2004, 02-03 Study SessionTuesday, February 3, 2004
DISCUSSION LEADER
I . Mike Jackson (15 minutes)
Neil Kersten (20 minutes)
3. Nina Rcgor (20 minutes)
4. Marina Sukup (5 minutes)
5.'Ncil Karsten (20 minutes)
6. Nina Rcgor (5 minutes)
7. Councilmember Munson
(15 minutes)
8. Mayor DeVleming (5 minutes)
9. Dave Mercier (5 minutes)
10. Dave Mercier (10 minutes)
Study 5css an Agenda.. 02.03.04
AGENDA
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
CITY COUNCIL WORKSHEET
STUDY SESSION
CITY HALL AT REDWOOD PLAZA
11707 East Sprague Avenue, First Floor
Please Turn Off All Electronic Devices During the Meeting
SUI3JECT /ACTIV1TY
Opportunity Hall Report
Street Maintenance Agreement
Couplet Planning
Planning Commission Proposed Ordinance
Changing Rule
Wastewater Policies
Proposed Revision to Employee
Classification System
Council Travel Police
Advance Agenda Additions
Council Check -in
City Manager Comments
GOAL.
6:00 p.m.
Discussionllnformation
DiscussionlInforntation
Discu
I" Reading 2/10 Agenda
Discussion/Information
Resolution 2/10/ Agenda
Discussion
Discuss ion /Information
Di scussionllnfonnation
Discussion/lnformation
Note: At Council Study Sessions, there will be no public comments, except Council reserves the right to
request infomtation from the public and staff as appropriate.
4OT1C11 individuals planning to attend the meeting who require special assistance to accommodate physical. hearing, or other
impairments, please contact the City Clerk at (509) 921 -1000 as soon as possible so that arrangements may be made
Pagc1of1
6pe,-
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: City Manager Sign -off:
Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing
❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Transfer of Opportunity Township Hall (12114 East Sprague Ave)
to Spokane Valley Legacy Foundation for use as a local museum
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: The details for transferring ownership of City owned property
are currently being researched by the City Attomey. The building has been designated as an
historic landmark with Spokane City/County Historic Landmarks Commission by County
Resolution 96 -1054 dated November 5, 1996.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: None
BACKGROUND: Opportunity Township Hall is one of the properties acquired by the City from
Spokane County by Interlocal Agreement #3 0790 in September 2003. The Spokane Valley
Legacy Foundation (a Washington non - profit corporation) has requested that ownership of
Opportunity Township Hall be deeded to their organization for use as a museum. The Spokane
Legacy Foundation has applied for and received preliminary approval as a 501 (c) (3) non - profit
organization. If council wishes to proceed, various steps to complete the transfer can be
discussed.
OPTIONS: Deed property to Spokane Valley Legacy Foundation.
Retain property for other uses.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Council consideration for transfer.
BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Past rental history indicated rental income was
approximately $8,400 /year. This would be offset by annual maintenance and operating costs.
These costs were about $4,000.00 in 2003
STAFF CONTACT: Mike Jackson
ATTACHMENTS Letter dated January 22, 2004 and other general information submitted by
the Legacy Foundation.
Copy of Historical Landmark Designation
Dear Mr. Jackson:
Spokane Valley Legacy Foundati
PO Box 141341
Opportunity, WA 9921
509 -217 -2737
Sincerely, ll
pokane Valley Legacy Foundation
3`1
T
To: Mike Jackson
Parks and Director
City of Spokane Valley
Re: Request for transfer of ownership of the Opportunity Township Hall for the
purpose of establishing a Local Heritage Museum.
The Spokane Valley Legacy Foundation respectfully requests that the City of
Spokane Valley deed ownership of the Opportunity Township Hall to the SVLF for
the purpose of establishing a local Heritage Museum for the benefit of the
Community.
Since its inception in 2000, the SVLF has been collecting, preserving and
exhibiting the history and culture of the Spokane Valley. Recognizing the need
for cultural identity and community core assets in our new City, our organization
has done extensive research on Museum operation and practices, established
collaborative relationships with local and state Historical Museums and Entities,
identified private and public funding opportunities and strategies, garnered letters
of support from the Business and Education sectors, developed a two -year plan
and are prepared to implement the plan. The Museum will provide the Community
with a heritage to identify with, serve as a resource for the school children and
citizens and inspire an ongoing preservation of Spokane Valley History.
Occupancy of the Opportunity Township Hall by the SVLF will ensure preservation
of the historical landmark. The SVLF has the ability to fulfill its vital mission
through a blend of sound management, strong leadership, clear lines of
accountability and a passion for our Community.
To grant the SVLF the Building would be an investment in the Community. We
offer the City of Spokane Valley an opportunity to honor and sustain its heritage,
reawaken civic pride and instill a sense of identity in our citizens. Preserving our
"common identity makes for a community that knows its origins, enabling it to face
future economic growth and development with a greater sense of direction.
Site Location & Facility Plan
• Acquiring a location is the essential next phase of establishing the Museum. Once a
location is secured, the Community and various Stakeholders become more engaged.
• Opportunity Township Hall is the most appropriate facility to establish the local history
Museum. Erected in X912, and on the Historic Register, the Township Hall was the
center of Governmental activities, Chamber meetings, Church Services and Community
Events. As the Valley evolved, the Township hall was host to many groups who helped
influence development and shaped the Valley's identity. The Township Hall is the
perfect place to preserve the history of the Spokane Valley. Reminiscent of times gone
by, the building has the character to connect the past with the present. The Township
Hall is centrally located and dose to City Hall. It will contribute to establishing a City
core and become an asset in the City's portfolio.
• The Township Hall is structurally and mechanic ally sound. The interior of the Building •
is ready for construction of exhibits with some minor modification. The exterior of the
Building is in need of restoration. The Flag Pole needs attention and the Washington
State Flag and the United States Flag will be displayed properly: Contact has been made
with the Associated Builders & Contractors and the Spokane Home Builders Association
members who donate time and materials to Community Projects. All guidelines and
procedures established by the Spokane County Historic Preservation office have been
researched and will be adhered to. Spokane Valley Fire District #1 verified that the
Building meets Fire Code. The Americans with Disabilities Act will followed to the
letter *of the law. The Building is currently accessible to Disabled Patrons with the
exception of the Restrooms. •
• Security will be addressed with electronic surveillance and with an alarm system for
aft -hours monitoring. The Sheriff sub-station is approximately a quarter of a mile
away. The Back entrance door will be replaced. The numerous windows are
aesthetically appealing, however, raise security issues and will be addressed prior to
opening the facility.
• Grounds keeping will be at a minimum as the Building is surrounded by Asphalt and
Concrete.
• Signage will be in accordance with City of Spokane Valley Planning Department
ordinances.
Benefits of a Heritage Center for the Spokane Valley
Investment in History
1. By investing in History you help to create a community that understands it's
shared experiences. This creates a community more capable of meeting adversity
as a united family instead of a divided house.
2. Investing in history gives a community a better quality of life. The museum
builds connections by providing a common forum in which communities can
explore, discuss and reflect upon their future by learning from their past. These
connections help reduce stress and illness by putting life in perspective and
providing answers and friends when they are needed most.
3. A confidence in the future and a community that is willing to work harder and
dream bigger because its members are confident in themselves. Through the
connections, the museum makes and through its contributions to the community's
quality of life, a confidence in the future is built. Comxnunities are prepared to
work harder to achieve new dreams and build a bigger, better road to tomorrow
because they have a solid foundation on which to build. That foundation comes
from a community's pride in its accomplishments and its sense that working
together can accomplish more than working alone.
4. Investing in a museum enhances the economy of a community with a better
quality environment for work and worker. It brings tourists and visitors into the
community year around to stay in hotels, eat meals and shop. Businesses thrive in
communities like this, as their employees are happier, healthier, and more inclined
to shop and do business locally.
5. Building strong, functioning, vital communities as an investment in the future.
Who would have thought the past could have such an impact on our lives? We
often look to the future so strongly that we forget that the greatest gift history gives
us is ourselves. History shapes us, defines us, and tells us how to conduct
business. It is what is important in our lives and hearts, and even provides our .
sense of value and worth. Just as we invest in roads of our communities to help us
conduct business, visit friends and build families, we should invest in the roads
that connect us to our history and heritage and our place in the present.
Tourism & Visitor Investment
The Spokane Valley Legacy Foundation plans to aggressively market the Heritage Museum as a
Cultural and Heritage Tourist Facility. Extensive research with the Washington State Tourism
Office, Community Trade and Economic Development Agency, and numerous other museums
show that Cultural and Heritage Tourism is the fastest growing segment of the Tourist Industry.
Industry. Research shows that on average Cultural and Heritage Tourists spend more time and
money as compared to other travelers. The Heritage Museum has the kitchen facilities to host
receptions and events such as reunions that wish to gather at a site of interest. Significant
separate space within the Heritage Museum will be dedicated to a Visitors Room to promote
Lodging, Restaurants, Events, Festivals and other attractions in the Spokane Valley and
surrounding region. The Spokane Valley Legacy Foundation has committed to the following
objectives:
• Collaborate with the Valley Tourism Committee, the Lodging Community, area Visitor
Centers and all stakeholders.
• Market to the Tourism Association, targeting Tour Groups, Bus Tour Groups and Travel
Associations, Museum brochures will be distributed statewide, and nationally.
• Contribute significantly to a "critical mass" of Valley attractions that collectively are
conducive to overnight stays.
