AM Spokane Valley eQs 1-t~v ~ 3 R c: 2u N „ t t~~r.1 u~C~ Ct G j oucv Bank code: apbank g17k-pSD Me, ID l"7 titT11~~ ~~L°~ SVCCE~S:ft) P ~ &A W i~Crl V~! t ~l'VI Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 9902 9/5/2006 000494 000494 PRO PEOPLE STAFFING SERV INC. (Continued) . Total : 2,226.78 9903 9/5/2006 000019 PURRFECT LOGOS, INC. 16881 BUSINESS HOURS FOR COURTHO 45.61 Total : 45.61 9904 9/5/2006 000322 QWEST 083006-4 SERVICES THROUGH QWEST 42.94 083006-6 SERVICES THROUGH QWEST 96.76 Total : 139.70 9905 9/5/2006 000709 SENSKE LAWN & TREE CARE INC. 1482647 SERVICES FOR N. 2626 DIESOVER 48,822.92 1482648 SERVICE AT CENTENNIAL TRAIL 1,900.50 1783670 SERVICES FOR N. 2626 DISCOVER 73.31 Tota 1 : 50,796.73 9906 9/5/2006 000726 SHUR KLEEN SERVICES, INC. 65356 SERVICE AT CENTERPLACE 360.00 ' Total : 360.00 9907 915/2006 000189 SILVERWOOD THEME PARK INC. 16976 41063 SERVICES FOR SILVERWOOD 949.85 Total : 949.85 9908 9/5/2006 000001 SPOKANE COUNTY TREASURER 083006-9 SERVICES FOR SPOKANE COUNT` 1,319,429.30 Total : 1,319,429.30 -9909 9/5/2006 000324 SPOKANE COUNTY WATER DIST. #3 083006-2 SERVICE FOR 906 N. PARK ROAD 88.22 Total : 88.22 1 9910 9/5/2006 000011 SPOKANE VALLEY CHAMBER, OF COMA 083006-7 ADVERTISING THROUGH SVCOC 520.00 Total : 520.00 9911 9/512006 000813 STANLEY SECURITY SOLUTIONS se-399328 STANLEY SECURITY SOLUTIONS E 215.08 Total : 215.08 9912 915/2006 001057 STAR RENTALS 13-105554-02 41278 QUOTE #0017-06 STAR RENTAL 2,150.28 Total : 2,150.28 9913 9/5/2006 000773 STUDIO CASCADE, INC. 1072 GENERAL PLANNING SERVICES 1,625.00 Total : 1,625.00 9914 9/512006 000167 VERA WATER & POWER 0018-032752.00 BILLING DATE 8128106 18.68 °~ge: 4 vehlist Vo.uctier List page: 5 0910512006 9:27:42AM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # DescriptionlAccount Amount 9 14 91512006 000167 VERA WATER & POWER (Continued) 0018-31941-01 BILLING DATA SlZS1O6 49.26 0030-031942,01 BILUNG DATE 8123M 58.91 Total : 12G.85 44 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total : 2,082,328.43 44 Vour;hers in this report Total vouahera : 2,082,326.43 I, the undersigned, do certify under penalty of penury , that the materials have been furnished, Ehe services rondMad, or the labor performed as described hore in and that the claim is just, due and an unpaid obligation ; against the Cq'of Spnkarie Valley, aril that I am authoraed to authenticate and cwtify to said obirn. Finance 0ire=[ Date Page: 5 IX- ~y vchlist Voucher List 09105/2006 2:21:36PM Page: 1 Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 9915 9/5/2006 000494 PRO PEOPLE STAFFING SERV INC. 15,496 SERVICES BY PRO PEOPLE 1,110.78 15,686 SERVICES BY PRO PEOPLE 1,116.00 Total ; 2,226.78 9916 9/5/2008 000019 PURRFECT LOGOS, INC. 16881 BUSINESS HOURS FOR COURTHO 45.61 Total : 45.61 9917 9/5/2006 000322 QWEST 0830064 SERVICES THROUGH QWEST 42.94 083006-6 SERVICES THROUGH QWEST 96.76 Total : 139.70 9918 9/5/2006 000709 SENSKE LAWN R TREE CARE INC. 1482647 SERVICES FOR N. 2626 DIECOVER 48,822.92 1482648 SERVICE AT CENTENNIAL TRAIL 1,900.50 1783670 SERVICES FOR N. 2626 DISCOVER 73.31 Total : 50,796.73 9919 915/2006 000726 SHUR KLEEN SERVICES, INC. 65356 SERVICE AT CENTERPLACE 360.00 Total : 360.00 9920 9/5/2006 000189 SILVERWOOD THEME PARK INC. 16976 41063 SERVICES FOR SILVERWOOD 949.85 Total : 949.85 9921 91512006 000001 SPOKANE COUNTY TREASURER 083006-9 SERVICES FOR SPOKANE COUNT` 1,319,429.30 Total : 1,319,429.30 9922 9/5/2006 000324 SPOKANE COUNTY WATER DIST. #3 083006-2 SERVICE FOR 906 N. PARK ROAD 88.22 Total : 88,22 9923 9/5/2006 000011 SPOKANE VALLEY CHAMBER, OF COMN 083006-7 ADVERTISING THROUGH SVCOC 520.00 Total : 520.00 9924 9/5/2006 000813 STANLEY SECURITY SOLUTIONS se-399328 STANLEY-SECURITY SOLUTIONS 215.08 Total : 215.08 9925 9/5/2006 001057 STAR RENTALS 13-105554-02 41278 QUOTE #0017-06 STAR RENTAL 2,150.28 Total : 2,150.28 Page: 1 vchlist Voucher List Page: 2 0910512006 2:21:36PM Spokane Valley - Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount 9926 9/5/2006 000773 STUDIO CASCADE, INC. 1072 GENERAL PLANNING SERVICES 1,625.00 Total : 1,625.00 9927 9/5/2006 000167 VERA WATER & POWER 0018-032752.00 BILLING DATE 8128106 18.68 001&31941.01 BILLING DATE 8128/06 -49.26 0030-031942.01 BILLING DATE 8123106 58.91 Total : 126.85 13 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total : 1,378,673.40 13 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 1,378,673.40 I, the undersigned, do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been fumished, the services rendered, or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim Is just, due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley, and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify to said claim. Finance Director Date ,3e. 2 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: 09-12-46 City Manager Sign-off: Item: Check all that apply: x consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE : Payroll for Period Ending August 31, 2006 GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: OPTIONS: RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Gross: $156,085.07 Benefits: $ 73,559.18 TOTAL PAYROLL: $229,644.25 STAFF CONTACT: Jason Faulkner ATTACHMENTS DRAFT NIT1YU'1. S i City of :Spokane Malley City Council Executive Session Th a rsday, August 31, 2006 Attendance. Councilmembers: Staff: Diana Wilhite, Mayor Dave Mercier, City Manager Steve Taylor, Deputy Mayor Dick Denenny, Councilmember Mike DeVleming, Councilmember Tull Gothmann, Councilmember Rich Munson, Councilmetr►ber Gary Schimmels, Councilmember EXECUTIVE SFSSTON: Ivt:ayor Withite called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m. It was moved by Councilinember Denenny, seconded by Cotncilrnember jklunson and unanimously agreed that Council adjourn into E ecutive Session until 9:00 p.m., to discuss a personnel matter - the evaluation of a public employee, and potential land acquisition. Council adjourned into executive session. At 7:17 p.m. Mayor Wilhite declared Council out of executive Session. It was moved by Councilmember Munson and seconded by Councilmember De Heming, to authorize Mayor Wilhite, on behalf of the City Council, to update and execute amendinents to the employment agreement with the City Manager prior to December 31, 2006 Vote by Acclamation: In favor. Deputy Mayor Taylor, and Councibnembers J Schitnnels, Gotlunarni, Munson, Denenny, and DePoining. Opposed: Mayor Wilhite. Abstentions: None. !Motion cco-ried It was then moved by Deputy Mayor Taylor, seconded by Councilmember DcVlenting, crud uttcvurnottsly egreed to adjottrt7. The meeting adjourned at 7:20 p.m. Diana Wilhite, Mayor A`1717EST: Christine.Bainbridge, City Clerk Council ititinutrs: 08.31.05 Pagc 1 of 1 Approved by Council: 1\7INTJTES r- City of Spokane Valley City Council Regular Meeting Tuesday Septernber S, 2006 Mayor Wilhite called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m., and welcomed everyone to the 99x' meeting. Attendance: City Staff.. Diana Wilhite, Mayor Dave Mercier, City Manager Dick Dencn.ny, Councilmember Nina Regor, Deputy City Manager Mike DeVleming, Councilmember Mike Connelly, City Attorney Bill Gothmann, Couneilmember Mike Jackson, Parks e&, Recreation Director Gary Schimmels, Councilmember Neil Kersten, Public Works Director Marina Sukup, Community Development Director Absent: Tom Scholtens, Building Official Steve Taylor, Deputy Ma_vor Morgan Koudelka, Administrative Analyst Rich Munson, Councilmember. Cal Walker, Police Chief Steve Worley, Senior Engineer Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk INVOCATION: Councilmember Gothrnann gave the invocation. PLEDGE OF ALLEGUNCE: Mayor Wilhite led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL, CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called roll; all Councilmembers were present except Deputy Mayor Taylor and Councilmember Munson. It was moved by Councibnember Denennry, seconded by J Councilmember Gothmcnnn, and unanimously agreed to excuse Deputy Altryor 71C.54or and Councilmember Munson from tonight's meeting. AIVROVAL OF AGENDA: It was moved by Councilmennhe►• Gothnnarm, seconded, and unanimously agreed to ol)prove the amended agenda. IMI'RODUCTION° OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS: None. C0M1111TTEF, J30A11;D, LLAISON SUivT&Tt1RY REPORTS: Councilmember Schimrnels: reported that he attended the Spokane Regional Transportation meeting and invited the Councilmembers to another meeting scheduled for tomorrow at 1:30. Councilmember Denenny: explained that a week ago he went to Priest Lake for a meeting with Mr. Mielke and others to discuss formation of the TlvfDf, committee; that the meeting was very productive; and that Mr. Denenny will have an outline of the meeting for Councilmembers in the near future. Councilinember Gotlrmann: reported that he attended about seven meetings. Councilmember Devleming: reported that he attended a 911 Board Meeting where they finalized the budget and advanced it to the County Commissioners; and that he also attended a welcoming for a four- star general visiting Fairchild. MAY0WS REPORT: none PUBLIC COMaNII NTS: Mayor Wilhite invited public comments. No comments were offered. 1. CONSENT AGENDA: Consists of items considered routine which are approved as a group. A Councilmember may remove an item from the Consent Agenda to be considered separately. Council Meeting: 09-05-06 Page] of4 Approved by Council: a. Following claim vouchers: VOUCHER LIST DATE VOUCHER #s TOTAL VOUCHER AMOUNT 08-17-2006 9744-9804 $146,359.60 08-25-2006 9806L9833 $210,048.58 GRAND TOTAL $356,408.18 b. Minutes of August 15, 2006 Council Study Session c. Minutes of August 22, 2006 Council Regular Meeting It was moved by Councilmember Denenny and seconded to accept the Consent Agenda. Councibnember Dek7eming stated that he previously asked for fn•ther clarification on vouchers 9764 and 9766 and would like those removed until he has an opportunity to discuss those with Finance Director Thompson. The motion was amended to exclude those two mentioned vouchers from the approval of the Consent Agenda. Vote by Acclamation on the. amended motion: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed Alone. Abstentions: None. Motion carried NEW BUSENESS 2. Proposed Resolution 06-017 Cable Franchise Continuation - Morgan Koudelka After City Clerk Bainbridge read the resolution title, it tiaras moved by Councilmember Denenny and seconded to approve Resolution 06-017 implementing a continuation period for the cable television franchise with Conmcas•t through Allarch S, 2007. Administrative Analyst Koudelka explained the need for the continuation as noted in his accompanying Request for Council Action. Mayor Wilhite invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor Unanimous; Opposed Alone; Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 3. Proposed Resolution 06-018 in Support of Total Maximum Daily Load (TMQL) Foundation Concepts -Neil Kersten After City Clerk Bainbridge read the resolution title, it was moved by Councilmember .Denenny and seconded to approve resolution 06-018 supporting and accepting implementation of foundation concepts for the Spokane River Total Maximum Daily Load Public Works Director Kersten explained the rationale for the supporting resolution as noted.in the accompanying Request for Council Action and as mentioned in the Resolution and Managed Implementation Plan. Mayor Wilhite invited public comments; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous; Opposed: None; Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 4. Motion Consideration: Local Redevelopment Authority (LRA) - Dave Mercier It was moved by Councibnember Cothmann and seconded to ratify the previous decision of the City Council and not form a Local Redevelopment Authority regarding the closure and potential reuse of the Walker Army Reserve Center located it? Spokane Valley. City Manager Mercier explained that this is the fifth Council discussion of this topic as the process has changed from when first briefed. Mr. Mercier said that the City has been asked to reconsider establishment of an LRA; and Mr. Mercier stated his opinion that he was not persuaded it would be in the City's best interest to assume responsibility and potential liability for managing a process still not yet fully defined and which could be contentious when responding to Notices of Interest filed by competing entities wanting to reuse the property. Mr. Mercier added that the process appears to still be in flux. Mayor Wilhite invited public comment. Lawrence D Griffith, 12925 E Valle)2vay Spokane Valley, 99216; read his statement in rebuttal to Mr. Mercier's view on the facility; he stated he wants us to afford the citizens the opportunity to participate in this redevelopment; and by applying to form the LRA this would allow citizens a key role in the planning of a community resource, and encourage the community to be involved in the council; he urges council to be form the LRA; and said that in addition to the facility's use for the homeless, there could be other unknown options in economic development or vocational training, and we must be allowed the opportunity to discuss the options. Mayor Wilhite invited further comments; no further comments were offered. Council Meeting: 09-05-06 Page 2 of 4 Approved by Council: Mr. Mercier said that any plan of re-use dealing with homelessness would reply on I-IUD as the final l authority, so the question remains if HUD has full legislative authority to attend to all the elements of the i re-use planning process. Councilmember Denenny remarked that we could still go through the process and end up with the Army selling the facility for market value. After further brief discussion, Council voted by acclamation: In l%'avor: Unanimous. Opposed: Alone. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 5. Motion Consideration: Request for Proposal for Lobbyist - Dave Mercier It was Anoved by Coinacilrnernber Gothmann and seconded to authorize dissemination of the Request for Proposals State Legislative Lobbying Services. City Manager Mercier mentioned that Council indicated earlier this year their interest in having a lobbyist, and he hopes this Request for Proposal meets those desires. Mr. Mercier added that a lobbyist list is also attached for council review. Councilmember Schimmels indicated he was not part of the previous council consensus for staff to draft this proposal, and doesn't feel the $10,000 to $50,000 for a lobbyist is prudent, and that their legislative issues are handled well by AWC. Although Councilmember DeVleming voiced his agreement with Councilmember Schimmels and said he feels this is not necessarily the "best bang for the buck," Mayor Wilhite and Councilmember Denenny voiced their opinions that this is necessary in order to stay current with the hundreds of bills passing through the legislative process. Mayor Wilhite invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Fcnvor: i1layor Wilhite and Coinrcilmembers Gotlnnann and Denenny; Opposed: Councilmembers Schimmels and DeVleming. Abstentions: None. Motion carried PUBLIC COMAlENTS Mayor Wilhite invited general public comments; no comments were offered. ADNE[NISTRATIVE REPORTS: 6. Update on Spokane County Library District (SCLD) Projects - Mike Wirt, Executive Director SCi D Spokane County Library District executive Director Mike Wirt and Trustee Tim Hattenburg reported on j the status of the District's services and projects, including the proposed new Valley Library which is intended to replace the existing Valley branch. After the presentation, there was brief discussion concerning the upcoming levy, and Mr. Hattenburg reported that should the levy not pass, the District might curt programs but would likely not cut building hours of operation. Mayor Wilhite called for a short recess at: 7:00 p.m, and reconvened the meeting at 7:10 p.m. 7. Outside Agencies' Presentation -Nina .Regor Deputy City Manager Regor introduced this agenda item by explaining the annual procedure inviting outside agencies to present proposals for financial assistance; that the proposed budget for 2007 includes $120,000 for this purpose, with $69,000 allocated to Economic Development entities; and $51,000 allocated to social services entities, and that those figures are placeholders pending future Council action. Mayor Wilhite changed the order of presentations as noted below. Each agency then gave their presentation for their requested funding assistance. SOCIAT, AGENCI=ES: (g) Project Access, request for $30,000; (f) Institute for Systems Medicine, request for $100,000 [Ajflr. Mercier mentioned this entity rnibht fit better under economic development rather than social services.]; (e) Pet Savers, request for $25,000; (d) Big Brothers, Big Sisters, request for $7,000; (c) Spokane Valley Community Center (and Food Bank), request for $5,000; (b) :Spokane Valley Meals on Wheels, request for 52,500; and (a) Spokane Valley Arts Council, request for $10,000. ECONTOAHC DEVELOPMENT AGENCIES: (h) Economic Development Council, request for $65,000; (i) International Trade Alliance request for - $35,000; and 0) Lfland Northwest Women's Business Center request for $10,000. Following all presentations, Deputy City Manager Regor asked Council for their input on the process for funding determination. After brief discussion, it was determined that by Monday, each Councilmember Council Meeting: 09-05-06 Page 3 of4 Approved by Council will send Nis. Regor their individual funding preferences, and that Ms. Regor will compile the information into a spreadsheet for further council deliberation at the September 19 study session. 8. Spokane Regional Transportation Commission Call for Projects/Grant Aliplications -Neil Kersten/ Steve Worley Senior Engineer Worley explained that the SR17C issued its 2006 Call for Projects; with an application due date of September 27, 2006. [Councilmember Schimmels left the room at 8:50 p.m., and returned at 8:54 p.m.]. Mr. Worley stated that this list is preliminary and will continue to be evaluated and revised based on City priorities, local funding availability and application scoring criteria, and that a final list: is scheduled to be brought to Council for motion consideration at the September 12 council meeting. It was moved by Councilmember DeVleming, seconded, and unanimotcsly agreed to extend the Council meeting to 9:10 p. nr. 8a. Salary Commission Discussion - Councilmember DeVleming Councilmember DeVleming stated that a lot of time has passed since the Salary Commission's last recommendation, and he recommends Council instruct staff to take the initial steps to create the commission, and bring back a draft ordinance regarding; this matter. Council concurred. Staff will bring a draft ordinance to the next council meeting for council consideration. 9. Advance Agenda Additions - Mayor Wilhite Brief discussion ensued regarding the items on the "pending" list; including the Governance Manual, and that this list is more of a memory piece and that items move to a meeting date as appropriate. COUNCIL CITECK-EN: Mayor Wilhite thanked Councilmembers for letting her know when they plan to be out of town. CITY MANAGER COMNIUNrS: Dave Mercier City Manager Mercier brought Council attention to the advance agenda and the September 12 Council meeting;.,, specifically item 910 concerning zoning; that staff will re-insert the formerly submitted legal information submitted by Mr. Connelly, and will ask Community Development Director Sukup to bring; up policy questions, including density issues concerning Greenacres. In other matters, Mr. Mercier said that today at the Board Of County Commissioners meeting, there was conversation about the letter asking the County to convey the $1.6 million previous pledged for constructing a new pool, pledged prior to incorporation in 2001, and also pledged prior to adoption of our Parks MasterPlan and the feedback from the community that they prefer added aquatics amenities rather than a new pool; and that the County is scheduled to revise their resolution during their upcoming meeting. There being no further business, it was moved by Councilmember DeVleming, seconded, and unanimously approved to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 9:06 p.m. Diana Wilhite, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Council Meeting: 09-05-06 Page 4 of 4 Approved by Council: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: September 12, 2006 City Manager Sign-off Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Second Reading Ordinance 06-020, Comprehensive Plan Amendment GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A 130 (2) (a), WAC 365-195-805(3) and (4) PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: The council had the first reading on this matter on August 22. 2006- the matter was placed on this agenda for the second and final reading. BACKGROUND: See RCA for City Council Meeting of August 22, 2006. Two changes have been made to the ordinance presented on August 22, 2006. The first is to remove the reference to Title 17 which is the title location for this ordinance when the new Uniform Development Code is established. The second is to add language defining an emergency. Both changes are identified in the accompanying ordinance. OPTIONS: Approve, approve with amendments or corrections and/or provide staff with additional direction. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: 'Move to adopt Ordinance 06-020." BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS None STAFF CONTACT: Marina Sukup, mike Connelly ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance 06-020 DRA Fl* CIT-Y OF SPl)K1'~ili; VALI_EN SPOKAND COUNTY, WASHIN(; c JIN ORDINANCE No. 06-020 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLLN', SPOKANI'. COUNTY, WASHINGTON, AMENDING SPOKANE VALLEY Mi!1VIC:1PAL CODE (SVMC) 1030.060, ESTABLISHING A PROCEDURE FOR AMENDING THE SPOKANE VALLEY COMPREiIENSIVF. PLAN AND SUPERSEDINC PORTIONS OF THE ADOPTED SPOKANE COUNTY CODE SECTIONS 13.100.102 THROUGH 13.900.110 AND 14.400, 14.402 AND 14.M0, TO THE EXTENT THEY ARF IN C'ONFLIC'T, PROVIDING FOR SFVERABiLITY :AND EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the City of Spokanc V dlcy ha-S tnlcndcJ SV r\IC 10,_itl.01 0 In rc11c,1linL the interim comprehensive plan and adopting the City of Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley is required to adopt development regulations to inlplcnlent the provisions of the comprehensive plan pursuant to RCW 36.70A.040, and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan and the Growth Management Act pursuant to R0%` 16.70A.I _;ti. contemplate a process for annual amendments to that plan; and WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley is required to ensure public p;lrticipation in su:h an amendment pursuant to RCW 36.70A.035 and 140, anal WIiCREAS,the following provisions are dccined nkccc-,'•ar\ t. pi ,11c,.I111~: 1111, ti;flct', 3'hi► \i113C the general public and the environment, anti WHEREAS, the city of Stx kane Valley dcsurc io aOopt pn_+cedutc, t.1 ;1111 \ the Al III nAI ,fmcndnICn1 .4 the comprehensive plall: NOW THEREFORE., the l it\' l tlu11CI ffl the t'ity 1f~1\, k::nc %'a!lcyf,riiaul: fc•11ou, Section 1: SVMC 10 10 060 is hereh>_,- anlettded and the folloming ne%% prt1~ isinn. sire .f;ldr..I tit and incorporated as follo\\,,: t : 411.1 (at TypeIV Application. (.wnI,i t•Iwn,i\c PLtn \mt,titlmcntc 1 illltliltlUll. l llmprihl'I151F~ 1'lall t~llll:nd111~9II~ IYi•f\ 1,' 11111131ct1 1,1 .311\ iii 111 it1t.'.\I!1'_' a. Property owner(s) or their representati\ c b. Any citizen, agency, neighborhood asSuLiation or other party; ut c. The Community Development Department (hereinafter"dcpartmew"). planning C0111 III Ission or city council. 2. Applications. Application-, shall he made on lOrms provided by the City. Application Submittal: After submittal of an applicant inIII'Mcd appiicati,•n. III,: ;ipplicatiotl shall he suhjc:t Io a prc- application conference. -Ilse slate Itpon tilll} -completc determination shall be the date of registration with the department i. Register of Comprehensive flan Amt:ndnltlu,; .,I I,I Atc:1-\\id [\'L: /one, III,: dep•frunent ,11,111 establish and twwntaitt a rcgistcr of Al apphcatlk•n,. hdl!LtI1~C 06•0.!0. I'rocedulc I:C t 1,7.1111 I'1L.I1 Anletidinclitr. i+'.f;': 1 f•t 1 D10%F F Concurrent and Annual Revic%ti of'Rc Ester. 3 Sixty (60) days prior to November I" in each calendar year, the city shall notify the public that the amendment prowss has begun. Notice shall be distributed as follows: i. Notice published in an appropriate regional or neighborhood newspaper or trade journal; Ii. Notice posted on all City official public notice boards; iii. Copy of the notice sent to all agencies, organizations and adjacent jurisdictions with an interest. b. All registered applications shall be reviewed concurrently on an annual basis in a manner consistent with RCW 36.70A.130(2). Applications registered after November I" of the previous calendar year and before November 1" of the currant calendar year, shall be included in the annual review. Those registered after November 1u of the calendar year shall be placed on the register for review- at the following annual review. c. Emergency Amendments: The city may review and amend the comprehensive plan «•hen the city council detctmines that an emergency exists or in other circumstances as provided for by RCW 36.70A.130 (2)(a). T11c follower shat constitute a,basis f_ior em_gen amendments: i. _ Situations involving ofTtcial icgal or adoinistrati-~,e actions, such. as those to irtttnedial"I avloid an imminent danger_t_o public health and safety prrevent imminent danger ta~ublic_or private p_r_operi_y or to prevent an imminent threat of senous_environmental degradation ii. To address the absence of adequate and available public_facilities or services; iii. To resolve an"pea) of.thc Comprehensive Plan filed with the Eastern Washington (;m%%Ih_Manatg gricnt Hearings Board or court,, or tc comply with a decision- of the Board or court qr of a . ate_Uencv or office or, the State Le~tislaturc necessitating _an_cme enc} Comprehensive Plart_amendment; or iv. l'ouncil canlirmatiun of the Director's finding of_a contlic>s incons steno 1 def m;y_or other internal defect_in the Camp chensivc Plan that requires correction for elcar, complete and consistent polio} direction. 6. Notice of Public Ifearing. Comprehensive Ilan Amendments require a public hearing before the planning commim-ion. a. Contents of Notice. A notice of public hearing shall include the folio%%ing. i. The citation, if any, of the provision that would be changed by the proposal along %%ith a brief description of that provision; ii. A statement of how the proposal would change the affected provision; iii. A statement of what areas, comprehensive plan designations, 71mes, or locations will be directly affected or changed by the proposal; iv Ike date, time, and place of the public hearing; v. A statement of the availability of the official file; and vi. A statement of the right of any person to submit written comments to the planning commission and to appear at the public hearing of the planning commission to give oral comments on the pre p i J. Ordinance 06-0!0, Procedure Re Cump Plan Ain:ndmenw~ PaL'c (It '.1 DRAT I' b. Distribution of Notice. ilic department shall distribute as prescribed by law.. 7. Planning Commission Recommendation, a. Procedure. Following the public hearing, the planning commission shall consider the applications concurrently, and shall prepare and forward a recommendation of proposed action for all applications to the city council. The planning commission shall take one of the following actions: 1. If the planning commission determines that the proposal should be adopted, it may recommend that the city council adopt the proposal. The planning commission may make modifications to any proposal prior to recommending the proposal to city council for adoption. If the modification is substantial, the planning commission shall conduct a public hearing on the modified proposal. ii. If the planning commission determines that the proposal should not he adopted. it rn, . recommend that the city council not adopt the proposal. iii. If the planning commission is unable to take either of the actions specified in subsections- (i) or (ii) above, the proposal will be sent to city council with the notatilmn that the planning commission makes no recommendrition_ 8. Approval Criteria a. The city may approve comprehensive plan amendments if it finds that: 1. TIlc proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment; and ii. The proposed amendment is consistent with the requirements of Chapter 36.70A RCW and with the portion of the city's adopted plan not affected by the amentimcni iii. The proposed amendment responds to a substantial change in condition, beyond the property owner's control applicable to the area within whit. It III,, subject property lies. iv. 'Me proposed amendment corrects an obvious mapping error. v_ the proposed amendment addresses an identified d: ficiencv in the Comprehensive Plan. h. The city must also consider the (t tllo\N ink: I`actt <rs: i. The effect upon the physical environment; i i. The cfi'cct on open space, streams, rivers, and lakes, iii. The compatibility with and impact on adjacent land uses and surrounding ne►ghbiorhoods: iv. The adequacy of and impact on community facilities including utilitieq. roads. public transportation, parks, recreation and schools; V. The benefit to the neighborhood, city and region: VI The quantity and location of land planned tier the proposed land Lice iN pc and den,-in.- anti the demand for such land: vii. fits current and projected population dcnyity in the area uld viii. Thc effect upon other aspects of the comprehensive plan. 9. City Council Action. Within sixty (60) days of receipt of the planning commission's finding" aril recommendations, the city council shall consider the findings and recommendations of the commic,I%<n concerning the application and may hold a public hearing pursuant to Council rules. The city clerk shall 111S111hutc Il."tice of thy, a llllill public hc.inne.i, prc,~rlh,:d 1',1 LS\\ ill .!Ilillt:!I litic'titllTlC!it ti 1. Ir'llihilic._' Pro;-I, u1 RC t WIT 1r11i'1 DRAFT the comprehensive plan shall be considered concurrently. By a majority vote of its membership, the city council shall: a. Approve the application; b. Disapprove the application; c. Modify the application. If modification is substantial, the Council must ell-her conduct a public hearing on the modified proposal; or d. Refer the proposal back to the planning commission for further consideration. 10. Transmittal to the State of Washington. At least sixty (60) days prior to final action being taken by the city council, the Washington Slate Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development (CTF..D) shall be provided with a copy of the amendments in order to initiate the 60 (sixty) day comment period. No later than ten (10) days after adoption of the proposal, a copy of the final decision shall be forwarded to CTED." Section 2. Provisions in conflict. To the extent that any of the above provisions are in conflict with sections 13.100.102 through 13.900.110 and sections 14.400,14. 402 and 14.500 of the Spokane County Code adopted pursuant to SVivtC 1030.060; the above provisions contained in Section 1 above shall apply. Section 3.. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance shall be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance. Section 4. Effective Date This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after publication of this Ordinance or a summary thereof occurs in the official newspaper of the City as provided by law. ~ i PASSED by the City Council this day of 12006. Mayor, Diana Wilhite ATTEST: City Clerk, Christine Bainbridge Approved as to Form: Office of the City Attorney Date of Publication: Effective Date: Ordinance 06-020, Procedure Re Comp Plan Amendments Page 4 of 4 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY - Request for Council Action Meeting Date: September 12, 2006 City Manager Sign-off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business X new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: First Reading: Ordinance 06-021 establishing 2006 salary commission for review of Council salaries. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 35.21.015 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Appointment of Salary Commission in 2004. Council direction at the September 5, 2006 to bring forward a discussion and consideration regarding appointment of a new Salary Commission. BACKGROUND: RCW 35.21.015 provides a mechanism whereby salaries of elected officials can be adjusted after review by an independent salary commission. The statute identifies a specific procedural guideline for how such matters are to be conducted. The proposed C Ordinance would establish a 2006 Salary Commission, which would review the current salaries D of Spokane Valley Council members, compare those salaries to the salaries of other City Council members in other cities, including a comparison of the duties and amount of time spent to reasonably accomplish their official duties. The Commission would then make a recommendation for a salary, which could be a decrease, no change, or an increase. OPTIONS: Move the proposed Ordinance to a second reading as is, or request changes to the proposed language. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: "I move that we advance Ordinance 06-021 to a second reading at a subsequent meeting." BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: There would be an impact if the Salary Commission recommends a decrease or increase to the salaries of the Council members. STAFF CONTACT: Cary P. Driskell, Deputy City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Ordinance 06-021 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHIINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 06-021 AN ORDINANCE OF THE, CITY OF SPOKANE; VALLEY, SPOKANE. COUNTY, WASHENGTON, CREATLNG AN INDEPENDENT SALARY COINMTSSION TO R>a,VIEW AND SET TU14 SALARIES OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCILVIMiYTBERS, AND PROVIIANI G FOR OTHER MATTERS PROPERLY RELATED THERETO. WHEREAS, it serves the interests of the City to have a separate, independent commission to establish the future salaries of the Mayor and City Council; and WHEREAS, the Washington State Legislature through RCW Chapter 35.21, authorizes cities, towns and counties to create an independent salary commission to set the salaries of elected officials; and Wl-IEREAS, pursuant to RCW 35.21.015, the action fixing the salary by a commission supersedes any other provision of City ordinance related to the fixing of salaries for elected officials. NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Washington ordains as follows: Section 1. Independent Salary Commission. A. Creation of Independent Salarv Commission. There is hereby established for the City of Spokane Valley an Independent Salary Commission, for a period of one year. B. Purpose. The purpose of the Independent Salary Commission shall be to review and establish the salaries of the ;Mayor and the Councilmembers. C. Composition. The Independent Salary Commission shall consist of five (5) .members appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the City Council. D. Compensation. The Independent Salary Commission shall serve without compensation. E. Term. The term of appointment is one (1) year. F. Qualifications. 1. 1✓ach person appointed to serve as a member of the Independent Salary Commission shall be a citizen of the United States, a resident of the City of Spokane'Valley for at least one (1) year immediately preceding such appointment and while serving on the Commission, and a registered voter in Spokane County. 2. No officer, official, or employee of the City or any of their immediate family members may serve on the Commission. "Immediate family member" as used in this section means the parents, spouse, siblings, children, or dependent relatives of the officer, official, or employee, whether or not living in the household of the officer, official, or employee. Ordinance 06-021 Salary Commission Page 1 of 4 G. Operation. 1. The Independent Salary Commission shall elect a Chair and Vice Chair from among its members. The Independent Salary Commission may establish and adopt rules of procedure for the efficient and fair conduct of its business. 2. The City Manager shall appoint staff and make available supplies and equipment to assist the Independent Salary Commission in preparation of its reports and records. 3. Any communication from the Independent Salary Commission to any member of the City Council while reviewing the schedule of salaries, shall be in writing and made part of the record of the Commission's proceedings. 4. The Independent Salary Commission shall keep a written record of its proceedings, which shall be a public record in accordance with state law, and shall actively solicit public comment at all meetings which shall be subject to the Open Public Meetings Act. S. The first meeting of the Independent Salary Commission shall occur no later than October 23, 2006; and the Commission shall review and, if it so determines, amend and file its schedule of salaries with the City Clerk no later than December 4, 2006. 6. Three (3) members of the Independent Salary Commission shall constitute a quorum and the affirmative vote of three (3) members shall be sufficient for the decision of all matters and the transaction of all business. H. Responsibilities. To determine the appropriate rate of compensation, the Independent Salary Commission shall assess the market rate of compensation for elected City officials and study the relationship of salaries to the duties of the Mayor and the City Councilmembers. Salaries shall be established by an affirmative vote of not less than three (3) members. i. Removal. A member of the Independent Salary Commission may only be removed during the term of office for cause such as incapacity, incompetence, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office or for a disqualifying change of residence. J. Filing Date-Salary Schedule. The Independent Salary Commission shall file its salary schedule with the City Clerk who will publish the schedule two (2) times, at least one week apart, in the official newspaper of the City. The second date of publication shall be considered the official filing date of the salary schedule. K. Effective Date - Salaries . The Commission's salary schedule will become effective in the amounts, at the times, and under the conditions established in the schedule unless a referendum has been filed in accordance with Section 2 of this Ordinance. Once filed, the schedule shall be incorporated into the City budget without further action of the City Council or Salary Commission. Salary adjustments established by the Commission that result in a salary increase are effective immediately as to all. Councilmembers and/or the Mayor, regardless of their terms of office. If the salary adjustment established by the Commission results in a salary decrease, the decreased salary shall be effective at the commencement of the incumbent's next subsequent term of office. Ordinimcc 06-021 Salary Commission Pap 2 of 4 Section 2. Referendum. A. Salary Schedule subject to Referendum Petition. 1. The Commission's adopted salary schedule shall be subject to referendum petition by the people of the City. A petition must be filed with the City Clerk within thirty (30) days after the official filing date of the salary schedule. In the event of the filing of a valid referendum petition, the salary increase or decrease shall not go into effect until approved by a vote of the people. 2. Referendum measures under this section shall be submitted to the voters of the City at the next following general or municipal election occurring thirty (30) days or more after the petition is filed, and shall be otherwise governed by the provisions of the State Constitution or other laws generally applicable to referendum measures. B. Referendum Statement. A referendum statement on a petition shall be phrased in the- following language: Should the salary schedule filets with the City Clerk of the City of Spokane Valley by the independent Salary Commission on be repealed in its entirety? Your signature on this petition indicates your vote in favor of repeal of the attached salary schedule in its entirety. A copy of the salary schedule or ordinance to such referendum petition shall be attached to each referendum petition for the information of the parties requested to sign such petition. C. Tnitiative provisions applied to referendum process. All state law provisions applicable to the form of the petition and sufficiency of signatures required for an initiative petition as set forth herein, and to the submission to the vote of the people as set forth herein, shall apply to a referendum petition and to the salary schedule sought to be defeated thereby. D. Referendum - Effective Date - Record. If a majority of the number of votes cast on the referendum oppose the salary schedule or ordinance, such salary schedule or ordinance shall be deemed repealed following the certification of the vote. Section 3. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance. Section 4. Effective ]sate. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after publication of this Ordinance or a summary thereof in the official newspaper of the City as provided by law. Ordinance,: 06-021 Salary Commission Page 3 of 4 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY WASHINGTON this day of )2006. CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON By: Diana Wilhite, Mayor ATTEST: Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Approved as to form: Office of the City Attorney Date of Publication: }affective Date: Ordinance 06-021 Salary Commission Page 4 of 4 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: September 12, 2006 City Manager Sign-off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ® old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: 2006 Call for Projects - Federal Transportation Grant Applications GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Resolution #06-013 adopting the 2007-2012 Six Year Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), discussion at Council's September 5, 2006 Study Session. BACKGROUND: The-SRTC (Spokane Regional Transportation Council) issued its 2006 Call for Projects on August 161h, 2006. This call was issued to all Spokane Area jurisdictions wishing to obtain federal funds for transportation related improvement projects. This Call for Projects is for the funding years 2008-2011. Project applications are due September 27, 2006. In accordance with the adopted 2007-2012 Six Year TIP and other city needs applications for the following projects are being proposed: CMAQ Congestion Management/Air Quality Program • Sprague/Appleway Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) -1-90 to University Road* • Signal Controller Upgrades - various locations • Argonne Corridor Upgrade - Trent Avenue (SR 290) to 1-90 • Pines Corridor ITS - Sprague Avenue to Trent Avenue (SR290) STP(U) Urban Improvement Projects • 8eh Avenue Reconstruction - Havana Street to Park Road • Park Road Project 3 - Sprague Avenue to Broadway Avenue • Barker Road - Appleway Avenue to Broadway Avenue • Appleway Avenue Reconstruction, Phase 2 - Tschirley Road to Hodges Road STP(U) Urban Preservation Projects • Broadway Avenue Inlay - Park Road to 1-90 • Sullivan Road PCC - 1-90 to Mission (in conjunction with WSDOT project) • University Road Inlay - Project 1 - Dishman-Mica to 161h Avenue • University Road Inlay - Project 2 - 160 Avenue to 41h Avenue • Montgomery Avenue Inlay - Argonne Road to Woodruff Road • Dishman-Mica NB Lanes Inlay - Appleway Avenue to 8'h Avenue* • Sullivan & Sprague Concrete Intersection* 0 Fancher & Broadway Concrete Intersection" • Euclid Avenue Inlay - Sullivan Road to Flora Road" • Broadway Avenue Inlay - Fancher Road to Thierman Road* Advanced PE and Design Projects • Park Road Project 2 - Broadway Avenue to Indiana • Sullivan Road Widening - Wellesley Avenue to Euclid Avenue • Valley Corridor Project 3 - Evergreen Road to Tshirley Road This is a preliminary list that will continue to be evaluated and potentially revised based on city priorities, local funding availability, and application scoring criteria. If changes are required, a final list will be brought to Council for motion consideration on September 26, 2006. All projects listed are included in the 2007-2012 Six Year TIP with the exception of the projects with asterisks after them. Because of the four year funding program (2008-2011) these additional projects are being considered for federal funding applications. OPTIONS: 1) Approve list of projects for federal grant funding applications; 2) Revise list of projects for federal grant funding applications; 3) provide additional direction to staff. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Motion to approve the Mayor to sign the Project Certification Statement for each project grant application. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: A financial summary of requested federal funds and local match funds will be forthcoming as the list of project applications is finalized. STAFF CONTACT: Steve Worley, Senior Engineer; Neil Kersten, Public Works Director ATTACHMENTS: Sample Project Certification Statement JURISDICTION: PROJECT NAME: Project Certification Statement 1. 1 certify this project application is a true and complete representation of the scope of work necessary to bring the project, as defined by the project termini, into compliance with local, State, and Federal regulations and standards in effect at the time of application. 2. 1 further certify the funding sources listed in the application meet the following conditions: [ J Already allocated to the specific project by official action of the sponsoring agency. [ J Contained in the budget of the sponsoring agency, but still requires official action by elected officials to commit funding. [ ] Contained on a funded allocation list by a State Agency (TIB,CRAB, FMSIB) and funds have specifically been approved by that agency. [ ] Contained on an unfunded allocation list by a State Agency (TIB,CRAB, FMSIB). [ ] Is not currently approved for funding-, however, applications and approvals will be sought if selected by the SRTC for funding. 3. 1 certify the project represented in this application is contained in the Metropolitan Transportation Plan as approved by the SRTC Board in July 2003. 4. 1 acknowledge and understand the SRTC Board has an adopted policy requiring projects to be ready for construction obligation within 18 months after the year it first appears in the Transportation Improvement Program Year for obligation. 1 5. 1 acknowledge and understand all or a portion of the funding for this project may be withdrawn by SRTC if circumstances related to the project change, significantly delaying the project or the project is found to have an adverse air quality conformity determination. By the signature below, I certify the project representations listed above and contained in the project application are a true and correct as of the time of the application submission. I agree that SRTC will be notified of any proposed changes to the projects scope of work or funding sources. Because of the 18- month policy in effect for project construction obligation, should the SRTC Board select the project for funding, I request the project be included in the Transportation Improvement Program during the following time frame: Preliminary Engineering: Date: Month/Year Signed this day of , 2006 Signed: Mayor/Commissioner Attest: 2 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: September 12, 2006 City Manager Sign-off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent © old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: CTED Regional Collaboration Grant - Letter of Support GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) - RCW 36.70A. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Council received an informational 'memorandum at its September 5, 2006 meeting. BACKGROUND: Recently, the Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development (CTED) notified jurisdictions across the state that a competitive grant was available. The purpose of this grant is to assist with activities that help implement the requirements of the Growth Management Act (GMA) in areas related to innovative regional collaboration among cities, counties and school districts in planning for a region's future. Eligible entities include counties, cities and towns planning under the GMA that have met the following criteria: • Adopted a comprehensive plan; critical areas ordinances; natural resource lands ordinances, where applicable. • Adopted other necessary development regulations under the GMA, including ordinances for subdivisions, zoning (i.e., controls on the location and intensity of development). • Have completed the review and, if necessary, revisions to its comprehensive plan and development regulations as required by RCW 36.70A.130. • Must be in compliance with all GMA requirements at the time of application. Local government planning activities eligible for funding by this grant are regional projects that would yield multi-jurisdictional benefits such as: • joint planning negotiations within unincorporated urban growth areas (UGAs), joint permitting or code enforcement processes, • annexation procedures, • UGA governance transitions, • service and utilities provisions, inter-local agreements, • revenue sharing, • fair share affordable housing strategies, • collaborative school planning, siting or permitting; • feasibility studies for co-location of regional public facilities, • mediation of regional planning process, • County-Wide Planning Policies updates, etc. l Grants of up to $75,000 may be requested from this program. Eligible expenditures of grant funds include consultant contracts, public notice, printing and copying costs. All costs must be incurred during the grant period (October 15, 2006 to June 30, 2007). Local Grant Coordination The local coordination of this grant application has been provided by Susan Winchell, Director of the Boundary Review Board for Spokane County. The City of Spokane has agreed to be the lead agency for the grant application. A working group comprised of representatives from cities and the county was organized and include Marianne Morris, City of Airway Heights; Ken Pelton, City of Spokane; Steve Davenport, Spokane County; Doug Smith, City of Liberty Lake; and Scott Kuhta from the City of Spokane Valley. This group has met on a couple of occasions to discuss the grant application and identify a scope of work to use in completion of the grant application materials. The group identified the project as evaluating differences in land use (zoning) and development standards in the Spokane metropolitan urban growth areas (UGAs). The project will be completed by a planning consultant and the proposed grant request totals $68,000. The following are the major components of the study: Task 1 - Assessment This task represents work necessary to compile existing development regulations and design standards from participating jurisdictions, to review other regional collaboration efforts in practice elsewhere, to interview staff members, neighborhood groups and the development community, and to review the compiled materials and information, incorporating all of this research into a background report. Task 2 - Issue Definition This task includes work to identify and articulate the different issues of concern and create a comparison matrix and report, defining the scope of the regional collaboration task, its objectives and the priorities the participating jurisdictions place on the resolution of the various issues. Task 3 - Commonality This task produces an initial draft of common standards and/or processes to address consistency in development regulations and design standards. Task 4 - Action Plan The task produces an action plan that jurisdictions can use to negotiate and execute interlocal agreements. The deadline to submit the grant application to the State is September 15, 2006. A requirement of the grant application is that a letter of support from each participating jurisdiction be included in the grant application materials. OPTIONS: 1) Authorize mayor's signature on attached draft letter of support; 2) Decline participation in the regional collaboration grant. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to authorize Mayor Wilhite's signature on the attached draft letter of support. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The project will require staff time for continued collaboration as in-kind contribution to the project. All grant funds will be received and distributed by the City of Spokane. The City of Spokane will not retain any portion of the grant funds to compensate their staff time. STAFF CONTACT: Scott Kuhta, Senior Planner ATTACHMENT: Draft support letter DRAFT September , 2006 Mr. Ike Nwankwo Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development Davis Williams Building 906 Columbia Street SW PO Box 42525 Olympia, WA 98504-2525 Re: Letter of support for CTED Growth Management Services 2007 GMA Regional Collaboration Competitive Grant Application Dear Mr. Nwankwo: Thank you for the opportunity to apply for the Growth Management Services Regional Collaboration Grant. As demonstrated in the application, Spokane County and the Cities of Spokane, Spokane Valley, Liberty Lake, and Airway Heights are interested in moving forward with coordinated planning within their shared urban growth areas. The project we are proposing is the first step toward establishing a basis for coordinated planning within the metro urban growth areas. The activities proposed as a part of the grant will provide a strong foundation for the development of mutually agreeable interlocal agreements. An outcome of our proposal is a comparison of existing land use and design standards used by the county and the cities within the urban growth areas. Out of this process, we expect a greater understanding of commonalities and differences in these standards. This greater understanding will improve the level of communication between our regional elected officials and will remove a major impediment to the crafting of the interlocal agreements that are so critical to our future. Sincerely, Diana Wilhite, Mayor CADocuments and SettingslCBainbridge, SPOKANEVALLEYlocal SettingslTemporary Internet Files10LK41Letter of Support for CTED grant (2).doc CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: 09-12-06 City Manager Sign-off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business x new business ❑ public hearing information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE Mayoral Appointment: Public Transportation Improvement Conference (PTIC) GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: September 16, 2003, Council confirmed the Mayor's appointment of Councilmember Denenny as Council Representative to the 2003 meeting. BACKGROUND: Staff was contacted by a representative of the Spokane Transit Authority to inform us of the need to appoint someone to represent the City at the September 21 Public Transportation Improvement Conference to discuss the composition of the Board (required every four years); and to address the issue of certain areas located within the City of Spokane Valley that are not within the boundaries of the PTBA (Public Transportation .Benefit Area). OPTIONS: Confirm the Mayor's Appointment; or take other appropriate action. 0 RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Confirm the Mayor's appointment BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: STAFF CONTACT: ATTACHMENTS August 28, 2006 Letter to Mayor Wilhite from Susan Meyer, STA Chief Executive Officer September 21, 2006 Public Transportation Improvement Conference Meeting Agenda Maps (4) showing the affected areas of Spokane Valley s ' g 1 '-S 1?39 N?Si boa ~Avanvg : 'Vok Trans'. 1 - are, C~ wz6 °25-6L"UO :RL C_F_- I VED FAX (5 AX(5 htaJ11FYYIS,~~c7c7A~7r~ rom 099) °,~=5,1036 h 1 r TDD JM9) 45-4-4327 -August 283 2006 AU6 J I 2060 'arovice.~;tc hSgn~iOrrsFy F'vyr Trznsy=bbn" Mayor :C3 iana Wilhite City of Spokane Valley City of Spokane Valley Redwood Plaza Building 11707 East Sprague Avenue Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Dear Mayor Wilhite: Pursuant to RCW 36.57A.020 and R.CW 36.57A.055, a special meeting of the Public Transportation Tmprovemeni Conference (PTIC) will be held on Thursday, September 21, 2006, at 1:30 pm at the Spokane Transit Authority Southside Conference Room located at 1229 Nest Boone Avenue, Spokane, Washington 99201.. The purpose of the meeting is to: 1. Comply with the statutory requirement of reviewing the composition of the PTBA Board, also known as the Spokane Transit Authority Board, every four years, and 2. Review the boundaries of the Public Transportation. Benefit Area. (k- A), also kn6Nvn as 8pokan.6 Transit Authority, -to address the issue of certain areas located within the City of Spok'.ane Valley that are not , - the boundaries of the FFBA. - d Mule the first puupose 4f.-the-PTIC is A customary and regular evaluation of board composition required by'the Legi.slature-,Tntr c6nd purpose is the result of an unusual circumstance of events that necessitates additional explanation. The statutes governing the boundaries of a .PTBA require that incorporated cities be either fully u6thin. the PTBA, or filly outside of the PTAA, at the time of its formation. In addition, if a member city expands through annexation to an area outside of the existing PTBA boundaries, the PTBA boundary • automatically expands to include all of the annexed property. However, the statute does not ex re ss w . a ~iapp -ti-rewiti o orates and its boundaries inclu a that is located outside of the PTBA boundary. At the time of Spo alle 's forma on,C`four ~P~ra l.•arrc.as;uvere included ivithin Spokane •Val.ley's boundaries, but are outside of the exi 'ng PTBA boundary. i- trice the PTBA statute is unclear on what happens to the PTBA boundary when a neN~ city ,incorporates, STA has asked the County Commissioners to declare boundary review as a seconn ry purpose for the upcoming obligatory PTIC. STA stair' -wi.ll provide donference ''-pfiiciPauts with a3n`°=Ap of=tl~c a(fectecl_arcas-Ind «ill seek expansion of the PTBA boundary to 'r w . . j ;7' n couEomi to the boundaries of the City of Spokane Valley. ' Pursuant to RCW 36.57A.050, the persons who would sit on this review committee are elected officials selected by and serving at the pleasure of the governing bodies of the component cities within the PTBA and the county legislative authority. Please provide notice of action taken by your City Council designatingA, -air orepresentative at the Public Trans •ort~tion. Improvement Conference to the attention of fan Watson, Clerk of the U E-6- 1230 Nest Boone Avenue, Spokane, WA 99201, by September 14, 2006. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, - jte-~' E. Susan Meyer Chief Executive Officer enclosure Spokane Transit Authority 1230 West Boone Avenue Spokane, Washington 99201-2686 (509) 325-6000 PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION ..JMt PROVE ENT CONIFERENCE MEETING Thursday, September 21, 2006 at 1:30 p.m. Spokane Transit Authority Southside Conference Room 1229 West Boone Avenue, Spokane, Washington AGENDA 1. Cal l to Order and Roll Call 2. Selection of PTIC Chair.£roni participants. 3. Review of Composition of Governing Body of Spokane Transit Authority - Discussion 4. Action on STA Board Composition - if necessary 5. Review the Boundaries of the Public Transportation Benefit Area (PTBA), also known as Spokane Transit Authority, and address the issue of certain areas located,,Aithin the City of Spokane Valley that are not NN ith n the boundaries of the PT BA- Discussion 6.. Action on PTBA Boundaries setting Public Hearing 7. Action setting date and time for neat PTIC to consider coiilroents from;Publid Hearing and determine action on PTBA Boundaries 8. Adjourn Alternative formats of this-document will be produced upon request. _l Spokane Transit Au its} PTBA Eyansion A...- J& 4 - u, Legend N ap9 WELL SLEY AV Municpal BOUndaara Cl~ I I~ ! (I ^ _ Proposed Expansion ut P I ua a Cum►nt PTBA Area C3 f- PTBA Expansion Area 1 0 0_25 d 1 w i kLJ LJL i Miles 4xhwm C:. Q Alai i•?.afr atl SK~urnl a: Jir, Mi BEAU PARKWA j I I EUCLID A EUGUl7 nv =p1 EUCLID AV A. ' _ _ . ~ lniesstatn ` d I # l MID TGOME Y AV INDIANA AV A :MISS ON AV ISS! N AV R i -ptN v r IM BR ADWAY AV ROSIN 1"Av cc V I a AY V LLEYWAY V V LLLYWAY AV. P,t pV cG p~ SPRAGU AV P 1iSpri_~~o /z TRAY -1 I PTBA Expansion Area 2 iD I I l • I_ STH AV AV _ Ln a I s " Q ~IGT AV - O :16 AV PTBA Expansion Area 3 1 PTBA Expansion Area 4 tipokanc -Q f ~4 TH AV H. PC 24T1 AV County ur IL I I ~ SURD 2ND AV sp MOIL Rw m>fp w • riruir t1'DW Ai~liflr rYPr~ /r .Ri a *twwj Ly s w rA 4rd aw-Aw am w is eau on Ow grcmx - , r Uses i i.irurdnn VWd W94 Lk,u.iir ON .i.n TIMAX41 ►+i.. Wr d - ; { L 1. E 1 L I~ E j l; 7. - . we ► x we r@=Ax t w vadv krrvn Spokane Transit Autltorith PTKA Expansion Area Legend f?. > f i _rn Spokane Valley City Limits _ o Proposed Expansion or PTBA r~ Current PTBA Area I / W _ F 0 330 660 1.320 S Fcr► cunt rte:: 1~iv 1'n r.Yadd u~d~nltw : rX I V~ CI\~ ~ 1 I i ! I . A _A CD Ever tt - own PTBA Expansion Area 1 L Queen ar i m Queen Olympl Olympic Wabash abash _ J O y ~ a M J M U in Broad tl e co t M u, U 'A H y t C c c Hero Upland °a a Heroy > $ v Longfollow Lo gfell w m m g _ m E Rich m Rich W a Ric E _ L Rockwell ockwell Rockwell Rock 8I Trent Ln JA 11 W to Lacrosse 4 1 C~ > Industri 1 Park A ` WJT[ TMt MCI • • a 410W ...r Ar orn lama r.l I~ Imrl.d h/ ar..Vv r M lc fit xtvrcti w Ito ;F, } Kier an Indu~tn I Pt~rE J 1-- a g -J Spokane Transit Au it}, r 3 Valleyway PTBA Expansion A......' 018`) orbin G ~ovr wa Nixon Legend 1a'25,15~ ~ V ~Illey_ y Spokane Valley C4 limas o Mai Proposed Expansion of PT HA N R1VF]fS d@ Curronl PTOA Area w C cc a ca - 0 330 660 1,320 ragu© Feet ~ H p ~ '01 [~W 1.: ndy C•1 ,D u mall PIIlk~1 ~fiff"L r "I", O m iL •E 1145! ~n m ` Coach 2nd c 0 2nd a x f03 nd 3rd Micaview 3rd rd Ath m rn ~ m -11h 0 0 4th 5th u m Utho ` r Cloverdale co m 6th 0 6th rn m ~5 7tl v o m a m 0 U 8th >a t, 8th co a c stn m l 10th K h FTBA Expansion Area 2 $ t 1 tIT resce c m 1.ndsa c~ 11t _t2th a ~r . ~ h.~ 7 1 wr W FF This nlap in ■ ❑unPL,040 d IMM ava/W71.* dda "IS ~ and y 14"404 Or m"o "MCA" n W 41. wl-,1110-:14 .r, Ih- Viw 14 f111111f11w Mw "W yr,uccl ~+1IIIII 140Cww-t! Wah /t\i] ON of fts.nf 1Kl I ~ .4a VOWKI"" as rg111ad 43 YW iV IMMIC" Inul U) 15th Spokane Transit Au!/curit~ m m train _ ° ~hIMVJ PTBA Expansion ,frc us 3 4 17th 2 ~ 1 Legend 17th 171h c° ~o~ Spokane Valley City LIIIII s 18th 18th Proposed Expansion of PTUA rJ 19th Current PTBA Area W a L $ a~tP 0 330 660 1,320 S- 2 B m Q' bi c ca 20th ~s 201h U entU Feet . wa E z,ar cr Reny ? O I Cja o'y 21 st o O 22 d 22n a) m 21- st = s 21St 22nd c a o a 2nd .c m m~ a 2 rd _ 23rd U l c oy6 wog 2m d~ rp I t i m z 41h 241th n9glde :1( 5 ~ t- 25th m 26111 PTBA Expansion Area 3 as tax m o \a~' rnE 26th , G y U co 0 c e r CL m 27t1 Whihatay U) I E4 m f CL z j \ PTBA Expansion Area 4 Secretariat m U in 30th m vtl~~es© O 32 d 32nd E r-~r E C 14 o 3 th Q) c ita,',14 E C 0 V f~--- NOTE Thm mw • . a d -tmw mumoi" wa tayen 390 1 iLw t* "nod I,Y uLnv j m In K accw ri n, the "j d CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: September 12, 2006 City Manager Sign-off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report Q pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE : Girl Scout Proposal for Peace Pole GOVERNING LEGISLATION: NIA PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Council previously heard a presentation from the Girl Scouts requesting permission to install a peace pole in a City park BACKGROUND: The girl scouts have proposed placing a Peace Pole in Mirabeau Park (or other park designated the City). Generally, there would be no question about accepting donated items such as trees, picnic tables, park benches, signs, drinking fountains, etc., so long as the City has determined a need for them. These are items that directly benefit the park system. On the other hand, items selected by the donor, such as the peace pole, are worth considering from a policy standpoint. Typical policy questions for each proposed park item might include: 1. Does the item meet a true need of the facility? 2. Is there a park plan in place that supporting the need for the item? 3. Is the donor willing to fund the full cost of the proposed item? 4. Is the donor willing to fund ongoing maintenance costs for the expected life-cycle of the donated item? 5. Is the City willing to accept ownership of the donated property? Staff has considered the possibility of incorporating the peace pole into the refurbishing of the Mirabeau Springs overlook and has discussed this with the architect. If the item is approved, it would be staffs recommendation to locate it in the undeveloped area near the springs and ensure that it complements the repairs to the overlook/boardwalk. It is also important to consider guidelines for permissible donor recognition i.e. name plaques, etc. prior to final approval. OPTIONS: Approve the peace pole. ( Staff recommends that the donor bear all cost of purchase and installation and at least some amount toward ongoing maintenance). Deny the request. Other RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Discussion. BUDGETIFINANCIAL IMPACTS: Minor ongoing maintenance. STAFF CONTACT: Mike Jackson ATTACHMENTS None CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: September 12, 2006 City Manager Sign-off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business [ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE : Old Senior Center Building GOVERNING LEGISLATION: NIA PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: None BACKGROUND: The old Valley Mission senior center facility at 11423 E. Mission Ave. was vacated in September 2005 when the Spokane Valley Senior Citizen program was moved to CenterPlace. The Valley Mission facility is approximately 12,000 square feet and was opened in 1976. The facility is located within Valley Mission Park. Staff is now seeking guidance from City Council on the disposition of the old building. The building is in need of structural repairs due to extensive settling. It is believed that the building was constructed over an old landfill. OPTIONS: Demolish the building without further study. Contract with an engineering firm to drill core samples and determine the reason for the settling. Obtain estimate to stabilize and remodel the building. Other RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Contract with an engineering firm to drill core samples and determine the reason for the settling. Obtain an estimate to stabilize and remodel the building. Make a decision based on that information. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Approximately $10,000. Earlier this year the City did receive $30,000 from WCIA as an insurance settlement due to water damage. STAFF CONTACT: Mike Jackson ATTACHMENTS PowerPoint; Memo Re. Old Senior Center Building S 6k ane Valley 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 ♦ Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.921.1000 ♦ Fax: 509.921.1008 ♦ cityhatL@spokanevattey.org Memorandum Date: September 1, 2006 To: City Council, Dave Mercier - City Manager, Nina Regor -Deputy City Manager From: Mike Jackson, Parks and Recreation Director Re: Old Senior Center Building Attached please find documents pertaining to the condition of the old Senior Center Building located at 11423 E. Mission Ave. (corner of Mission and Bowdish). Included in the documentation you will find a letter dated January 14, 2003, from DCI Engineers to Spokane County Parks, Recreation, and Golf Department. There is also a second letter from DCI Engineers dated March 3, 2005. The letter is addressed to Doug.Mitchell of Madsen, Mitchell, Evenson and Conrad who acted at my request to secure an updated building assessment. In addition to the letters, I've had phone conversations with Doug Mitchell and with Mr. Crowley of DCI Engineers. Both Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Crowley have indicated to me that they feel the best course of action is to demolish the building. Mr. Crowley indicated that stabilizing the building is just one part of the cost. Amer restoring integrity to the building (deep piles or other extensive measures), there would still be significant remodeling costs to make the building usable. The building was constructed on top of an old landfill which generally has been considered the cause of the settling problems. However, as reflected in the March 3 letter from DCI, there is more extensive investigation that can be done to expose the structure and better evaluate the condition of the building. The cost of further study is estimated at $5,000 or so (verbal estimate). In addition, there would be architectural costs to estimate the cost of remodeling. In speaking with Doug Mitchell, he indicated that he could not estimate a potential cost of building restoration until the exact nature of the settlement and the proposed corrective action is k1101Am. Then, the intended use of the building would have to be considered in developing a renovation plan. Doug did mention that he would be happy to meet with staff or council upon request. I also spoke with Mr. Doug Chase, Spokane County Parks and Recreation Director on February 28, 2006. Doug C. indicated he does not recall if the commissioners formally voted on the future of the building. However, the impetus of building a new senior center was always that the old building was no longer in suitable condition. He said the understanding was always that the old senior center would be demolished. 1 1i My personal observation is that the building has shifted considerably during the 3 + years that I have been familiar with it. Karen Parson, Senior Center Specialist indicates that without doubt the building has moved and shifted during her tenure there. In summary, the next step on the City's behalf is to decide if the building should be demolished based on the existing viformation or if additional funds should be expended for further study as mentioned by DCI engineers. The only current use proposed for this building is a suggestion in the Parks and Recreation Master Plan that it might serve as a youth activity center. This would require extensive remodeling and a decision by the City to fund and operate such a facility. As noted by DCI, the cost of repairs would most likely exceed the value of the building (March 3, 2005 Re: Spokane Valley Senior Center). MY recommendation is to expend the additional 55,000 - 510,000 or so to investigate/evaluate the condition of the building and determine an approximate cost of repair and remodeling. While this will most likely result in a reconime.ndation to demolish the building anyvv-ay, we will at least have conclusive data on xvhich to base our decision. At some future point; the City may have a need for a building at this site and it may be in our best interest to have documented proof as to the condition. This will also provide information on the suitability of the site for other construction which the City may eventually undertake. attachments: Letter from DCI Engineers; January 14, 2003, RE: Valley Senior Center; Letter from DCI. Engineers, March 3, 2005 RE: Spokane Valley Senior Center; 06/27/2205 10:12 59947- 4 COUNTY PARKS rAG_ 03 ~ RS J.:Viruh D mrrr,~ P.E~; D C E N G I 1 V ~T ~J E G~: t: Carivers~no, M A T O C O N V S R S A ti 0 1 N C. Elizcfbe~h Jena4r+. . D ~ Rager L ~~erinba. p~;, Har+~ylon.s dr, 7E. ! ! fan ary 14, 2003 : Mr.:Bob Hughes is Sp ~kane County Parks, Recreation, and Golf Department ; Plates Perry Park Y 12 08 East Upfiver Drive Sp ka ie, W.A. 9-9216 Re: Valley Senior Center Spokane County Project \t o. P3964 Der Bob: On. January 9, 20011 visited the Valley Senior Center located near the J` ' intersection of Bowdish Road and Mission Avenue, to observe the currer;t sfate-pf ; thel,structure as it has been affected by differential foundation settlement over the past year, since the last structural assessment conducted in early 2002. 'T9uving w+. _ the week prior to my visit, 'we authorized Pat Moore to conduct a monitoring _ survey of the structure and obtain the elevations of each spot used in the monitoring survey conducted last year. Th moitoring survey divides the basement and first floor into 9-Point each, ; ` wh~re building elevations are taken. Each point is at or near a load beatin&..arO• of fhe building, so. these spot elevations are good indicators of potentially da4gerous building movement, which could potentially result in a=s:tru€tural ifar ure. According to a comparison of the current survey and the survey. ; conducted last year, there has been no significant building movement over the pa 'fyear. i'. Alt ough the new survey does not indicate any significant building••mowernent m the areas identified in the attached report, pockets of localized settle.meht ti- beneath the slab on grade could exist berween the main bearing points. An- em-inple of this can be seen in the west half of the basement, where there is= no iceable floor deflection. Thz slab on grade in the basement is mostlike.ly :a un reinforced, so, when the soil beneath the slab sinks anti=ay, the slab is riot stro#g en ugh to•span across the new void and as a result will crack and deflect with t1'e °a soi . This slab, on grade deflection does not aggravate the conditions otcurfing at `f, the-bearing elements, but it does create a serviceability problem where stati;bnaq ate s wilt no longer sit level and could also pose a tripping hazard. As indicated by a comparison of the new building sun=ey and the strMey' doh -e a~ ye~r ago, there has been minimal building movement over the past year. This gives an indication that the building settlement may be stabilizing, but as I'; A T:- e PAULSEN C NTE.R - WEST 421 Ri -tRIDE • SUn' 606 • SPOKNNa, X•VA 99201 PHONE: (509) 455 ~44S F.!4 (sod) 4S,fi' 71~J2 -05!27/2005 1J::2 5054771' COUNTY PARKS RAGE 34 tae i Page 2- me, tioned in tuy report last year, the Senior Citizens Center is experien6n&. Significant structural distress, but currently shows no signs of imminent .i .a. s !ctural failure. I would not recommend that this facility be used for long4er h d; use•(greater than 3 years) without incorporating significant structural upgrades in oth the fotindation and superstructure. c, If y )u should have-any'questions or require additional information,. please iee1 fre to contact me. Very truly yours, DC Engineer • 11. Ste'>*en A, Davidow, P.E. • :~t • 1'CI J• ) 1:1 • j •1 j Ti ILI ^_arc • r~.c ~fa•~n^7^77iS~i ocr.~ Ad •'t^..Mr M.L/-.ry ~z:},~•`.7~rt•k~•"/'.TS/•`~~: ..~t.•'y~~• re,1~: , .l ~_y~ ~ • ~,,~.•t-tk ,x46- •.Giiu G 'By- ~l.•A•:.-. ~ :Fic1,1~:Fiop:?~-~~~• _ . - _ . . . ~ W': a G - ara e.a• ~r.r_ ~uy.t rar'n _ 5D.0' ,,T -414 a °aJ/ 91.30' 91.36 100.80 L. SO1.08 101.14• l - z' 37 . s G~tc;,a'}jcf~`~~d• tst q%y:: :3SB) > ~jo/ 600-1 Ui,-J:. °''`:i..• ~~yi+~,~-=..N.f,.:t~'Ki :;=d'am'`,;:::: o-.. . . i. 5: _ it-'' r.• 1 00"-~ <wo~J x/0e -93 Y. ru,I ~:t•'.< Sri;;`L; f• ~.P y:.i /7/.Zta - 0 100.4 O 100.91 100.96 a•~>,.'' 9/•~- O_ y{a, " , 91.20 91.24 O is ~~siri a:. .:i.'t'.~tf.a.i~•` 81~OD ~ ~~.-..s rrr+~ .~•uX~l~7!"`,~'••ilry:.^+-,~'":v`r.+~~f••~.ywzt ~rlc: J.;.:"si;%nl•~~_~' ~N q F U P R QO ~C° 1oly ' ;lay'.` :r' BAS MEff (`Ztij . s+C. 4:~r'.~_ti`•r'~:i:_ ' pp a- - - ~ - / sh V 5 :x;` .'~f'+ X2.. • y ( 4':l ~ r 1 O e ti ~ ' lel~.i: ! : ? V Y too. 3 ~¢i ~c~•. 8.1.14 0 f r- i Y~ ; ~ ti~I•jt z}.4-;~~~s'.,,}.. ry , 4;, t 0.0E A 8 1 ~ b s.. i'y.•~ f r.'e~ to g: ' ; _,j [c~%.4. AjJE VALLEY SENIOR CENTER' tB SCALE' SPOK c~:• '%PROJECT:THE h103T NORTHWESTERLY a 20' d ~.':4 kane County; Washington ; BpFtt1ET BOR.OW..FIFtE HYDRANT IOCATEO AT THE •o FOOF Mii81Ur! KI0713'OWDISF1-FCEVATIDN-'- °~,~jJ+ , 1s +aa,_.-ao, '-,~vQ or, CONCRETE MONI O i JC..Si lf~VEY 12-12-95 co --le ALLtLSH0T5 TAKEN WE SE'TAKEN -s r T,H CARPET. - - Et r...• iUND nEClMl3Li':?.)995'; E- 1657-( r=. = ROyNTS'1WERE11AAFIKED WiTH RED rAINT' ST7Ci('O ER CARPET ) I . ,r r, FtAIZo oNSU.tTn IONa Of. naTS INC. BUILDING ARE FROM INSIDE WALL TO I;.'SIDE WALL. - - ..•;Di?+!ENS ~ - • 1;~atti:llrsClaLEHCUPt[ns lTe 4 yr,gLL`;SHOTS TAKEN -AT'•:EOGF OF WALL. Ut"1LESS TOTED OTHERWISE. ? rtta I. tptK~',!e x~:sr+mLfaa'mti ' S4H~YEY~~'~ FIELO WORK fQtdKE7ED I'l- 12•!)r 06/27/2025 16:12 599a7?^~5a rOL,yTV PARKS PAGE ul ' P Q \T. F - r j C C3 L7 y i " I fc :DEPARTAIEN'T OF PARKs, RECREATION AND GOLF Doug Chase, Director DA TO, Ui5+ FRO T: -Doiab Chase, Director Parks, Recreation and Golf dchaseras okaaeco>_inty.org PHOI (s0:9) 477-4730 FA (509) 477-2454 - Number of-Pages to Fol.lo)y: GOB • . if. 4 i. i', 40.9 ,1,for►th Havana 0 Spokane, Washing= 99202.4663 • Te{e-phone (509) 477-4730 Fax: (5O9) 47.24-N TI II,! ~7 ~G1(lS t 1 :0 : CG1cn77~.:~.~ 77f = eft Mare D'Atnato - Guy A. CuntTrsrtre WiuGtth A. Jvrwm - (logm L. Hedriaga • Mare U- Adele 1 _ j t It P 1 { Jf i E Hany lunar N - 7'ioy r. Bean • Tom C. At, Nz,!). diehard L Hertmon • Gant C BtrrlinRhrm D'AMATO COh'VERSANO 1 NC. March 3, 2005 Doug Mitchell Madsen N-litchell Evenson & Conrad 216 N. Howard, Skywalk Level Spokane, WA 99201 Re: Spokane Valley Senior Center Dear Doug, On the morning of March 3, 2005 l visited the Spokane Valley Senior Center located at E. 11123 Mission Avenue in the City of Spokane Valley to review the general structural condition of the building. I understand that the building was constructed in the 1970's and that the site was the previous location o f a landfill. As you described on the phone, there are indications of excessive settlement throughout the structure 'The slab on grade, walls, main floor structure, and roof all have signs of settlement. In some locations in the basement the settlement is several inches. At the time of my visit, the floor and roof structures were concealed by insulation above the ceiling tiles. Based on my conversations with the tenants, the building continues to settle even after 30 years of occupancy resulting in new cracks, uneven floors, skewed door and window jambs, plumbing leaks, and leaks in the roof. The continued settlement is likely due to decomposing organic materials located in the fill below the building. This decomposing material constantly produces new voids in the subgrade resulting in additional settlement. In my opinion, the settlement will most likely continue for the foreseeable future. Extreme differential settlement can exert excessive stresses on the structure and specifically the connections. In some cases the settlement could cause framing members to pull away from their supports resulting in failure. The building would be particularly vulnerable to failure during a seismic event. DCI would recommend vacating the facility as soon as practical and would not recommend continued occupancy of this building after the new facility is complete at Mirabeau Point. Repairing the structure and restoring its integrity would involve deep piles and/or other extensive measures to mitigate the settlement issues. Any such repairs would most likely exceed the value of the building. Future development of this site would most likely involve the excavation and removal of the unstable soils currently located on the site. If necessary, DCI Engineers would be glad to do some more extensive investigation of the structure to better evaluate its current condition. Additional investigation would include some destructive exploration to expose the structure in several different locations. if you have any questions or would like any additional information, please contact me. Sincerely, DCI Engin, eers Cra' Towle P.E F„ Associate 421 W. Riverside Ave.. Suite 606 • Spokane, WA 99201 • Phone: (509) 455.4448 • Fax: (509) 455.7492 Bellevue Spokane Everett Portland San Diego Valley Mission Senior Center Y y - 0 Multi-Purpose Room 1 Billiards Room Lower Level Classroom Foundation ~Tf Downstairs Classroom xr ,r ` t. •i I•' I d H f 3 I Stairs on west side of building _ t r• 4 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: September 12, 2006 City Manager Sign-off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Annexation Goals and Policies GOVERNING LEGISLATION: See attached Exhibit A. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: The City council has asked that staff begin the process of developing annexation policies and/or procedures for council review. BACKGROUND: Previously the City Attorney's Office provided-materials on legal requirements and policies considerations surrounding the issue of annexation. See attached Exhibit A. A number of additional legislative issues have been identified by the City of Vancouver and should be taken into consideration. A memorandum from the Mayor of Vancouver is' attached as Exhibit B. Policy issues have been identified by the Community Development Department and are attached as Exhibit C. OPTIONS: Review and provide additional direction. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: NA BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Budget impacts of annexation have not been specifically identified. STAFF CONTACT: Marina Sukup, Mike Connelly ATTACHMENTS : Exhibit A - Legal Analysis - Annexation Exhibit B - Memorandum re: 2007 Legislative Issues Exhibit C - Memorandum re: Policy Considerations crrt• of Spo*ane Valley . 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 406 ♦ Spokane Valley VGA 99206 509.921.1000 ♦ Fax: 509.921.1008 ♦ cityhatt@spokanevalley.org Memorandum' To: Dave Mercier, City Manager; Nina Regor, Deputy City Manager; Mayor Diana Wilhite and members of the City Ciuncil From: - Michael F. Connelly, City Attorney Cc: Marina Sukup, :Director of Community Development; Neil Kersten, Director of Public Works Date: June 12, 2006 Annexation - Planning Considerations Methods of annexation and basic considerations are discussed in a previous memo dated February 13th, 2006 and attached as Exhibit 1. Specific steps that should be taken by the City of Spokane Valley in the next 6 months to preserve the opportunity for annexation are set forth below. The County of Spokane has recently adopted their 20 year population forecast which identifies an anticipated population growth of 118;879 which is an increase -of 33,125. Initial estimates indicates that fill in development can absorb a population of 24283. The remainder will require a UGA outside the boundaries of the City limits. A summary of the population projections is set forth in-'Exhibit 2. The process followed by the City of Spokane Valley must also fit within the schedule proposed by Spokane County and the Growth Management Steering Committee. A copy of Spokane County's tentative schedule is attached as Exhibit 3. The city should also be aware of is the population allocation outside of the City limits which is intended for County growth. Currently the population projections identify population growth of 66,073 persons, without specifically identifying in which. area development would occur. Any development adjacent to the City of Spokane Valley ( that occurs without a joint planning agreement could result in adverse impacts to our l~ transportation system and a reduction in the limited sewer capacity available. The following steps should be followed: 1. Specific Annexation Goals and Policies adopted by Council which discuss: when annexations are necessary and viable, what capital facilities the city would require, what transportation LOS and identified transportation projects are acceptable, and what funding opportunities are available. Our current comprehensive plan addresses this issue as follows: LUG-17 The City of Spokane Valley should, continue to coordinate with Spokane County and neighboring cities for adjacent urban growth areas. Policies LUP-17.1 The City should coordinate with Spokane County to ensure appropriate service provision and land development prior to City annexation. Methods to allow for coordination may include, but are not limited to, execution of an interlocal agreement between the City of Spokane Valley and Spokane County to,, Establish guidelines for development plan review, impact • fees and SEPA mitigation; and Define service delivery responsibilities, level of service standards and capital facility implementation consistent with the goals and policies of this Plan. LUP-97.2 Through regional planning efforts, the City and County should ensure that planning is compatible with the Cities of Spokane and Liberty Lake. LUP-17.3 The City should continue coordinated planning efforts between Spokane County; appropriate fire districts, school districts. and water service providers. to assure managed growth in urban growth areas. More detailed documents from the City of Vancouver and Bellevue are attached as Exhibit 4. 