• Create exhibits that are authentic and represent the history of the Spokane Valley and
engage the visitor.
r ▪ Ensure the Heritage Museum will serve as a "family oriented" facility.
Ke.-} • Provide a means to fill the niche "What can I do while in The Spokane Valley "?
• Valley Restaurants, Hotels and Businesses will display Museum promotional brochures
at their properties.
• The Office of Community Trade & Economic Development and the Washington Tourism
Office have offered to act as a resource for developing additional plans to promote the
Museum.
Education investment
• The Valley School Districts and several private schools support and endorse the
establishment of a Valley heritage center,
• Students in Washington State are required to study state and local history at the 3` & 5
grade levels. A hands on interactive experience of the history of the students hometown
is recognized as an excellent way to enhance the curriculum of the School Districts.
• . There will be opportunity for students of'History and related fields in the higher
education sector to intern at the heritage center, providing a. valuable experience for the
student and a benefit to the center's staff.
• The Community at -large will benefit from gaining an understanding of the development
and history of their community.
Organizational Structure
• The Spokane Valley Legacy Foundation is a 501 C3, tax - exempt entity as determined
by the Internal Revenue Service.
• The organization has incorporated status as a non - profit entity with the State of
Washington.
• Articles of Incorporation and By -Laws are in effect.
• The organization has been granted a Tax Identification number by the Internal Revenue
Service.
Spokane Valley Legacy Foundation History & Proposed
Timeline
Formed in 2000, the SVLF conceived and energized a plan to
collect, preserve and exhibit the local history and culture
of the Spokane Valley. The process has been exciting and
challenging, and couldn't be more timely given the need for
the new City to establish its identity. A plan was
developed to connect the history of the area with the
opportunity of the present for the benefit of the
community. The vision to establish a Museum has grown into
a core group of 7 individuals who contribute enthusiasm and
expertise toward that goal. Over the past two years, the
SVLF has:
•
■ Formed a Board of Directors.
• Developed Mission and Vision statements.
■ Filed for Non - Profit Status with the IRS.
• Received a Tax identification Number from the IRS.
■ Submitted Articles of Incorporation to the State of
Washington.
• Promoted awareness of the project through .the .Media.
• Collected artifacts and archival photographs depicting
the development of the Culture and Community of the
Spokane Valley.
• Researched the technical aspects of forming and
operating a Community Museum.
■ Established partnerships with other local and state
historical entities.
• Identified and researched Local, State and Federal
Grant opportunities.
• Secured letters of support and endorsements from Local
Associations, Business and Schools.
• Identified a location for the Museum.
• Adopted and begun implementing a Two -year Plan.
• Submitted a proposal'to Spokane County to lease
Opportunity Township Hall for the purpose of
establishing a Museum in the historical building. The
County of Spokane deferred the decision to the City of
Spokane Valley, as the property will be transferred to
the new City.
Preparation & Proposed Timeline
• September 11, 2002 - Met with the MAC Museum Director,
who offered to assist with anything we might need and
granted access to archival photographs for
reproduction.
• D'ecember 2002 - Contacted and established
relationships with the following Museums and
Historical Entities who have offered to act as a
resource for our effort: Museum of North Idaho, Post
Falls Historical Society, Cheney Museum, Inland
Northwest Railroad Historical Society, Latah County
Museum and the Newport Museum.
•
January .20, 2003 - The Lynden Pioneer Museum with
director, Troy Luganbill agreed to be our sister
Heritage Foundation and Museum to assist S.V.L.F. with
its formation processes.
• Feb /March 2003 - Town Hall Meeting.
■ March 2003 - formation of charter membership drive
committee.
• April 1 - May 30 2003 Charter membership /Business
membership group formed. Presentation to the City
Council of Spokane Valley.
• April 2003 - Acquired membership with the American_
Association of Museums.
• April 2003 - Business procedures set up. Loan and
gift forms created and printed for use. Begin forming
Education Program.
• June 2003 - Gather permanent board members per Bylaw
requirement.
• June 2003 - Set up registrar's collection policy and
procedures.
■ July 2003 - Continue •accessioning artifacts and
develop storage of artifacts and Photos, establish
gift and Loan letters and procedures, develop Docent
Volunteer program - This group will ensure that the
Legacy Foundation stays open to the public throughout
the year.
• August 2003 - Set up permanent and rotating displays.
Move in artifacts, set up proper storage and
acquisition of artifacts.
■ August 2003 - Begin Tourism database; send out tourism
letter to hundreds of tour groups, Collaborate with
Tourism Committee to organize Visitor /Tourism area of
Museum.
• Sept 2003 - Valley Fest - Participation to be
determined.
■ November 2003 Christmas exhibit: Model Train
Association. Membership benefit is a family photo by •
the Christmas train & tree w /old toys etc..
• Christmas event: Old Fashioned Christmas
■ January 2004 - New years celebration and Docent
"thank you" event
• February 2004 - Old Films Night, a Historic
Foundation Family fun and educational event.
■ March - 2004 New rotating exhibits set up - springtime
in Spokane. Co. 1 905
■ April 2004
• April - May School tours (Planting projects - each
student learns about the importance of trees in our
economy and history during the last 100 years.
• May 2004 - creation of 2nd & 5th grade programs for
year after year use to pass on our heritage and
culture to our coming generations. This will serve
every student in our three valley school districts.
• July 2004 - Rotating Exhibit change
• Aug 2004 - Apple event summer in Spokane: Hot Rod
Display
• October 2004 - First Annual Open House
• January 2005 New years celebration and Docent "thank
you" event
•
� <
'
%
1 S
ij : Mate ef ;
-1 S TArI E S OF A �?o
.`
X41
.
w �
Secretary of state
aijtnton
1, SAM REED, Secretary of State of the State of Washington
and custodian of its seal, hereby issue this
CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
to
SPOKANE VALLEY LEGACY FOUNDATION
A Washington•Non- Profit Corporation. Articles of
Incorporation were filed for record in this office on the,
date indicated below
UBI Number.: 602 293 506
...
ISM
.w.
•
dt. AA
am i.�
.
SAM
I=
a...il∎ a..
pm.. ...m..P
sM / Il ia:
_SALM will
NM
walla
MIMS
.v
Date: May 05, 2003
Given under my hand and
the Seal of the State of
Washington at Olympia,
the State Capital
Sam Reed
Secretary of State
k
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
P. 0. BOX 2508
"7INCINNATI , OH 45201
DEC 0 5 2003
Date:
SPOKANE VALLEY LEGACY FOUNDATION
216 N LONG RD
GREENACRES, WA 99016 -9549
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Employer Identification Number:
01- 0602585
DLN:
17053280032033
Contact Person:
GORDON KENYON ID4 75884
Contact Telephone Number:
(877) 829 -5500
Accounting Period Ending:
December 31
Foundation Status Classification:
509(a)(1)
Advance Ruling Period Begins:
May 5, 2003
Advance Ruling Period Ends:
December 31. , 2007
Addendum Applies:
No
Dear Applicant:
Based on information you supplied, and assuming your operations will
_.stated in your application for recognition of exemption, we have determined';:`u
I re exempt from federal income tax under section 501(a) of the Internal Revenue
- code as an organization described in section 501(c)(3).
Because you are a newly created organization, we are not now making a
final determination of your foundation status under section 509(a) of the Code.
However, we have determined that you can reasonably expect to be a publicly
supported o4ganizatlon described in sections 509(a)(1) and 170(b)(1)(A)(vi).
Accordingly, during an advance ruling period you will be treated as a
publicly supported organization, and not as a private foundation. This advance
ruling period begins and ends on the dates shown above.
Within 90 days after the end of your advance ruling period, you must
send us the information needed to determine whether you have met the require-
ments of the applicable support test during the advance ruling period. If you
establish that you have been a publicly supported organization, we will classi-
fy you as a section 509(a)(1) or 509(a)(2) organization as long as you continue
to meet the requirements of the applicable support test. If you do not meet
the public support requirements during the advance ruling period, we will
classify you as a private foundation for future periods. Also, if we classify
you as a..private- foundation, we will treat you. as a private. foundation from
your beginning—date for purposes of section 507(d) and 4940
Grantors' and contributors may rely on our determination that you are n;. .., `r3
private 'foundation until 9.0' days after the end of. your advance, ruling perio:'.---'
'f you.send us. the required.. information within the 90 days, grantors and
may continue to rely on the advance determination until we make
Letter 1045 (DO /CG)
N0 96 1054
IN THE MATTER OP APPROVING THE )
DESIGNATION OF OPPORTUNITY ) RESOLUTION
AS AN HISTORIC LANDMARK )
AND SETTING FORTH STANDARDS FOR THE )
MANAGNMNT OP SAID HISTORIC LANDMARK )
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of RCW Chapter 36.3L120(6), the Board of County
Commissioners of Spokane County has the care of County property and the management of County funds
and business; and
WHEREAS, the Spokane Historic Preservation Office has advised the Board pf County
Commissioners that the Historic Landmarks Commission has approved the nomination of Opportunity
Townhali as nn historical landmark as set forth in Attachment "A ", and in conjunction therewith, has
requested that the Board of County Commissioners approve such designation and enter into a management
agreement for the same; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Spokane County Code Chapter 1.46, the Board of County
into Commissioners ms is management agreement in conjunction purpose o wh designation e re tat the o enter
as wners of such property agree to
into a management agreement, tiv_ pure
appropriate manage ncnt standards of the same; and
WHEREAS, Spokane County is the owner of Opportunity Townhall;
NOW THEREFORE„ BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County,
based upon the recommendation of the Historic Landmarks Commission, that the Board does hereby approve
the recommendation of the Historic Landmarks Commission that Opportunity Townhall be designated an
historic landmark, and additionally, that Spokane County will agree to certain management standards in
conjunction with the designation of the property as an historic landmark;
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of County Commissioners shall maintain the
Opportunity Townhall as an historic landmark and shall maintain the property consistent with the
management standards set forth in "THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR'S STANDARDS FOR
REHABILITATION AND GUIDELINES FOR REHABILITATING HISTORIC BUILDINGS (Revised 1983)"
attached hereto as Attachment "B" , and Spokane County Code Chapter 1.48.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 5' day of November, 1996.
BEFORE THE BOARD OP COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF SPOKANE COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMWHONE1S
OF SPOKANE C • UNTY, WASHINGTON
Phillip D. Harris
Stv'v 1 as3On
John Roskelley
96 1054
ATTACHMENT "A"
SPOKANE HISTOR1C LANDMARKS COMMISSION
FINDINGS OF FACT AND DECISION
Opportunity Township Hall
12314 East Sprague
November 5, 1996
SUMMARY
The Spokane Historic Landmarks Commission recommends that the Spokane County Commissioners list
Opportunity Township Hall in the Spokane Register of Historic Places. The property is owned by
Spokane County.
FINIDINGS OF FACT
The Spokane City /County Landmarks Commission recommended Opportunity Township Hall as - a
Spokane Landmark at its April 17. 1996 meeting. The decision was based on the property meeting
Criterion A for its association with the historic events of the development'of Opportunity Township.
AGE
Constructed in 1912, the Opportunity Township . Hall meets the 50 year age criteria for listing ,in the
Spokane Register of Historic Places.
CONDITION
Despite change in use over time, the Opportunity Township Hall is in fair condition. To discourage
vandalism, the windows on the front facade have been closed on the exterior with painted plywood, and on
the interior with wallboard and plaster. The original windows are encased and preserved between the
protective layers of wood and wallboard.
INTEGRITY
The building retains the integrity of location, design, materials, workmanship, and association.
ASSOCIATIVE VALUE (CRITERION A)
The 'historical value of a building's associations with a broad pattern of events is a critical factor in
evaluating the significance of a property. In the case of the Opportunity Township Hall, the property is
associated with the development of the town of Opportunity, and stands as a reminder of the birth of that
community. In 1908, when the state legislature passed a law enabling unincorporated communities to
form local units of government called townships, residents first formed Opportunity Township, an
irrigation project community. The township purchased the land from the Modern Irrigation & Land
Company in .1 910 and constricted the building in 1912. The hall was built in the Spanish Colonial
Revival style a style that evolved from the California Mission influence of the time.
The Township Hall quickly became the central focal point and gathering spot for the community. From the
time the Township Hall was built until the mid- 1920s, Spokane Valley experienced a burst of growth
brought on by the agricultural development of the area. The Opportunity Block at Sprague Avenue and
Pines Road became. the busiest haven of activity in the area with the' Township Hall as the home of
township government and center of community activity.
i •
Remembrances about the building link the strength and development of the community with the property:
many residents of`Opportunity belonged to the clubs and organizations which met in the Township Hall--
these clubs were committed to lending a helping hand to their neighbor, recognizing that neighbors were
the only hope of help should a disaster strike. The Township Hall was home to the first area library, was a
meeting place for many churches, •and to various civic and social organizations, silent movies, and a variety
of activities including rummage sales, dances, - bingo, receptions.
The Opportunity Township Hall building has been through several updates and remodels, patchings and
mendings, although the uses of the hall have changed little over the years.. Townships, as a form of local
govemrnent, were dissolved in 1972, and Opportunity is now a part of larger Spokane County. When the
townships dissolved, the property was taken over by Spokane County. The building continues to be used
for community events.
FINAL DESIGNATION DECISION
In conclusion, Opportunity Township Hall is architecturally significant under Criteria A for evaluating
historic properties. The Spokane Landmarks Commission unanimously approved a motion to designate
Opportunity Township Hall to the Spokane Register, based on the Findings of Fact, as set forth in this
document.
Significant Features: all exterior portions of the building.
PROTECTION MEASURES
Control s
No significant feature (as noted above) may be altered, whether or not a building permit is required,
without first obtaining a Certificate of Appropriateness from the Landmarks_ Commission pursuant to the
provisions of 82 -0038. The following exclusion is allowed:
In -kind maintenance and repair.
Incentives
The following incentives are available to the property owners:
1. Eligibility for historic site maker (to be paid for by the property owner).
2. Eligibility for technical assistance from the Spokane Historic Landmarks Cominission. •
3. Eligibility for application to the Special Valuation tax incentive program.
4. Eligibility for application to the Open Space Special Assessment tax incentive program.
5. Eligibility for application for Historic Building Code Relief.
Decision made April 17, 1996.
Spokane City /County Historic Landmarks Commission
96 1054
ATTACIIENT "B"
Management Standards
PROMISE OF OWNERS
Owner(s) agrees to and promises to fulfill the Management Standards for his /her property which is the
subject of the Agreement Owner intends to bind his /her land and all successors and assigns. The
Management Standards are: "THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR'S STANDARDS FOR
REHABILITATION AND GUIDELINES FOR REHABILITATING HISTORIC BUILDINGS (Revised 1983)."
Compliance with the Management Standards shall be monitored by the Historic Landmarks Commission.
HISTORIC LANDMARKS COMMISSION
The Owner(s) Must first obtain from the Commission a "Certificate of Appropriateness" for any action which
would affect any of the following:
A. demolition;
B. relocation
C. change in use; or
D. any work that affects the exterior appearance of the historic landmark;
hi the case of an application for a "Certificate of Appropriateness" for the demolition of a landmark, the
Owner(s) agrees to meet with the Commission to seek alternative to demolition. These negotiations may last
no longer than forty-five (45) days. If no alternative is found within that time frame, the Commission may
take up to forty-five (45) additional days to attempt to develop alternatives, and /or to arrange for the salvage
of architectural artifacts and structural recording. Additional and supplemental provisions are found in
County ordinances governing historic landmarks.
GOVERNING LEGISLATION:
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION:
ATTACHMENT: Spreadsheets
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: February 3, 2004 City Manager Sign -off:
Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing
X information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Street Maintenance Agreement Discussions
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Approval of 2004 Budget & Approval of County
Maintenance Contract Amendment on December 23, 2003
BACKGROUND: We will provide information on the following topics:
• Background history of the contract
• Basic terms and conditions of the contract
• Implementation process of the contract in 2003
• Negotiation process with the County for the 2004 budget
• Historical maintenance costs from the County for 2002, 2001 and 2000
A spreadsheet showing the 2003 contract, actual 2003 expenditures, the original 2004 contract
and the amended 2004 contract is attached for your information. Additionally, a spreadsheet
with the 2004 Capital Improvement Projects is attached for your information.
City's Operating Understanding: As a matter of law, incorporation vests the Spokane Valley
City Council with responsibility and governance of the local roadway system. The City was
formulated with the intent of contracting, when economically appropriate, and directing the
delivery of majority of services. Contracting for any services to be delivered to city residents
does not surrender control of those services to the vendor /provider.
OPTIONS:
BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Street Maintenance Contract - $2,120,000
Capital Improvement Fund - $3,219,700
STAFF CONTACT: Neil Kersten
Fund: 303 Street Capital Projects Fund City of Spokane Valley
Dept: 032 Public Works 2004 Budget
9!19!2003
Street Capital Projects Fund
The Street Capital Projects Fund accounts for monies used to finance the 6-
year Transportation Improvement Plan and to pay for reconstruction of the
streets after completion of the sewers. Revenues are transfers from the
Arterial Street Fund, Capital Projects Fund, and Special Capital Projects
Fund.
Expenditures are for matching funds for TIB grants administered through
Spokane County. Expenditures for street reconstruction (paveback) is part
of the overall severing program in the City being completed by Spokane
County.
Goals for 2004
Manage the contract with Spoken County to continue planning, designing,
and constructing the improvements identified in the city's 6 -year
Transportation Improvement Plan and the 6 -year Sewer Construction
Detail Budgot
TIB, SRTC & BRAG Protects
16th Avenue - Project 2, Dishman Mica to Pines
Park Road - Project 2, 8th to Appleway
Pines/Mansfield, Wilbur Rd. to Pines
Barker Road Reconstruction, PE & RW
Barker Road Bridge Replacement, PE & RW
Evergreen Road, 16th to 2nd
24th Avenue Sidewalk Project (PSMP)
Subtotal
Hazard Elimination Safety PCOLgje
Sullivan Road & 4th Avenue Signal (RW & CN)
Subtotal
Miscellaneous
Valley Couplet
Road Replacement Projects
Consultant Contract
Sullivan Rd. Bridge Repair
S 260,000
$ 195,000
$ 55,000
$ 238,000
$ 141,000
$ 348,000
5 52,000
$ 1,289,000
$ 15,700
$ 15,700
$ 15,000
$ 830,000
$ 60,000
Subtotal $ 905,000
Road Paveback. fSeoti Tank Elimination Pro oram ):
Carnahan
Sipple
Veradale Phase II
Weatherwood /Owens
Burns Road
Misc. Projects
Subtotal
PE = Preliminary Engineering, RW = Right -of -Way,
Grand Total 5 3,219,700
Funding Notes:
TIB - Transportation Improvement Board (State Funds)
SRTC - Spokane Regional Transportation Council (Federal Funds)
BRAC - Bridge Replacement Advisory Committee (Federal Funds)
TIB
$ 626,000
$ 565,000
$ 912,000
$ 1,173,000
$ 146,000
$ 3,422,000
Grants & Fees
$ 110,000 $ 2,459,000
$ 141,000 $ 2,773,000
$ 284,000 $ 2,701,000
$ 394,000 $ 3,689,000
$ 31,000 $
S 50,000 $ -
$ 1,010,000 $ 11,622,000
Grants & Fees from Spokane County for STEP inctudes: APA tees, Sales Tax, State Grants, Customer Prepayments, and Bonds
SRTC BRAG Total City %
$1,672,000 S 1,932,000 13%
$ 821,000 24%
$ 620,000 9%
$ 1,150,000 21%
$561,000 $ 702,000 20%
S 1,521,000 23%
$ 198.000 26°.';
$ 1,672,000 $561,000 $ 6,944,000 19
142000 $ 157,700 10%
$ 15,000
S 830,000
$ 60,000
$ 905,000
Total
$ 2,569,000
$ 2,914,000
$ 2,985,000
5 4,083,000
S 31,000
S 50,000
512,632,000
$20,638,700
City %
4%
10%
10%
100%
100%
8%
Activity #
Description
2003 County
Contract
.