2. A UGA analysis prepared by the Community Development Department, based on criteria set forth in Spokane County Wide Planning Policies (CWPP) which allocates our population forecast as follows: a. Capacity in City. b. Capacity in existing UGAs 2 c. Capacity in County Urban Reserve areas if existing UGAs cannot accommodate population allocation. 3. Open House(s) to discuss potential growth areas and the UGAlcriteria process. 4. Alternative UGA proposals and capital facilities plan update prepared. by the Community development Department and the Public Works Department respectively. 5. Workshop with Planning Commission. 6. Public Hearing with Planning Commission. 7. Planning Commission's recommendations to City Council. 8. Public Hearing and Decision by the City Council. 9. Recommendation of City Council forwarded to Steering Committee of Elected Officials. 10. County may require public hearing on city UGA proposals by their Planning Commission 11. Board of County Commissioners conducts public hearing on UGA proposals. CTCY of 1 " a exhibit L, page 1 of 3 y 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 ♦ Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.921.1000 ♦ Fax: 509.921.1003 ♦ cityhal1@spokanevalley.ora Memorandum To: Dave Mercier, City Manager; Nina Regor, Deputy City Manager; Mayor Diana Wilhite and members of the City Council From: Mike Connelly, City Attorney CC: Date: February 13, 2006 Re: Annexation - Basic Considerations 1. Initiation: a. LAND OIVNER/VOTER PETITION PROCESS(RCW 35A.14 and 35.13) L Owners of not less than ten per cent of the acreage or not less than ten per cent of the residents of the area (non-code cities) shall notify the City Couricil iu writing of their intension to continence annexation proceedings. ii. City council sets a date to accept, reject or modify the proposal. iii. If accepted a petition is circulated and must be signed by owners of a majority of the acreage and a majority of the registered voters. iv. if the P' tition is'certified a public hearing is held and the city council signs an "Intent to Annex" resolution. v. Notice of intention is then filed with the Boundary Review Board, a decision is made, and if the decision supports the annexation the municipality adopts an ordinance effectuating the change. b. ELECTION PROCESS FOR CODE CITIES, IN1TlATED BY VOTERS (RCW 35A.14.110) i. A petition is submitted by not less th.ai-i.10 percent of the .registered voters in an area. If sufficient the City Council, within 60 days shall accept the petition. ii. Once approved the petition is filed with the Board of County Commissioner. i.ii. A notice of i.nfenti.on is then filed with BRB. If approved by the BRB the decision is sent to the affected municipality. The City then requests the county auditor to set the matter for a special election. If a majority vote in favor, the annexation is approved. (Indebtedness must Exhibit 1, page 2 of 2 be approved by 60 If approved the City Council adopts an ordinance effectuating the change. - c. ELECTION PROCESS FOR CODE CITIES, hKITIA.TF.D BY CITY COUNCIL, (RCW 35A.14.015-1.1.0.) i. City Council adopts a resolution called for an election to be submitted to the voters. ii. City Council files a copy of the Resolution with the Board of County Commissioners. iii. A notice of intention is then filed Nvith the BRB..T_f.' approved by the BRB the decision is sent to the affected municipality. The City then requests the county auditor to set the matter for a special election. If a majority vote in favor, the annexation is approved. (indebtedness must be approved by 60 If approved the City Council adopts an ordinance effectuating the change. 2. An annexation petition has the best chance of succeeding a. The area to be annexed is within a UGA. (It is preferable that it be designated as the City of Spokane Valley's UGA but not necessary.) b. The City of Spokane Valley has a comprehensive plan that: i. Identifies populations projections that exceed the capacity of the existing municipal properties. ii. Identifies the area as a Spokane Valley UGA. iii. Contains a capital facility plan that demonstrates the ability of the City of Spokane Valley to serve the area. 3. If we choose to identify areas as future City of Spokane Valley UGA's in anticipation of future annexations the following steps are recommended: a. Participate in Steering Committee deliberations to ensure: i. Adoption of population projections That are: 1. Realistic 2. Identify the necessity for gro.~~,th outside of our existing boundaries. ii. That UGA's are identified as City of Spokane Valley UGAIJPA's. iii. The execution of joint planning agreements. b. include in the soon to be finalized comprehensive plan, or in the ordinance adopting the plan, the following recent developments: i. That Spokane Comity has recommended adopting the high OFM population numbers in developing future population projections. Exhibit 1, page 3 of 3 r ~ ii. That property adjacent to the City of Spokane Valley has or is in the process of being annexed by Liberty Lake, impacting the provision of services within the City of Spokane 'Valley. iii. That recent and anticipated expansion of the current UGA's by Spokane County total in excess of 2000 acres, further impacting the availability of necessary services. iv. That current significant developments near to or adjacent to the City of Spokane Valley are being approved without a joint planning agreeiatent between the Spokane County, the City of Spokane Valley and the City of Liberty Lake; and finally that v. All of the above may require a revision of both the population projections and designated groNvth areas in the immediate future. 4. Within the next 12 months, amend the City of Spokane Valley's Comprehensive Plan to include: a. A City of Spokane Valley UGA. b. Population projections that exceed the capacity existing within the current municipal boundaries; and f c. A capital facilities plan that demonstrates that the UGA's identified for future ~l growth can be adequately served by the City of Spokane Valley. C\ Exhibit 2 SPOM11::'11 COLXTY :}3UTL:IDTING .t»:ID PLAINNZNG JAMES L. MANSON, ]DIRECTOR TO: Whom it May Concern: FROM: Jim Manson, Department of Building and Planning Dire RE: 5-Year Update of Spokane County Comprehensive Plan and Urban Growth Area Boundary As you may be aware, Spokane County and local municipalities are required to update their respective Comprehensive Plans and Urban Growth Areas by December 1, 2006. On May 23, 2005, the Board of County Commissioners, adopted a population allocation for initial planning, purposes for the 20-year planning horizon from 2006-2026. This allocation consists of the Office of Financial Management (OFM) medium forecast with an additional 12.5% buffer In response to the initial population allocation the Department of Building and Planning has prepared a "draft" map illustrating County 2006-2026 ADD'L potential areas for consideration for Urban Growth Area Boundary Municipality ALLOCATION modifications to accommodate the initial projected population Spokane 197,639 l allocation. As illustrated on the attached "draft" map, the areas Uninco orated 66,073 under consideration for potential Urban Growth Area Boundary modifications are shown in red and those areas are currently Airway Heights 5,066 designed as Urban Reserve per the adopted Comprehensive Plan. Cheney 3,289 Those areas shown in cross-hatching are individual public Deer Park 2,479 comments or requests related to the Comprehensive Plan land use Fairfield 212 designations in the Urban Reserve Areas or adjacent to the existing Urban Growth Area Boundaries (see attached). Latah 82 Liberty Lake 15,586 To facilitate our deadline of December 1, 2006 to update the Urban Medical Lake 798 Growth Area and Spokane County Comprehensive Plan we request WINvood 91 your expedited review of the "draft" map and provide comments as' Rockford 239 to your ability to provide services/infrastructure to serve the Spangle 322 Identified areas consistent with the adopted Levels of Service -Spokane 70.235 (LOS) in the Spokane County Comprehensive Plan Capital Facilities S okane Valle 33,125 Plan and Countywide Planning Polices by providing the information Waverly 41 on the Evaluation of Public Facilities Form (see attached). If you are not able to provide services consistent with adopted Levels of Service (LOS) please provide specific comments as the reason and/or additional needs to serve in the form on new infrastructure (e.g. new arterials, reservoir, etc.) the associated approximate cost, and timeframe for delivery. Please forward your review comments by June 29, 2006. To address any questions you may have regarding the "draft' map we have scheduled a meeting for June 22, 2006 at 10.00 a.m. in Conference Room 2B where staff will be available to discuss the "draft" map and provide additional clarification as needed. I realize this is a very short notice but hope you can provide this information in order to move fomard with i` the update process in a manner to accommodate our deadline of December 1, 2006. 1026 W. BROADWAY AVENUE • SPOICAIVE, IVA 99260-0050 PHOiNTE4: 509-477-3675 • F'Ax: 509-477-4703 - T:DD:509-477-7133 Exiiib i t 3 2006 - Comprehensive Plan/UGA Update - Regional Planning- •~;7J ~Eeti` vh~r1• ~A-~' ~1611~ ~:x,n1" ~ r ~tac5{ti. H sloerap Canrnfiao poputatbn alioceUano W=`,.briwhep adopted 1 InlonveaJ Apreatnard t~mlallonWSapt nn M = Meadn9 PaprAatfon Allocalhm to H t H - Hcat'nd PC - plalmtna C*rn d=)Dn i BoCC - Cowry Ccmmi%donam I CAO - CrIIW Areas Ordinanoo UGA = Urtaft GrVAeh Area Carp Plan r.7ap Dmiulop tnrp a`.cnmi. Und Ounnb Aft •rt. W - ) t Cupthd FaCIDUCa Pratt RceamhWennlary W r -I % Uut•.=e I 1 I 1 1 \ Planrirq Camm!ea3on V.brlrFap^. -Cansfdar poCb/ and rogulatary revfaiora r PC Ga.d- Comb Ptm• W W YIP w K:Hr rC Hann Adaplim d:tq'.~'G /rcxiM7Rr•~hls: tseranal We_hye BoCC ate: 5hocaEno Program H r'taaonnur: • H Aaopli:n P^nrt "M"tEnp Cvrrwehen:r a Plan Copan I FCM'BW* Man S-=PA FtWt>v PnrEanamrncn 1/nvurnmrnl IcE r. a] Aarac:n-r2a ConstAtw* RFO Repan ;A Rsvl.w xrarS:rR tkaft Sopa Zoned Gmr5&'an Arw iplnrrertlaibn mcat.hroa Zoning Inlogreted Sepa Retilow DoaMnOnt Zanirg Amendrnereo - aanent Ptamina Bxla.p -Zon!np Map/Text A.drnbisiraliam - Walwim MaWannnea - PubQc Particlpatbn Pmgmam GHB Appeal.: - Regtona) CoertRnallon (SRM SRTC, etc.) - S m7 To m UGA - Irterbcal Apreemerdr -0044-6 • Arm,PJ A.mendment~ No anal amramertn 6or 2766 - lc` .•dlat land Umo Chanpoa to be _ CAO tfpdalo d. 08607 ' eanzidarad+rldt q&Iv:*A& one le WA and Comprat*Ws u Plan G 3 • VS0 Exhibit 4 Mnaratt+• a[r~ Ot mp- sis1+0 ?tan Annexation Element Goal: To annex all land within the Potential Annexation Area expeditiously. y r he purpose of the Annexgtion Fiernent is to PuWic services, infrnstruciw a and u?Jity extension, ensure a sfnooth transition front county to city and Compatibility issues in 6elievue's powntfal jurisdiction viben unincorporated land Is annexed annexation areas. to the City. The policies in this element set r-riferia and conditions for considering annexation propos- Annexation of unincorporated land adjacent to the als and establish a framework for addressfng Cii`j benefits the City, residents, and property XIV_1 -I P.ru,icYa:lamEtcin~ en` of aai •sipa~h^ sine Plan cnvners_ Property m mars and residents gain dents within the area proposed. • access to urban services provided by Bellevue such as enhanced police and fire protevioTk' in addition to annexation policy, this elament also building and land use controls, and storm and establishes policy guidance for iniequrisdictional surface water control. They can fully participate in cooperation with adjacent cities, King County, and the local government that most directly a fects special purpose districts. their lives. POUCiES For the City, annexation yields benefits that include the ability to control new development, thereby ensuring ease of future maintenance; control of Pre annexation Impacts at their source; and the ablliy to extend its boundaries in a log;cal, sendce-orienwd man- POLICY AN-1. Annex the following areas when ner. Additionally, the City gains revenues from residents or property avners request annexation: areas that already enjoy certain dry services but currently pay no taxes or fees to Bellevue. a. Unincorporated areas in Factoria, Eastgate, and east of the City to lake Santimamish and Sellevue's Potential Annexation Area was estab- the Sphere of Influence line with.lssaquah. lished in an agreement reached with the Cities of Issaquah and Renton In 1979. This agreement b. The Lmfncorpoiated land adjacent to the East Identifies a Sphere of Influence line to which these Channel Bridge, knv.vn as Enatai" three cities will expand eventually Gi the Newcastle area. The Sphere of inihu- POLICY AN-2. Adjust the ence line may be re-ex- municipal boundaries with amined when certain fac- adjacent cities where the tors such as development existing municipal bound- • patterns or water, savvier, aries create unsa;vrceablo storm water, or transpor- tation service boundaries diverge from expected _ POLICY AN-3. Make the directions. City's public service anod utility service areas coin- For each of these cities, a title with the Potential the area between the S here of Influence line r _ti X Annexation Area, +vherev- P - er mutually agreeal: and the City's current boundary is kna n as the POLICY AN-4. Establish Potential Annexadon Area. pre-annexation zoning for Bellevue's area, shmvn In the entire Potential Annex. Figure AN. t, ultimately .-M ation Area, where practi- add approximately four cal square roves to the City. POLICY AN-5. Respond Annexations are initiated to community initiative„ when the City Council with a full explanation of accepts a petition from a. an methods ai annaxation, sufficient number of till- including the communfty zens or property owners council option. within a proposed annex- - - ation area An annexation POLICY AN-6. Extend is validated elther by sub- Through annexation Bellevue welcomes new rest- the ser.4ce area bound- mission of a second prop. dents rand bunnesses fi-orn unincorp~ oraled Kira aries only If iandOwne1`5 S erty owners petition or by Cotenr•,; lF•oawia So 1,fallf requesting service have an election of the resi-begun the annexation XIV.? a Annexatio em•_rrt of 8a if mpretae 'va Ran . : a process or have made prior agreements with the City may initiate a zoning/special district City. study, should the area be largely undevel- j^` J oped. Permanent zoning would be based on POLICY AN-7. Make every effort, whether by the results of the study. interlocal agreement or other mechanism, to ensure that land which lies within King County's Past-annexation jurisdiction, but which simultaneously,- lies within Bellevue's Potential Annexation Area, develops POLICY AN-13. After annexation, transfer all according to the Comprehensive Plan policies or revic•.v authority for all land currently undergoing other development standards the City of Bellevue development review in King Cotmty to the C?y of has de+e-loped for these particular areas- Befjevuo. POUCYAN-8. UtQlze preannexaiionag,eetnsnts POLICY AN-14. ?.Sake every effort to ensuie a only If Immediate annexation cannot be required or smooth transition from County to City adminis ra- is not reasonahle, lion. POLICY AN-9. Recognize the integrity of existing POLICY AN-15. Charge owners and residents of or future neighborhoods end the need for main- nealy-annexed, fulhi-d eloped territory only the lainfng logical service areas as a Ueneral direction, same utility upgrading costs for whicG-i current when working with individual annexation requests. residents are responsible (excluding special im- provement or benefit districts that may be craat- POLICY AN-to. Require owners of land annexing ad). to the City to be subject to their proportfonate share of the City's bonded ink-febsedness. POLICY AN-15. Establish departmental service rteefs prior to rnaJor annexations through an POLICY AN-11. Consult affected citizens, cities, impact analysis. As revenues from each annex- special purpose districts, and other parties prier to ation area are collected, increase City services to final approval of any annexation. maintain current city'-vide services levels- POLICY AN-12. Establish appropriate zoning POLICY AN-17. Provide newly-annexed areas district designations in proposed annexation areas with the same level of service enjoyed by areas using the foUmving ufteria: within the City, while at the same time not deueas- ing Current cftyv.