2003 Budget
Juno
July
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Doc
2003
Actual
2004 County
Contract
2004 Budget
2312
Dust Control Prep
58,100
52,219
51.746
-5600
50
$0
SO
$0
$3.165
510,292
533,480
510 292
513,480
$28 112
2320
Shoulder Repair
52,509
$1,816
S2,547
51,994
52,387
56,766
51.347
54,820
521,677
2322
Shoulder Maint/Grader
532,000
51,045
SO
50
55.281
$0
SO
S7,326
548,112
2330
Gravel/Diit Rd Grading
Pothole Patchirf
515,000
5155,000
55,659
5717
523,445
$0
-5783
50
54,303
$21
55,704
50
$10 453
554
520,193
$6.451
563 315
$18,972
5196 044
518 972
596 044
2340
2340W
Winter Pothole Patch
525,296
525,296
2343
Pavement Removal/Re laoe
Crack Sealing
5280000
590,000
50
50
528.524
$25 728
$0
580,166
$9 617
50
S3,675
52.199
50
S56
50
50
5112.420
537,545
50
5354.144
5151,776
5113,832
$60,181
575.000
2344
2346
Blade Patch Hot
S90,000
50
2351
Gravel/Dirt Rd Tem.
51.240
51 240
2413
Li ht Ditch Cleaning
50
50
50
50
$1,240
S1,860
51,240
51,860
2511
Bridge Inspection
$1,500
$0
50
2512
Bridge Repair-Super
510,000
SO
$121
$4 826
$0
5324
$0
50
50
55,272
50
512,648
56,324
512,648
56,324
2513
Bridge Repair-Sub
S500
SO
50
2610
Sidewalk
51,500
$0
50
$0
50
50
$0
51,860
51,860
$1,240
5620
2611
Curbs
51.000
$0
$0
SO
$0
$0
50
51,240
2620
Paths
5500
SO
$0
50
$0
50
50
5620
2645
Guardrail Maint.
$10,000
50
50
$0
$0
50
$0
S15,128
53,224
S15,128
$3 224
2646
Right of Way Fencing
$2,500
$0
5239
50
50
$0
$239
2647
Median Maint.
55.000
50
5243
SO
$0
50
5243
$6,324
56,324
5189,720
2661
Liquid Deicing
550,000
50
50
50
58.495
$54,694
553,189
541,181
5189,720
5290,904
$278,256
S6,324
S474,300
2662
Saluting
580,000
$0
$0
$0
59.728
531,452
5290.904
5278.256
5255,084
2663
Snow Removal-Ftoadways
5120,000
$0
$0
SO
517,081
$681
517,763
2664
Snow Removal-Sidewalks
$0
571,534
2670
Sheet Cleaning
Winter Sweeping
5225.000
51.869
511,452
511,898
$3,183
530,020
S12,513
2671
$63,240
538 240
2573
Sweepings Cleanup
52.500
50
$0
50
$0
SO
SO
55,084
2711
Roadside Mowing
510,000
51,112
$1,927
58,127
50
50
50
511,166
S12.648
512,648
$44,268
2712
Brush ClearIngriree Tilmmino
525,000
5527
$811
$2,443
$1,626
$2.750
$0
S8,157
544,268
2713
Weed Control-Residual
520,000
50
$0
SO
$0
50
SO
525,296
520,000
59,999
•
2713A
Weed Control-No Spray
Weed Control-General
55,000
530,000
51,230
5240
50
-$22
$0
S474
$0
50
$0
50
50
$0
$0
51,921
56,324
$37 944
2714
2714A
Weed Control-Gen No Spray
55,000
50
50
50
$0
50
SO
56,324
2716
Pond Maintenance
515,000
2720
Irrigation
55,000
5280
50
SO
$403
SO
$0
5683
58,804
58.804
55,084
52,480
51,240
$1,240
53,844
2750
Litter Pickup
52 000
50
$0
50
50
SO
SO
$5,084
27500
Litter Pickup-Deer
52,000
$79
570
51,126
5582
5117
S825
52,810
52,480
2753
Litter Control
51,000
50
50
$0
SD
$0
50
51,240
2760
Contour Control
Contour Control-Right of Way
S1,000
53.000
50
SO
50
$0
SO
50
50
$0
50
50
50
$0
50
51,240
$3,844
2762
1641
Arterial Signs-New
$732
51,203
5074
$1,104
SO
$0
54,013
1644
Traffic-X-walks
5150
50
$0
50
5150
2641
Traffic Sign Maintenance
541,000
5570
$3,073
S299
52,427
53,140
52,563
512,332
$24,405
$86,056
586,056
4201
Sign Vandalism
$43
5902
5459
5292
5358
5378
S3,501
S5,933
4202
Acddent Repair-Signs
S253
5162
5266
5524
5600
51,584
52.419
55,809
2642
Traffic Signal Maintenance
5132,000
57,819
523,641
512,322
522,535
516,306
513,381
$17,615
5113,619
$278,256
5278 256
4203
Accident Repair-Signals
5290
$35
5367
$589
$1.502
$0
52,783
Spokane VaIIev Road Maintenance C
Activity #
Description
2003 County
Contract
2003 Budget
Juno
July
Aug
Sept
Oct
Nov
Dec
2003
Actual
2004 County
Contract
2004 Budget
2644
X-Walks & Pvmt Markings
532,000
56.185
57.606
57,823
$924
$885
$0
SO
523,424
540.424
540.424
2649
Wejqht Restriction Signing
51,500
SO
50
50
$0
SO
50
51,860
$1,860
2643
Striping
585,000
529,983
5113
51,762
50
$354
S32,212
5107,508
5107,508
2653
Striping-Prop & Cleanup
$500
S2,385
50
5125
SO
$0
52,511
$0
9710
Dry Well Repair
515.500
$6,582
5630
52,458
53,877
$107
5578
514.232
S19,592
59,999
9720
Drywell Cleanout
Culvert Rtpair
551.000
55,000
-51,156
$0
51,719
SO
$948
$0
$80
50
SO
$0
51,592
50
577,128
56.324
520,000
55,000
9730
9740
Culvert Cleanout
52,500
5828
-5367
SO
51.137
SO
$0
$1,508
53,844
52,000
9742
Swale Maint
53,000
$2,082
-5915
$0
SO
SO
5264
51,431
53,844
52,000
9747
Curb, Gutter & Inlet Repair
$7,000
5979
SO
54,852
$899
$0
SO
56,731
58,804
52,000
9750
Chasing Water
S2,000
5130
SO
5299
561
50
$617
51,108
53,844
$2,000
9751
Investigation
55,000
5193
$55
$779
SO
SO
$663
$1,690
58,804
$7,000
Subtotal
51,674,600
528,708
589,346
568,128
5115,311
5178.403
588,279
5151,118
5719,293
$3,113,268
52,120.000
Mgt, Ovhd
5318,174
55,454
$16.976
512,944
521,909
$33,897
515,773
528,712
S7,556
5136,668
535,965
Figures above Include mgt. &
overhead costs
Adrnin Ovhd
S83,730
$1,435
54,467
53,406
55.768
58.920
54.414
Subtotal
52,076,504
51,700,000
535,598
5110,789
584,478
5142,985
5221,220
5109,466
$187,386
5891,923
Minor Road Maintenace
(Corripetive Contracts)
5200,000
S96,731
5300,000
Total
52,076,504
51,900,000
5988,654
$3,113,268
S2,420,000
M
•
Meeting Date: February 3, 2004 City Manager Sign -off:
Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing
X information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: COUPLET PLANNING /DISCUSSION
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: N/A
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: The most recent discussion took place at the
January 15, 2004 City Council- Planning Commission joint meeting.
BACKGROUND: On January 15, there was a joint City Council- Planning Commission meeting.
The group divided into three tables. They defined desirable scenarios and criteria for making a
decision on the Sprague - Appleway couplet. Participants then voted on their top three criteria
and their top two scenario components.
Attached is a transcript of the flip charts from the meeting. The criteria and scenarios receiving
three or more votes are bolded and italicized.
At the February 3 meeting, staff will summarize the results of the joint meeting, give a status
report on traffic counts and additional analytical needs, and present a draft process and timeline
for making a decision on the couplet topic.
Also attached is the letter from the Transportation Improvement Board (TIB), confirming funding
for the Valley Couplet project. TIB confirms that we have until December 2004 to notify them of
our intent concerning the project.
OPTIONS: N/A
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Provide feedback and direction on next steps.
BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Financial analysis of the chosen options will take place at a
later date.
STAFF CONTACT: Nina Regor, Deputy City Manager; Manna Sukup, Community
Development Director; Neil Kersten, Public Works Director
ATTACHMENTS
1. Joint Meeting Notes
2. TIB Letter (11/4/03)
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
3. Powerpoint presentation
THE COUPLET: CRITERIA AND SCENARIOS
•
City Council — Planning Commission Joint Meeting
January 15, 2004
CRITERIA FOR DECISION MAKING
` ry
Blue (,l\�I ma'•S,fcati4
N umber
of Dots
1.
Centers /corridors with urban activity center _mu lures with ocus
3
2.
Cou . let as access for industrial uses south of Appleway
2
3.
Consider gateways with direct access to I -90
1
4.
Do not disturb Dislunan Hills
1
5.
Direction of traffic flow irrelevant — Sprague 2 -way okay to Argonne/
Mullan
0
6.
impact of construction on commercial development
0
THE COUPLET: CRITERIA AND SCENARIOS
•
City Council — Planning Commission Joint Meeting
January 15, 2004
CRITERIA FOR DECISION MAKING
t .'
+> reen (Greg's ,'ream)
:Yumilier
of Dots
5
1.
Mixed use zonin: needed vs. sin. le zone
2.
Consider multi i le centers — h I e
5
3.
Links to regional transit
2
4.
Landsca•e /streetsca•es
2
5.
Recognize not all uses are pedestrian oriented
1
6.
Need high- densit residential component
1
7.
Employment opportunities
0
THE COUPLET: CRITERIA AND SCENARIOS
•
City Council — Planning Commission Joint Meeting
January 15, 2004
CRITERIA FOR DECISION MAKING
Yellow (Scolt's;Te mj
;N.umler _
of Dots
12
1.
Tra lc imp acts /transit
2.
Economic ossibilities
5
3.
Environmental ini I acts
3
4.
Public investment required
1
5.
Safet , issues:
a. Traffic speeds
1
b. Fire response times
0
c. Pedestrian safe ,
0
d. Police
0
6.
Design/aesthetics
0
THE COUPLET: CRITERIA AND SCENARIOS
•
City Council — Planning Commission Joint Meeting
January 15, 2004
CRITERIA FOR DECISION MAKING
Tq "
1.
7 ,--- '.- r 7r .' ; - . -.' i ii -, „�''.
Blue-(Marina's,Team)- ,
Nu ry,'
of,.Dots a
Multi•le City Center with s ecific focus for each
2
2.
One way with light industry south of Appleway to 12 Avenue east of
University
2
3.
Centers and corridors with focus at selected intersections
2
4.
North of S•ra_ue for mixed use commercial
1
5.
2 -way high -s.eed on A. 91ewa
1
6
S . rague as a "commercial center"
0
7.
Retail corridor with greenbelt between Appleway and Sprague
0
8.
No high - density residential along S.raaue
0
9.
Light industrial south of Appleway with service spine between them
and north of Sprague with mixed use
0
10.
S•ra'ue 2 -wa east of Ar.mute
0
11.
A • pleway 1 -way east of Argonne
0
'
1.
1 ` '°
Green ((reg's;Team) _
' Number.
of'Dots
9
"A" City Center
a. U -Ci ' area
b. Public uses
c. Mixed uses between nm'or nodes
2.
City Center with mixed use surroundin.
8
a. Smaller, corn act Center
3.
City Center
1
a. Make as •ro.riate .rovisions for auto row
4.
City Center
0
a. All above
The Couplet: Criteria and Scenarios (Meeting ofJanuary 15, 2004), continued
February 3, 2004
Page 2 of 2
SCENARIOS
{e1i : (Scii.tt's 7
11tllVeC3
1. General! 7 like City Center
4
a. Do not exclude or ignore key corridors — Pines, Sullivan, Trent
(Ever: reen ?)
b. Sub - centers
NOTE: Items that received three or more votes are bolded and italicized.
M
•
Attendance:
Councilmembers
Michael DeVleming, Mayor
Diana Wilhite, Deputy Mayor
Dick Denenny, Councilmember
Mike Flanigan, Councilmember
Rich Munson, Councilmember
Gary Schimmels, Councilmember
Steve Taylor, Councilmember
NOTES
SPECIAL JOINT WORKSHOP MEETING
SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL ANT)
SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION
January 15, 2004 3:00 - 5:00 p.m.
Staff
Dave Mercier, City Manager
Nina Regor, Deputy City Mgr
Marina Sukup, Comm. Dev. Dir.
Greg McCormick, Long Range Planning Mgr.
Scott K.uhta, Long Range Planner
Neil Kersten, Public Works Director
Kevin Snyder, Current Planning Mgr.
Tom Scholtens, Building Official
Steve Worley, Senior Engineering for CIP
Don Ramsey, Traffic Engineer
Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk
Plannin>; Commissioners
Bill Gothmann, Chair
lan Robertson Vice -Chair
Fred Beaulac
Bob Blum
John Carroll
David Crosby
Gail Kogle
Report on November 6, 2003 Council /Commission Meeting
Deputy City Manager Regor gave a recap of the CounciUPlanning Commission Joint Meeting of November
6, 2003, including the team exercise of identifying the top three strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and
threats, and that the purpose of conducting such an analysis is that it provides a framework for community
discussion and sets the stage for future work on the City's overall community vision. An additional theme
mentioned during the Jan 15 meeting is to maintain safe communities.
Draft Vision Statement
Ms. Regor then focused attention on the approach to draft a vision statement. Suggestions for drafting such a
statement included tying the vision statement in with the past, to draft in a group of less than 15, to be sure to
seek public comment after coming up with a draft, and to form several groups then have the groups get
together to compare notes. It was determined that anyone interested in being part of a sub - committee, should
let Ms. Regor know of their interests; and that the sub - committees could also present suggestions on how
best to deal with community involvement and a timeframe.
Three Land Scenarios
Community Development Director Sukup then went over her PowerPoint presentation which addressed
couplet issues; the three land use scenarios (modify existing conditions, centers & corridors, and city center
emphasis); different views on one -way couplets (traffic engineer's view and planner's view); and options to
consider to make the couplet functional.
Meeting participants were
Table 1 — Marina Sukup
Fred Beaulac
lan Robertson
John G. Carroll
Rich Munson
Diana Vlrilhite
divided into the following three groups:
Table 2 — Scott Kuhta
Mike DeVleming
Dave Crosby
Gail Kogle
l3ob Blum
Steve Taylor
Table 3 — Greg McCormick
Bill Gothmann
Dave Mercier
Gary Schimmels
Dick Denenny
Mike Flanigan
The three separate groups discussed among themselves the various scenarios and which they preferred, and
drafted or identified criteria which could be used in choosing the preferred scenario, some of which included:
Page 1 of 2
Table 1 — Marina Sukup
Need multiple centers w /specific focus
Mixed use on north; industrial on south
Maybe limited 11DR— like assisted living
Criteria:
Couplet as access for industrial uses
Direction of traffic Flow not relevant
Look at 2 -way from Argonne /Mullan East
Land uses — centers & corridors with urban activity centers — modified scenario 3
Would look at possibility of gateways to 190 into community
Appleway one -way east or two -way high speed on Appleway
Convert the one way between University and Appleway to two way and keep one way after that
Table 2 — Scott Kuhta
Generally do not exclude or ignore key corridors — Pines, Sullivan, Trent, Evergreen
Sub- centers already in existence
Criteria:
Traffic impacts
Environmental impacts
Economic possibilities
Public Investment — what would it take or what would be required
Design ascetics
Safety issues — fire response times, traffic speeds, pedestrian safety, police
Table 3 — Greg McCormick
A city center probably of interest to entire group
Public uses should be considered
Mixed use between major nodes — intersections of Sprague & major arterials
Mixed use surrounding with smaller more compact city center
Make appropriate provisions for auto dealerships
Criteria:
Mixed -use zoning needed (versus single zone)
Consider multiple centers by type
Provide for employment opportunities
Links to regional transit system
Landscape, street - scape, ascetics
Not all uses need to be pedestrian friendly
Need high density residential.
Group members then openly discussed their responses and voted for scenarios and criteria. Results of the
voting will be a separate document.
WRAP UP
Deputy City Manager Regor mentioned it appears scenario 1 — the City Center with mixed use received the
most votes. Ms. Regor also mentioned that the notes from this meeting will be transcribed and results will be
returned to Council and Planning Commission members. It was also noted that follow -up from this meeting
will be included on the February 3 agenda, at which time staff can discuss how best to get the public
involved in the process, and will give timeline options and discuss future long range planning.
The meeting ended at 5:00 p.m.
Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk
Page 2 of 2
N
•
TIB Members
CounnTrnernber William Genloy
Chair. City of Saa1e Ground
Corrun' shner Leo Bowan
Vico Chair, Benton County
Mr. John Akers, P.E.
City of Ellensburg
Mr. Thomas Ballard. P.E.
Pierce County
Ms. Bonnie Berk
Sark and Associates
Mr. George Cress
Port of Longview
Ms. Kathleen Davis
WSDOT
Mr. Den D(GUIIio
Gallant Transit
Counc9rneirber Mary Gatos
City of Federal Way
Ma. Paula Hammond, P.E.