•ide service levels, a. In annexation areas that are substantially developed at least 70% of the land has been POLICY AN-18. Coordinate all development improved with permanent structures, or for activities between the City-dnd lGng doum"y within r which development permits have been ap- the Potential Annexation Area. Where possible, proved or preliminary plat or PUb approval Joint development review should occur. granted), City of Bellevue zoning district designatlons should be applied that would InterjurisdlCtional most nearly reflect the existing pattern and intensity of develoSsrnant within the hnnex- POLICY AN-19. Coordinate long-range planning ation area. and the development of capital improvernant b. In annexation areas that are largely urxfevei- prograrrts with adjacent c;ies. special districts, and _ King Counrf. oped (mare than 30% of the land is vacant or undeveloped, City of Bellevue zoning district POLICY AN-20. Establish lnierlocai agreements. designations should be applied that would when appropriate, between the City of Sellovue most nearly reflect the patterns and fasten si- and other jurisdictions which address possf..Ne des of land use found in the Comprehens.ve solutions to regional concerns, such as but not Plan for the unincoipormei county area- In limited to, water, sanity sewer, storm -eater the event the Comorehensfve Plan does not sanitary rcvkfe v:ithln the ootrnt drainage, utility drainage basins, transportation, p guidance y area, the parr and open space, development review, and public safety. XIV-3 a Annexallad~'mant~ 'b(i9all~ `C rnpieh s?m Plan v _ b t y POLICY AN-21. Support consolidation (by mutual cities when there is a service agreement In effect . agreement) of those portions of special purpose or when such temporary service is necessary service districts and Fling County Fiood Control because of an emergency. Districts, such as Water and Sewer District 107 and the Easteate, Sewer District, wdh the City POLICY AN-23. Recognize existing ut,'fity agme- v:here the servico district is providing service ments with adjacent cldes, tarns, and districts, within the City's corporate boundary and where, as and acknowledge the continuation of such agree- in the case of Water District 117, there are not ments. Ensure that these agreements contain major conflicts with existing subarea policies. conditions which have the necessary development review authority In order to maintain acceptable POLICY AN-22. Provide public services and/or service levels to those municipalities. utilities vrthfn the corporate limits of adjoining XIV-4~~ i L-r r Y" ~ Y n B naAA Q rtF CtfiS[ ' Inl•~ Srzmrus'n:sh 7^t. •a-Sir A'a:htrgrnn ~ . a f ~ cum PR1a3dalM,1=6= Sxodary ~ t ~ Apas W~~ 1 . F7i~ it i u y ~ a ~ t Bellevue Potential Annexation Area 11111=1isc1111TY rz11:s" GOSRa:r1kde rtlkdm toar,~c/„_-~nry,R ratt~:cACOmC~►Y W&J. 6:cmfmsmcv:c:n 1u :f orrdspet;st Rn~t[Fcdxtm meel cfs a3p, m ery nontrt 7arml,k pn:l.lfd •etlt~t 17e aeir[ss KPim rt}mf'j Rf Qre Qp'el Ret:sar. i~ VANCOUVER URBAN ARZA PLAN - ANNEXATION Revised March 22, 1993 CHALLENGES 0234 ANNEXATION Encourage Clark County to pit pare for th- effects of fixture annexations by refocusing and redirecting its resources to regional service delivery- C235 ANNEXATION Vancouver should not annex territory beyond its urban growth boundary, and Clark County should support annexations provided they are consistent with the policies contained in this annexation element. C236 AArNEX -4T70N Vancouver should direct its resources toward the provision of urban services. C237 AAFNEXAT ION Developing areas-within urban growth and idcndrtted annrxation areas should annex or commit to annex to adjacent, cities is order to receive a full range of city-provided urban services. 0238 ANNEXATION Unincorporated areas that arc already urbanized are encouraged to annex to the appropriate city or town in order to receive urban services. 0239 ANNEXATION Incorporation of. rrew cities and town is a legal option allowed for under Washing{on lavi and may be appropriate if an adequate financial base is identified or annexation is impractical. C240 AN&EXATION Residetus of the Vancouver Urban Growth Area should be included in an effective public involvement process for annexation. C741 ANNEXATION provide access for each resident and property owner to any information needed to evaluate and make decisions related to the delivery of urban levels of service and boundary change. 0242 ANNEXATION General, public information should be developed by both the city and county for annexation proposals. 0243 ANNF,X47ION Explore new, creative ways to case die transition of services in at[ areas of government and specially in public safety, transportation, pares and recreation, and land use and development. C244 ANNEXATION 'Support the consolidation of fire protection services. C245 ANNEXATION Vancouver and Clark County should muvially define their service roles based on the Growth Management Act, and support the adherence to these roles. Page 53 • VANCOUVFR URr3AN ARc,A PLAN C246 ANArF.TATION ' Encourage the use of a standard system, including consistent guidelines, for ~ J assessing the service needs of each proposed amttezation, sub-arca and the resources nee ssary to provide those sct•vices. 0247 ANNEXATION Land use designations for the incorporated and unincorporated areas of the Vancouver Urban Growth Area sbould be rLsistent. C248 ANNEXATION Significant land wsc decisions and/or rapitat improvement projects within the Vancouver Urban Grow`b Area should be reviewed by all z5ieLled agencies. C249 ANNEXATION Support the continuation of joint cirvicounty policy discussions. 0250 ANNE;C4TION Clark County should continue to perform routine maintenance of infrast--ucture and similar public facilities within an annexation area until laic effective date of the annexation. C251 /UVAIEXATION Stints and roads, including rights-of-way, adjacent to the. land to be annexed should be made part of the annexation C252 ANNEXATION Prioritization of annexation efforts should be based on Vancouver's ability to provide a full ranze of municipal services in a timely and efficient manner. C2S3 ANNEXATION A timeline for annexation should be responsive to the interests of citizeus, but should also be based on guidelines which will ensure the efficient and effective delivery of soviets to the annexation sub-area. C254 ANNEXATION Encourage the annexation of large arc's without precluding individual property owners from pursuing the annexation process. C255 ANNEXATION Encourage the creation of proposed auucxation sub-areas that are consistent with the spirit and invent of the Gro-Ah ManagemenI Act. ~J C256 AMNEXAT ION Each proposed annexation shall meet the requirements of a: Boundary Review Act, including the preservation of natural neighborhoods and communities, the use of significant physical boundaries, and the creation or preservation of logical seiv= areas. 0257 ANNEXATION Work with residents of annexation sub-areas io deierntine the most efficient and effective method for annexation as provided by state law. C258 ANNEXATION Ensure that service levels within the City of Vancouver arc not reduced as a exult of an annexation- C259 ANNEXATIOAT Vancouver and Clark County should establish financial impact criteria for identifying the revenues and expenditures associated with annexation. 0260 ANNEXATION Encourage Clark County to prepare Cot the effects of future annexations by refocusing and redireciing its resources to regional service delivery. -a f'o,s 54 P.O. Box 1995 ay C4 Voncouver, Washington 98664-1995 WASHING i E 0W N"v w.cl.voncouvermo.us Memorandum To: Tom Fitzsimmons, Chief of Staff, Office of the Governor From: Royce E. ,Pollard, Mayor, America's Vane Date: July 7, 2006 Re: 2007 Legislative issues Tom, first, thanks for taking the time to meet with me and other city officials. Looking ahead to the '07 session we have identified a number of important issues and this memo is intended to serve as a summary for today's meeting. Major issues include: 1. Local transportation funding, options - Providing Cities with a viable menu of local transportation funding options will remain a very high priority for Vancouver, other large cities, and the Association of Washington Cities. We currently are running an annual transportation systems deficit of $15 million- this being the difference between current revenues and transportation needs based upon our Comprehensive Plan (Attachment A). Two new ideas for providing local governments with local-options have surfaced in recent weeks, and include: a. Modify existing TBDA (RCW 36.73) statute to allow implementation of authorized revenue options via couiicilmanic action rather than through a vote of the people (Attachment B); and b. Provide the City of Vancouver with pilot-project authority to implement a Street Utility tax (Attachment Q. 2. Annexation -Current law does not provide sufficient certainty in association with annexations of unincorporated urban areas. Clark County is a good example of an urban area where large areas within the UGB remain unincorporated. Vancouver would like the Governor's help with legislative changes to provide greater flexibility and timeliness. There are two policy areas which the City will be advocating annexation reform, including: o - a Royce E. PoP,ord • mayor Tun Lea+htt • Councunernber Dan Tonkmich - Counci member 4 Jeanne E. Stewart - CouncUrnen ber Pat Jdbta - Couinc ilmer'nber Larry J. S n~lh - Councilmernber Jeanne Hairl:: - Cotncilrnember CrUBRATE Pat,vlcDonnell • Ci-r/ tJarKxger i REF.00M f ( - Annexation process 'We Nvil.l support legislation that would provide a new nnethod of annexation in GMA counties for those lands within UGB's. This new method would be via ILA and was proposed in 2005 by Rep. Moeller in HB 1285; and We would also like to lower from 75% to 60% the assessed valuation requirement for petition method annexations within first class cities, and which would provide consistency among all cities; and We would like to restore to cities the responsibility for certifying annexation signatures; and making other technical changes as were included in HB 2007 introduced in 2005; and Legislation that would mandate that all counties over 400,000 population must have a Boundary Review Board. Annexation funding We will support legislation to authorize a residential utility tax surcharge in newly annexed areas. Such legislation was introduced earlier this year in SB 5334; and We will support legislation that would extend existing post-annexation county road fund tax authority to a period of ten years, and We would like to amend current law to include Clark County among those counties eligible for the new annexation assistance (state sales tax credit) available through the passage and signing of SSB 6686. 3. Economic Development - Recent LEF7 legislation needs to be modified to clarify that the sales tax on new construction within the redevelopment area is not to be used in base year calculations. Also the "8/20" restrictions need to be changed to provide more flexibility to accommodate projects like our Riverwest Project which when finished could produce "pew" property tax revenue in excess of the 80% cap in the LIFT bill. We have discussed these matters with Marc Baldwin. The City also will continue to push for full and unfettered tax-increment- financing authority. 2 4. Capital Budget/Infrastructure - Recently I wrote the Governor asking for an opportunity to meet with her during a future visit to Vancouver (Attachment D) to brief her on the recently completed Long Range. Plan for the Vancouver National Historic Reserve. A very critical near-tents element of that is a capital project to completely remodel and expand the existing Visitor Center. The City will be asking the Governor (letter attached) to include in her proposed 07-09 Capital Budget a $1 million appropriation (through CTED) for the Vancouver National Historic Reserve Visitor Center. Project (S4.1 million). Just last week a federal earmark of $2 million was approved by the U.S. Senate. City representatives met last week with CTED, DAHP and WSHS officials to share this request Details of the project are included in Attachments. A copy of the Long Range Plan is also attached. Finally, I would like to emphasize the tremendous value that we have realized in Vancouver and Clark County from many of the state funded grant and loan programs support. Programs like T[13, PFD, IAC, WWRA, ALEA, LIFT, Job Development Fund, Heritage, PNVTF, community project appropriations and many others have be absolutely critical to helping us with local projects and critical infrastructure. We support all of these programs, believe each to be unique, have no issues with their administration or processes, and are concerned about talk of "consolidation". The need for each of these programs is real, and the biggest need is for more money to be allocated into these programs. Tom, again, thanks so much for your time today. If you have need to follow-up on any of these items please contact Mark Brown at 360-790-4427 or ~Vtark.Brotivn r ,ci.vancouver.wa.us. cc: Members, Vancouver City Council Attachments: A- Vancouver. Transportation Funding sun-unary B- TBDA background paper C- Street Utility summary D- Letter to Governor requesting meeting E- VNHR Visitor Center Project update 3 144faCAl M OJ~ A Transportation Services y' ll 1300 Franklin Street - e Floor I~~ Phone: (360) 696-8290 P.O. Box 2995 VANCOUVER Fax: (360) 696-8588 Vancouver, WA 98668-1995 W AS HI N G t O 0i Yimw.cltyofvancouver. us/transportation July 6, 2006 lt1E: Vancouver - Transportation Funding Current Situation Vancouver's Comprehensive Plan Identifies transportation capital facility needs costing in excess of $400 million dollars (local system improvements only) over the twenty year period. With adoption of this plan In 2004; City Council initiated what has become two sequential task force' which were charged with making recommendations for how to fill the gap in transportation funding. In spring 2005; the second task force recommended that City Council approve a two-tenths cents increase in the local sales tax and to also increase the City's business license fee. Both the sales tax and business license fee increases were to be tied to fund transportation. Council enacted the sales tax increase in fall 2005. With the two-tenths increase in the sales tax Vancouver is now at the statutory limit for sales tax. A business license fee has yet to be enacted. Summary: Transportation Funding Needs Annual Need to Existing Prior Funding Fall 05 Sales Fund Shortfall* Tax Increase Comprehensive (Annual) Plan System Total $13,450,000 $4,800,000 $33,250,000 (-15,000,000) "Based on $18,250,000 In revenue whEch Includes the sales tax Increase. Future Needs Addressing the significant shortfall in annual transportation funding ($15 million per year) will require development of new transportation funding tools. Recent inability to implement a business license fee and past phase out of the B&O tax in Vancouver speak to the real and perceived inequities inherent in using existing taxing tools to fund transportation. Development of new funding mechanisms such as the Street Utility, which create a direct nexus between transportation system use and taxation, present a real opportunity for Vancouver to create direct linkage between the taxing tool and the end system user. Legislative Update 2006: Expanded Transportation Benefit District Authority (RCW 36.73) Background: Transportation Benefit Districts, or *MW originated in 1987 and were modified again in 1989. The legislative authority of a county or a city can establish a transportation benefit district. It can be•tess than jurisdiction wide and is to address existing or foreseeable congestion levels. When multiple jurisdictions are involved in establishing a TBD, the governance structure is controlled by interlocal agreement. However, the original statute was considered problematic due to its primary tax authority related to property taxes, it also allows a fee or charge on construction and reconstruction to be solely used for transportation improvements identified in the Transportation Benerd District. Around 2002, Senator Swecker introduced legislation to refine and expand Transportation Benefit District authorities. This legislation finally passed in 2005, in the form of Engrossed Senate Substitute Bill 5177. In 2006, this legislation was revised and Imbedded as part of the Puget Sound regional transportation bin, ESHB 2871 (formedy known as "RTID'). The underlying TBD part of the bill was HB 3138. The new authority: Existing or foreseeable congestion is the threshold to create a TBD. (original law) SuNect to voter aaoroval, TBDs have independent taxing authority to implement the following revenue measures: (1) property taxes (see below) (2) 2110 of one percent sales tax (3) an annual vehicle frcense fee per vehicle registered in the district not to exceed $100 (4) general obligation bonds; (5) transportation impact fees; and (6) border area motor Vehicle fuel taxes (Point Roberts uses the authority). The significant improvements in the 2006 legislation are the following: 1) The requimmerrt that 60 cents on the dollar go to highways of statewide significance is repealed. Funds are to be dedicated to a "transportation improvement", which Is defined as a project contained in the transportation plan of the state or Regional Transportation Planning Organization. Transportation Improvement Includes state highways, principal arterials (of regional significance), public transportation, and "other projects" of regional significance. It also allows for the operation, preservation, and maintenance of identified facilities or programs. Note: regional significance is defined by its RTPO membership. 