%SOOT
Counal President Rob Higgins
City al Spokane
'at-renter Rob t,L^Kanne
King County
MAr. Dick PACKlreay
City of Saar gham
Mr. Dave Nelson
Great County
Mr. Dove O'Corme]
Mason County
Mr. Pad Roberts
City of Everett
Corrrrlssioner Mike Shelton
(stand County
Mr. Arnold Tomac
Bicycle Maslow of Wash:nolo,
Mr. Jay Weber
Coraay Roan Adrni'tieferiar Bound
Mr. Theo Yu
Woe of Financial Manapernenl
Ms. Kim Zeni`. P.E.
Spokane Trams Authority
Id. Stevan Gamester
Ex9„ouL4e Oiaeror
P.O. Box 40401
Olympia, WA 90534.090i
Phone: 360.586 -114D
Fax M0.585 -11E5
www.11b.wa.gov
Washington State
Transportation Improvement Board
Mr. Neil Kersten
Public Works Director
City of Spokane Valley
11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 106
Spokane Valley, WA 99206
Dear Mr. Kersten:
This letter will confirm our recent telephone conversations regarding TIB funding
authorized for the Valley Couplet project.
The original application was submitted by Spokane County in the fall of 1999,
and the project was selected by the TIB in January, 2000. The original schedule
submitted by the County called for design and right -of -way activities to begin in
mid- to Tate -2000. This initial effort was delayed when adjustments to the
regional transportation plan compiled by the Spokane Regional Transportation
Council did not include the project. When the incorporation vote for the City of
Spokane Valley was scheduled for November 2002, the County opted to delay
the start of the project until after the election.
With the successful incorporation vote, the County reported to TIB that the
project would be transferred to the new city. Recognizing the time required for
Spokane Valley to organize and develop its Comprehensive Plan, TIB staff
discussed a nominal two -year delay with Interim Public Works Director Dick
Warren, to about December, 2004, to allow the new city to determine whether it
wished to proceed with the project.
The original budget for the project submitted in 1999 was:
Design $ 401,500
Right -of -Way $1,300,000
Construction $5,315,500
Total $7,017,000
The original funding partners were identified as:
TIB $4,210,200 60.0%
County $2,336,800 33.3%
WSDOT $ 470,000 6.7%
Total $7,017,000 100.0%
The TIB funds remain available to the project at this time.
Investing in your local community
November 4, 20003
Valley Couplet, Project 2
University Rd. to Evergreen Rd.
TIB No. 9 -E- 032(015) -1
TIB Members
Count:rramote WiliamGanley
Chair, City & Barge Ground
Commissioner Leo &war n
%dee Chair, 8sn.on County
Mr. John Akers, P.E.
City of Ellensburg
Mr. Thomas Ballard. P.E.
Pierre County
Ms. Bernie Bork
Berk and Aosocferee
Mr. George Cr=
Port of Lon?v. ew
Ms. Katirlean Darts
WSOOT
Ik. Den DlGtillo
CIrf,rn Trense
Catmetlrne rber Mary Gales
City of Fadoral Way
M. Patna Hammond. P.E.
W5DO7
Cound} Pre ideal Rob Higgins
C1iy of Spokane
CouncOmorther Rob ACc.Kcor to
King County
Mr. Dim McKinley
City ofB.4ig am
Mr. Dave Nelson
Grari County
Mr. Dave O'Connell
Masan County
Mr. Patti Roberts
cey of Evere0
Consrissioner Mike S:iattan
Wand County
Mx. Arnold Tom=
acre A0.ars:e of Washfrsgton
Mr. Jay Weber
County Rae P.d'rc ntt:r. a Oan Bonn!
Mr. The Yu
Of0te of Finandel llanegernert
Me, }GmZen7z. P.E.
Spokane Trans4 Authorky
Mr. Stevan Goreester
Executive D.irecaorr
P.O. Box 40901
Olympia, WA 90304.0901
Phone: 350.581140
Fa( 360•586r1165
verve .lb.na.pav
Washington State
Transportation Improvement Board
The original scope of work is the construction of a new 3 -lane east -bound
roadway, extending the existing Appleway couplet, and the conversion of
Sprague Avenue to one -way westbound between Evergreen Road and
University Road.
As we discussed, there are several options available for the city's consideration.
Among them are:
• Proceed with the project and begin the design and right -of -way phase in 2004
• Request a later project start date
4 Request changes in the project scope and /or funding package
• Withdraw the current pending project. The city would then be able to apply
and compete for TIB funds in a future year for a similar or reconfigured
project
As is our usual practice, the last three courses of action would require review
and approval of the full Board. TIB staff is available to meet with the Spokane
Valley staff or City Council to discuss the project in detail. Please contact Gloria
Bennett, P.E., TIB Project Engineer, or me, if desired.
We look forward to working with you in meeting the needs of Spokane Valley's
arterial street network.
Sincerely,
Robert W. Moorhead, P.E.
Region Manager
Investing in your Local community
Page 2 of 2
•
SPRAGUE -
APPLE WAY
CORRI FOR
Status Report and Next Steps
Nina Regor, Deputy City Manager
Marina Sukup, Community Development Director
Neil Kersten, Public Works Director
February 3, 2004
Scenarios
Summary of 1/15 Joint Meeting
• "A" City Center
▪ Mixed Use Zoning
❑
U-CityArea
❑ Smaller, Compact Center
• Multiple Centers (or sub - centers) still
under consideration
February 3, 2004
Criteria for Decision Making
Summary of 1/15 Joint Meeting
• TRAFFIC IMPACTS /TRANSIT!!
• Economic Possibilities
• Environmental Impacts
Fundamental Questions
• What's the purpose of the "Couplet Project "? What's it trying
to solve?
❑ Fast and easy commuter routes?
❑ Traffic patterns that support a City Center concept?
❑ Others?
• What's the scope of the Project?
❑ University to Evergreen (TIB funded)?
❑ Existing Couplet, too?
• What are the desirable (and undesirable) outcomes of the
project?
• What information does Council need to make a decision?
February 3, 2004 4
February 3, 2004
Draft Process
5
Timeline
Joint PC /CC meeting to refine the Corridor
alternatives and answer fundamental
questions
Late Feb/
Early March
Conduct Community Survey
March
Traffic Model
March — May
Community Workshop on Corridor
May
Council Meeting(s)
June
Notification to TIB to accept or reject funds
for the "Couplet Project"
December
2004
February 3, 2004
Draft Process
5
Transportation Modeling
• Spokane Regional Transportation Council
(SRTC) is the federally designated Metropolitan
Planning agency for Spokane County.
• Services SRTC offers to local governments
include transportation monitoring, transportation
modeling, census information and analysis,
travel demand forecasting, historical traffic count
analysis, geographical information services, trip
generation rates and traffic analysis zone data.
February 3, 2004 6
Transportation Modeling,
Continued
• Spokane Valley will request SRTC's assistance in
developing and modeling alternatives for the Couplet.
• SRTC will also help to answer other questions about the
Couplet.
1. Will it work in Spokane Valley,
2. How does it fit into neighborhoods, the community or
the region,
3. Does it create new or worse problems in other areas,
4. Does it create division or unity in our community and,
5. What reasonable alternatives exist to address the
problem?
February 3, 2004 7
Outstanding Questions on the
Draft Process
• Role of the Planning Commission?
• Scope and timing of community involvement?
• Traffic model approach?
• Which comes first — couplet decision or comp
plan?
February 3, 2004
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: February 3, 2004 City Manager Sign -off:
Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing
❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: An ordinance amending Ordinance 35 relating to the election of
officers of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission and a
motion accepting proposed changes in the Planning
Commission Rules of Procedure.
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: City of Spokane Valley Ordinance No. 35
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: City Council passed Ordinance establishing the
Planning Commission No. 35 on February 25, 2003
and approved the Rules of Procedure on July 8,
2003.
BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission reviewed the Rules of Procedures and the
provisions of Ordinance No. 35 on December 11, 2003. Planning Commission recommended
the following substantive change to Ordinance No. 35:
• Officers would be elected an annual basis.
They also recommended a similar change in their Rules of Procedure, as well as minor
corrections to the text. The change in the day of regular meetings which took place in July 2003
was deleted as obsolete.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Recommend placing this item on February 10,
2004 Council Agenda for first reading
BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None
STAFF CONTACT: Marina Sukup, AICP, Director of Community Development
ATTACHMENTS:
Proposed Amendment to Ordinance No. 35
Amended Planning Commission Rules of Procedure
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. 04-
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE No. 35 CREAT A PLANNING
COMMISSION AND ESTABLISHING THE DUTIES THEREOF.
WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley is a non - charter code city authorized to create a
Planning Commission which will serve in an advisory capacity to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, the City will adopt a Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations to
guide the reasonable and orderly development of the City; and
WHEREAS, The City Council wishes to respond to the expressed concerns of citizens
that immediately after incorporation the City begin a comprehensive planning process and
review of development regulations; and
WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley desires to encourage citizen input into the
planning process by establishing a Planning Commission which will study, receive public input
and recommend a Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations to the City Council for
review and adoption.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County,
Washington does hereby amend Ordinance No. 35 passed on February 25, 2003, to read as
follows:
Section 1. Establishment and Purpose. There is created the City of Spokane Valley
Planning Commission. The purpose of the Planning Commission is to study and make
recommendations to the Mayor and City Council for future planned growth through continued
review of the City's comprehensive land use plan, development regulations, shoreline
management, environmental protection, public facilities, capital improvements and other matters
as directed by the City Council.
Section 2. Membership.
1. Qualifications: The membership of the Planning Commission shall
consist of individuals who have an interest in planning, land use, transportation, capital
infrastructure and building and landscape design as evidenced by training, experience or interest
in the City of Spokane Valley.
2. Appointment: Members of the Planning Conunission shall be
nominated by the Mayor and confirmed by a majority vote of at least four (4) members of the
City Council. Planning Commissioners shall be selected without respect to political affiliations
and shall serve without compensation. The Mayor, when considering appointments, shall
Ordinance 04 -_ Page 1 of 4
attempt to select residents that represent various interests and locations within the City.
3. Number of Members/Terms: The Planning Commission shall
consist of seven (7) members. All members shall reside within the City of Spokane Valley. The
terms for the initial Commissioners shall be two (2) one (1) year terms, two (2) two (2) year
terms and three (3) three (3) year terms. The initial members and their terms shall be decided by
the Mayor and confirmed by the City Council. Subsequent terns shall be for a three (3) year
period. Terms shall expire on the thirty -first day of December.
4. Removal: Members of the Commission may be removed by the
Mayor, with the concurrence of the City Council, for neglect of duty, conflict of interest,
malfeasance in office, or other just cause, or for unexcused absence from three (3) consecutive
regular meetings. Failure to qualify as to residency shall constitute a forfeiture of office. The
decision of the City Council regarding membership on the Planning Commission shall be final
and without appeal.
5. . Vacancies:. Vacancies occurring other than through the expiration
of terms shall be filled for the unexpired term in the same manner as for appointments.
6. Conflicts of Interest: Members of the Planning Commission shall
fully comply with RCW 42.23, Code of Ethics for Municipal Officers, RCW 42.36, Appearance
of Fairness, and such other rules and regulations as may be adopted from time to time by the City
Council regulating the conduct of any person holding appointive office within the City. No
elected official or City employee may be a member of the Planning Commission.
Section 3. Meetings - Rules.
1. The Planning Commission shall every 'mil year organize and
elect from its members a Chair, who shall preside at all meetings of the Commission and perform
such other functions as determined by rule. A Vice -Chair shall be elected to preside in the
absence of the Chair. A majority of the Commission members shall constitute a quorum for the
transaction of business, and a majority vote of those present shall be necessary to carry any
proposition.
2. The Commission shall determine a regular meeting schedule (time,
place and frequency) and shall meet, at least, one time every month. All meetings shall be open
to the public.
3. The Commission shall adopt such rules and ieg-titatikias pr c enures
as are necessary for the conduct of business and shall keep a taped record of its proceedings.
Section 4. Staff Support. Administrative staff support to the Planning Commission
shall be provided by the City Planning and Conununity Development Department. In addition,
the Conunission, through its Chair may request formal opinions or memorandums form the City
Attorney or Planning and Conununity Development Director on any pending matter.
Ordinance 04 -_ Page 2 of 4
Section 5. Duties and Responsibilities. The Planning Commission, as
an advisory body to the City Council, shall perfomi and have the following duties and
responsibilities:
1. Assist in the preparation of a Comprehensive Plan and
Development Regulations in compliance with RCW 36.07A and 35A.63 including the
establishment of procedures for early and continuous public participation in the development and
amendment of the Comprehensive Plan and the Development Regulations;
2. Review plans and regulations related to land use management,
shoreline management, environmental policy, transportation systems, public facilities and capital
infrastructure planning and development;
3. Upon request from the City Manager or City Council, review
potential annexations to the City;
4. Where design review is required by land use ordinances of the
City, perform such design review unless that review is delegated to some other appointed body
or City Staff;
5. Identify issues and recommend priorities for geographic sub -areas
including park and open space areas in the City;
6. Meet and confer with the Hearing Examiner to review the
adrninistration of land use policies and ordinances to enhance the planning and permitting
process;
7. Make periodic written and oral reports to the City Council
addressing work in progress and other significant matters relating to the City;
8. Hold public hearings in the exercise of duties and responsibilities;
9. Perform such other duties and powers as may be conferred by
ordinance. resolution or motion of the City Council
Unless other wise assumed by the City Council, the Planning Commission
shall hold all public hearings required to be held in the course of adoption or amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan, the development regulations, adoption or amendment of the zoning map, or
adoption or amendment of regulations for the subdivision of land, shoreline management,
environmental regulations, and other land use ordinances of the City.
Section 6. 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.
Ordinance 04 -_ Page 3 of 4
Section 7. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five (5)
days after publication of this Ordinance or a summary thereof in the official newspaper of the
City as provided by law.
2004.
ATTEST:
Passed by the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley this day of
Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk
Approved As To Form:
Stanley M. Schwartz, City Attorney
Date. of Publication:
Effective Date:
Ordinance 04 -_
Michael DeVleming, Mayor
Page 4 of 4
1. Name
City of Spokane Valley
Planning Commission
RULES OF PROCEDURE
We, the members of the Planning Commission of the City of Spokane Valley, State of
Washington, pursuant to the City of Spokane Valley Ordinance No. 35, do hereby adopt
and publish the following Rules of Procedure
A. The "City of Spokane Valley Planning Commission", hereinafter referred
to, as the "Commission" is an advisory body created by the City Council
for purposes consistent with Ordinance No. 35.
2. Location
ORGANIZATION AND RULES OF PROCEDURE
A. The Commission offices shall be the City Hall of the City of Spokane
Valley.
3. Officers
Unless otherwise required by a vacancy in office, the Commission shall organize
every ,,, year in accordance with Ordinance No 35.
A. Officers of the Commission shall be elected from its membership; the
officers shall be Chair, Vice Chair, and other appropriate officers that the
Commission may choose to approve and appoint by majority vote.
B. The Chair shall preside over the Commission and exercise all powers
incidental to the office, retaining however, the full right as a member of the
Commission to propose second motions and have a vote recorded on all
matters of the Commission.
C. The Vice -Chair shall, in the absence of the Chair from any meeting,
perform all the duties incumbent upon the Chair, and retain the full right as
a member of the Commission in the same manner as the Chair.
4. Secretary of the Commission
A. The Director of the Department of Community Development or his/her
designee shall serve as the Secretary to the Commission.
1
B. The Secretary shall provide for a #fie recording of Commission meetings,
including public hearings and shall ensure that summary minutes of all
public hearings are prepared and filed in the public record.
C. The Secretary will conduct and record a roll call of the Commission
members at each meeting and public hearing and shall note for the
record attendance at study sessions.
Election of Officers
A. Officers shall be elected at the second regular meeting in the 11 calendar
month of each year, by majority vote of the membership of the
Commission. Terms of office shall run from January 1elewi e
felestie ► ieetiffi until December 31 `ei•�- the=seee ei or until a
successor has been elected. No Commission member shall serve more
than two full consecutive terms as Chair of the Commission. No member
shall serve as vice -chair for more than two full consecutive terms.
B. A vacancy in any office will be filled by a special election, to be held at a
convenient time with a majority present. In the event that the office of
Chair is vacated, the vice -chair shall serve in that capacity until the
required special election is held. Any member of the Commission is
eligible to fill the vacancy. However, no member can hold two office
positions.
6. Quorum
A. A quorum shall consist of four members of the Commission and no action
can be taken in the absence of a quorum except to adjourn the meeting to
a subsequent date. A quorum must be present for public hearings and
study sessions.
7. Voting
A. The affirmative vote of a majority of those present shall be necessary for
the adoption of any motion or other general matter.
B. For the conduct of business dealing with matters, which require adoption
or changes to the City's Comprehensive Plan and the election of officers,
at least four affirmative votes must be cast. Each member of the
Commission is entitled to one vote but no proxy shall be allowed.
8. Meetings
A. There shall be 5 a t least one
regular' .meeting each month with additional meetings scheduled as
9
necessa Regular meetings shall be scheduled on the 2nd and
4 e. esda,,a Thursdays of the month, commencing at 6:30 p.m. and
ending at not later than 9.30 p.m. "; - _ = 4-he4 a
t • " ��Gnth at--th r �' fi e. Meeting
ending time can be extended by a majority vote of the commission.
Meetings may be used for general planning matters, study sessions or
public hearings as described below.
1. Meetings on General Planning Matters. General planning matters
to be reviewed by the Commission will be typically be preceded by
a study session of the Commission to discuss the issues with
Community Development Department staff. Generally, no
testimony from the public shall be taken at a study session.
2. Public Hearing Meeting. A public hearing is a meeting wherein
general business and public hearing items, such as the
Comprehensive Plan and development regulations are discussed
and decided.
3. Scheduled meetings may be canceled or convened at other times if
deemed necessary by the Chair or, in the absence of the Chair, by
the Vice - Chair. Notice of cancellation shall be given personally to
Commission Members and to the public by posting a notice at
Commission offices.
4. The recommended order of business for meetings is:
(a) Call to order by Chair.
(b) Pledge of Allegiance.
(c) Roll call by recording secretary.
(d) Approval of Agenda.
(e) Approval or amendment of minutes.
(f) Commission Members Report
(g) Administrative Report.
(h) Commission Business.
a. Old Business
b. New Business
(i) Public Comment
(j) For the Good of the Order.
(k) Adjournment.
B. Planning Commission meetings shall be held in accordance with the
requirements of the Open Meetings Act, RCW Chapter 42.30.