2) King, Pierre, and Snohomish County (and its respective cities) have this authority. effective December 1, 2007. If the Regional Transportation Improvement District (RTID) measure fails in November 2007, then King, Pierre and Snohomish County will receive the RTiD taxing authority of 8110% MVET and an additional 1/10% sales tax. Previously, they were precluded from this authority. Note on property tax: There are effectively two options and both require a 60% or greater voter approval. 1) A one year levy in excess of the 1% limitation, 2) A levy in excess of the I% limitation to back voter approved G.O. bonds. Street utility Bill Every city in Washington endures a greater and greater shortfall each year in funds needed for repair of its streets. The trend is irreversible and worsening. This is tare despite the use by most cities of general fund money for this purpose - money that would otherwise go to law enforcement, fire services, community services, parks and recreation, and other municipal services. Instead of relying on the State to fill this gap, the option exists to create a street utility, which in concept is like a water district sewer district, or utility district - namely, users of the service pay for it based on the degree of impact on the system. What it does • Ensures that everyone pays the fee (non-profits, businesses and government) • Caps revenue collection at 50% of maintenance and operations costs • Allows a city council in its discretion to create a street utility district in order to raise badly needed funds for street repair • Requires the qty to assess fees on itself, other govemments, residences, and businesses in an equitable manner using objective and sound engineering practices Distinguishes between types of business according to vehicle trips generated • Places the responsibility for creation of the utility and its fairness squarely on the shoulders of duly elected city officials • Gives cities a locally imposed revenue source not dependent on State government What it does NOT do • It-does not impose a one-sizeAts-all fee on unlike businesses • It does not allow cities themselves (or any other entities) to escape payment of the fee - it is not a tax - it is a user fee, just like water and power • It is not imposed without public hearings and often lengthy deliberation by the city council • It is not unlimited in amount - a city must o first determine the'degree of improvement needed on streets in the district in accordance with generally accepted engineering principles, o compute vehicle trips generated by businesses, homeowners, and others for each specific part of the district and each type of business or residence (apartments, for example), o hold public hearings to learn about individual circumstances, possible mitigation of impacts, and historical- usages, and 0 only then, enact the ordinance creating the district Exhibit "C" S pQRane ,;ooOValley 11707 E Sp+ague Ave Suite 106 ♦ Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.921.1000 ♦ Fax: 509.921AC08 ♦ citvhall@spokanevallev.org Memorandum To: Dave Mercier, City Manager, Members of the Spokane Valley City Council From: Marina Sukup, AICP, Community Development Director Date: September 12, 2006 Re: Annexation Policy Considerations The following policy considerations are important in making a decision concerning the addition of additional territory into the City: ' • Age and condition of existing infrastructure; • Does infrastructure meet City design and construction standards? • Capacity for additional development within annexed area; • Impact on water purveyors ability to provide potable water service and supply/pressure for adequate fire suppression; • Requirements for annexation or dissolution of other spacial districts, including but not limited to library and fire services; • Drainage/floodplain issues; • Limitations on uses/development resulting from location in critical areas or airport hazard; • Size of existing residential population in area to be annexed; • Capacity for sustainable non-residential development; • Access for service delivery providers including solid waste collection, • Impact of annexation on City's existing service levels within the City; • Additional costs for roadway maintenance, traffic control, code compliance; • Impact of the failure to annex on the control of land uses/development affecting current City residents; • Capacity of the area to generate property, sales and other taxes/revenues to meet service requirements of the area to be annexed; • Existence of Joint Planning Agreements; and • Location within the Urban Growth Area. CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action J Meeting Date: September 12, 2006 Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information X❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Administrative Report: Policy Issues associated with UR 3.5 and UR 7* zoning designations. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: . RCW 35.21.180 and 35A.14.140; SVMC 10.30.620 PREVIOUS COUNCILICOMMISSION ACTION TAKEN: Ordinance 04-054, Area Wide Rezone (REZ-17-04) North Greenacres area; the 2006-2026 Comprehensive Plan was adopted on April 25, 2006 and effective on May 10, 2006. BACKGROUND: In early 2005, an area-wide zoning amendment was approved for North Greenacres, changing the zoning from UR-7* to UR-3.5. Zoning regulations implement the Land Use element of the Comprehensive Plan. Both districts are considered LDR Low Density Residential in the City's interim and approved Comprehensive Plan land use classification. The nomenclature of the districts has been confusing for many people: the permitted density in the UR-3.5 zoning district is a net 4.35 dwelling units, while the limitation on the UR-7" district is six dwelling units per acre. Calculated at 2.5 persons per household, the UR-7' zoning represents an increase of only 4.125 persons/acre. The difference is not appreciable in traffic analysis. The difference in the minimum lot size is somewhat more significant however. UR-3.5 has a L J minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet (20,000 for duplexes) and 6,000 square feet (11,000 for duplexes). Minimum lot width is 65 feet for UR-7 (and UR 7") and 80 for UR-3.5. Setback requirements are the same for both districts. The difference is accentuated visually when new development at six units/acres is compared with existing one acre lots in the area. Presently the City has no regulations that establish specific criteria or that would prohibit the approval of rezoning from UR-3.5 to UR-7*. Property owners within 400 feet are provided with notice of any proposed re-zone, and have the opportunity to comment. The recently adopted Comprehensive Plan does provide the framework for such regulations, however: "LUP-1.7 Allow zone changes within the Low Density Residential category only when specific criteria are met. Criteria may include: • Substantial changes within zone change area. • Clear mapping errors. • Adequate facilities and services (e.g. sewer, water capacity). • Consistency with densities in the vicinity of the zone change." Minimum lot size and width are probably the most critical factors in establishing standards for development, as well as being the most readily understood and easy to administer. As the Council considers standards for all zoning districts in the Uniform Development Code, Council may wish to consider the criteria for allowing zoning changes, and incorporate these into enforceable regulations. OPTIONS: Schedule for further discussion or take no action. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: None required. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None. STAFF CONTACT: Marina Sukup, AICP, Community Development Director ATTACHMENTS: None J CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: July 18, 2006 City Manager Sign-off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Zoning Presentation - 3.5 - UR 7* Situations and Options GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Ordinance 05-003; Ordinance 06-011 Crossover Matrix; SCC 14.402.100, 14.616, 14.618; Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan, Chapter Two Land Use, Section 2.5 Land Use Designations; Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Chapter 10 Neighborhoods; Phase 1 Development Regulations. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: The city council passed Ordinance 05 -003 in February of 2005. This ordinance rezoned property located north of Mission Avenue, south and east of the Spokane River and west of Barker road from UR-7 to UR-3.5. In part the ordinance stated: 5. The Interim Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan designates the areas as Low C Density Residential. The phase I Development Regulations specifies both UR 3.5 and UR-7* as implementing zones. The Phase 1 regulations do not provide any criteria to help determine which Low Density Residential areas should be zoned MR-3.5 or UR-7*. 6. Significant testimony in support'of the proposed rezone was expressed'at the hearing. Testimony included concerns about the adequacy of roads, parks, schools and environmental impacts. Lowering the allowed density will lessen the potential impacts from new development. 7. Property owners may request a site specific rezone back to UR-7" via the Hearing Examiner process. 8. The zone change will not adversely affect the public's general health, safety and welfare. In April of 2006 the city council passed the new comprehensive plan. The pertinent portion of this plan states as follows: Land Use Chapter, Section 2.5 The low density Residential (LDR) Comprehensive-Plan designation addresses a range of single family residential densities from one dwelling unit per acre up to and including six dwelling units per acre. This designation would be implemented through a series of ongoing designations as described below. Implementing zones for the LDR designation will include a series of zones allowing a range of minimum lot sizes. Existinq lot sizes and community character will be strongly considered when developing the city's zoning map.i' For example, areas such as Rotchford Acres and Ponderosa will likely require minimum lot sizes close to an acre in size. These large lot developments currently allow for horses and other large animals and have distinct character that should be preserved to the greatest extent possible. The maiority of the LDR designation will provide for densities ranging from four to six dwelling units per acre Typical lot sizes will range from 7,000 to 10,000 square feet... Upon provision t of urban services such as water and sewer, and transit services, an increase in density in some areas may be warranted However, the City will adopt strict criteria to evaluate zone changes to ensure that future development is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. See also the Neighborhood Chapter, goal NG-2, policy NP 2.5 Allow zone changes with the Low density Residential category only when specific criteria. are met. Criteria may include: - Substantial changes within zone change areas - Clear mapping errors. - Adequate facilities and services ( e.g. sewer, water capacity) Consistency with densities in the vicinity of the zone change. BACKGROUND: In reviewing zone changes the Hearing Examiner currently applies SCC 14.442.020 which states as follows: The county may amend this Code when it finds that any of the following applies: ' I. Such amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and is not detrimental to the public welfare. 2. Change in economic, technological, or land use. conditions has occurred to warrant modification of this Code. (This provision has been found by Washington courts to be satisfied if the application is consistent with the comprehensive plan.) .,_.^The Hearing Examiner has considered 1 request for a zone change from 3.5 to 7.0 since the time the zoning designation was changed in February of 2005 which was also filed prior to the effective date of our new comprehensive plan. That zone change was approved in part due to'tRb lack- of.direction contained in the adopted. Spokane County comprehensive plans and development ordinances. That decision is attached. Future requests for zoning amendments in the, Greenacres area will be required to comply with the new language set forth above that is contained in our new comprehensive plan. Such requests may or may not be approved depending upon the facts presented in each case. The Staff is currently in the process of developing regulations to implement our new comprehensive plan and provide a specific basis for selecting between densities in the low density. residential category. These new development provisions should be considered by the planning commission -in the near future. OPTIONS: Review and provide direction. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: NA BUDGETIFINANCIAL IMPACTS: ~®:Ke Va1 ley 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 0 Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.921.1000 0 Fax: 509.921.1008 0 cityhait@spokanevalley.org Mteu ra n d urn To: City Council From: Inga Note -Traffic Engineer CC: Neil Kersten, John Hohman, Cary Driskell Date: 911106 Re: Changes to 20 mph School Zones This memorandum discusses proposed changes to the City's 20 mph school zones. r' t" + 1. 20 mph Speed Limit - when is it in effect? The recent acceptance of the flashing beacon grants from the Washington Traffic Safety Commission necessitates a change in the City's speed limit ordinance. The beacons are 20 intended for operation with a 20 mph sign and a "When Flashing" plate. Existing: The 20 mph speed is in effect when: children are present on normal school days ur between the hours of seven-thirty a.m. and four-thirty p.m. l~ Proposed: The 20 mph speed is in effect on school days between the hours of seven a.m. and seven p.m. when: Children Are Present as defined by WAC 392-151-035; or at any time that a flashing light is operating to indicate that children may be arriving or leaving school. - t This change is proposed as an interim solution until a decision is made on the Central Valley School District request to post school zones with specific time periods. 2. Change to Existing School Zone Boundaries Progress Elementary - change needed because of flashing beacon location. Existing: Broadway Avenue from 300' west of Progress Road to 300' east of St. Charles Road. Proposed: Broadway Avenue from 300' west of Progress Road to St. Charles Road. University Elementary - change needed because of flashing beacon location. Existing: University Road from 18, Avenue to 15'" Avenue. Proposed: University Road from 19'" Avenue to 16th Avenue. Sunrise Elementary - change needed because of new crosswalk location. Existing: 24'n Avenue from 600' west of Adams to Adams Road. Proposed: 24M Avenue from 300' west of Calvin Road to 200' east of Adams Road. 3. New School Zone The Principal of Broadway Elementary has asked for a 20 mph school zone to be established on Alki Avenue south of the school. There are tyro gates in the school's fence, and many students walk on Alki to avoid Broadway. The school zone limits would be "Alki Avenue from Glenn Road to Pierce Road".