C. Special meetings and study sessions may be called:
3
1 1. By the request of the Chair, or, in the Chair's absence, by the Vice -
Chair.
2. By the written request of three or more members of the
Commission.
3. By agreed motion of the Commission.
9. CONDUCT OF HEARINGS
A. Actions for a Planning Commission Public Hearing.
1. Prior to the start of the public hearing, the Chair may require that all
persons wishing to be heard shall sign in with the Secretary, giving
their names and addresses, the agenda item, and whether they
wish to speak as proponent, opponent, or otherwise. Any person
who fails to sign in shall not be permitted to speak until all those
who signed in have done so. At any public hearing, persons who
have signed in and wish to be heard shall be given an opportunity
to be heard. However, the Chair shall be authorized to establish
speaker time limits and otherwise control presentations to avoid
repetition. The Chair, subject to concurrence by the majority of the
Commission, may establish time limits and otherwise control
presentations. The Chair may change the order of speakers so that
testimony is heard in the most logical groupings, (i.e., proponents,
opponents, adjacent owners, vested interests, etc.)
B. The Chair introduces the agenda item, opens the public hearing, and
announces the following Rules of Order:
1. All comments by proponents, opponents, or the public shall be
made from the speaker's rostrum, and any individual making
comments shall first give his /her name and address. This is
required because an official recorded transcript of the public
hearing is being made.
2. It is not necessary to be a proponent or opponent in order to speak.
If you consider yourself neither a proponent nor opponent, please
speak during the proponent portion and identify yourself as neither
a proponent nor an opponent.
3. No comments shall be made from any other location, and anyone
making "out of order" comments shall be subject to removal from
the meeting.
4
Demonstrations, applause or other audience participation during or
at the conclusion of anyone's presentation are prohibited. It is
distracting to the Commission and persons testifying.
5. These rules are intended to promote an orderly system of holding a
public hearing, to give persons an opportunity to be heard and to
ensure that individuals are not embarrassed by exercising their
right of free speech.
C. When the Commission conducts a hearing to which the Appearance of
Fairness Doctrine applies, the Chair (or in the case of a potential violation
by that individual, the Vice Chair) will ask if any Commission member
knows of any reason which would require such member to excuse
themselves pursuant to the Appearance of Fairness Doctrine. The form of
the announcement is as follows:
All Commission members should now give consideration as to whether
they have:
(1) A demonstrated bias or prejudice for or against any party to the
proceedings;
(2) A direct or indirect financial interest in the outcome of the proceeding;
(3) A prejudgment of the issue prior to hearing the facts on the record, or
(4) Had ex parte contact with any individual, excluding administrative staff,
with regard to an issue prior to the hearing. Please refer to Section 16(B)
for more specific information on how to proceed where there has been an
ex parte communication.
If any Commission member should answer in the affirmative, then the
Commission members should state the reason for his /her answer so that
the Chair may inquire of administration as to whether a violation of the
Appearance of Fairness Doctrine exists.
CONDUCTING THE PUBLIC HEARING
The Chair announces the matter and opens the public hearing stating the
date and time.
The Chair allows staff to describe the matter under consideration and
place matters in the public record.
The Chair inquires as to whether Commissioners have any questions of
staff. If any Commission member has questions, the appropriate individual
will be recalled.
5
The Chair allows proponents, opponents and the public to offer testimony
and evidence on the pending matter. The Chair may allow Commission
members to ask questions of any person at the conclusion of their
testimony.
At the conclusion of the public testimony, the Chair asks staff if there is
any additional information, testimony or evidence to submit for the record.
The Chair either closes or continues the public hearing. Additional
testimony may not be requested or considered after the closing of the
public hearing, unless the Chair declares the record open until a date
certain for the purpose of receiving written testimony or materials.
The Chair inquires if there is a motion by any Commission member. If a
motion is made, it shall be in the form of an affirmative motion. Following
the motion and its second, . discussion occurs among Commission
members.
The Chair inquires if there is any further discussion by the Commission
members.
The Chair inquires if there are any final comments or recommendations
from staff.
The Chair inquires of the Commission members if they are ready for the
question.
The Secretary records a roll call vote.
The Chair may direct staff to prepare findings for approval.
D. Pre - filing of testimony or evidence is encouraged and may be delivered to
the Department of Community Development in advance of a hearing.
10. Agenda, Staff Reports and Minutes for Regular Meetings.
A. Typically, a copy of the agenda for every regular meeting of the Planning
Commission shall be sent to each member up to seven (7) days prior to
the date of the meeting.
B. If available, staff reports will be sent to Planning Commission members
with the agenda. Agendas and staff reports will be made available to
applicants and the public at the same time.
6
11. Minutes and Communications with the City Council.
A Minutes of all meetings shall be kept and the complete files of proceedings
and actions taken in connection therewith shall be considered the public
record and filed with the City Clerk.
The Secretary shall provide the Commission members with a set of
minutes of the previous meeting. These minutes shall be considered for
approval by the Commission at a regularly scheduled public meeting and
upon approval shall become part of the official record of action of the
Commission. Minutes shall also be transmitted as correspondence to the
City Council for general information.
B The assigned City Council Liaison may attend meetings for the purposes
of communications with the Council as set forth in the "CITY OF
SPOKANE VALLEY GOVERNANCE COORDINATION MANUAL ".
12. Recording of Meetings
Proceedings of all public hearings shall be recorded and retained. Proceedings
of study sessions or workshops may be recorded at the discretion of the Planning
Commission Chair.
13. Temporary Committees
The Chair shall have authority to create temporary committees of one or more
members and to appoint the members to such committees, which may be
charged with such duties as examination, investigation and inquiry into one or
more subjects of interest to the Commission. No temporary committee shall
have the power to bind the Commission to the endorsement of any plan or
program. The Chair may appoint citizens to committees of the Commission.
14. Code of Conduct
A. Prohibited Acts. Members of the Commission are prohibited from:
1. Acting in a manner, which would result in neglect of duty,
misfeasance or malfeasance in office.
2. Acting in a manner that intentionally disrupts Commission
meetings.
3. Missing six (6) or more regularly scheduled meetings or study
sessions in a 12 -month period without such absence being excused
by the Commission.
7
4. Using his or her position to secure special privileges or exemptions
for himself, herself, or others.
5. Directly or indirectly giving or agreeing to receive compensation,
gifts, rewards, or gratuities from any source, except the City of
Spokane Valley, for a matter connected with or related to the
services as a member of the Commission, unless otherwise
provided by law.
Accepting employment or engaging in business or professional
activities that he or she might reasonably expect would require or
induce said member to disclose confidential information acquired
by reason of membership on the Commission.
7 Disclosing confidential information gained by reason of his or her
membership on the Planning Commission or using such information
for his or her personal gain or benefit.
15. Conflict of Interest
A. Any Commission member having a direct or indirect interest in, or who
would benefit from any matter, shall disclose this interest and shall, if
deemed appropriate by that commissioner or required by law, refrain from
participating or voting on the matter.
B. No member may participate or vote on a matter unless the member has
been in attendance at all public hearings regarding such matter or has
listened to the taped recording of the public hearing and reviewed the
written record of the matter in question.
16. Appearance of Fairness
A. The Commission shall adhere to the applicable requirements of the
appearance of fairness doctrine, RCW Chapter 42.36.
B. During the pendency of any quasi - judicial proceeding, no Commission
member may engage in ex parte communications with proponents or
opponents about a proposal involved in the pending proceeding, unless
the Commission member: (1) places on the record the substance of such
oral or written communications; and (2) provided that a public
announcement of the content of the communication and of the parties'
right to rebut the substance of the communication shall be made at each
hearing where action is taken or considered on the subject. This does not
prohibit correspondence between a citizen and Commission members if
8
the correspondence is made part of the record, when it pertains to . the
subject matter of a quasi - judicial proceeding. (RCW 42.36.060)
17. Review of These Rules of Procedure
The Planning Commission shall review these rules of procedure on the first
anniversary of their adoption and every other year thereafter. Any amendments
identified by the Planning Commission shall be forwarded to the City Council for
review and ratification.
KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENT:
That the undersigned Secretary of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission does
hereby certify that upon review and majority vote the above and forgoing rules have
been duly adopted by the members of said Commission.
BY:
Date:
Secretary of the Commission
9
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: February 3. 2004 City Manager Sign -off:
Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing
X information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Wastewater Policies Discussion
GOVERNING LEGISLATION:
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN:
BACKGROUND: A draft wastewater interlocal agreement was presented to the Council at the
December 16, 2003 Study Session. As a result of that study session, there were several
specific issues the Council wanted to discuss in more detail. Those issues are as follows:
■ Recovery of City Expenses
• Rate Setting
• STEP Program
• DBO Procurement
• Reserve Funds
■ Right's to Reserve Funds
• Assumption
A presentation on the above issues will be presented at the Study Session_
OPTIONS:
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Establish direction on the above issues,
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS:
STAFF CONTACT: Neil }Gersten
ATTACHMENT:
Wastewater
Policies Discussion
Issues
• Recovery of City Expenses
• Rate Setting
• STEP Program
• D60 Procurement
• Use of Reserve Funds
• Reserve Funds & Assumption
Page 2
Wastewater Management
2/3/04
J
Recovery of City Expenses
• Franchise Fee
1. City may charge a franchise fee for
monitoring sewer issues within the City.
2. This would be charged to rate payers in
the City.
Page 3
Wastewater Management
2/3/04
Recovery of City Expenses (cont.)
• Capital Planning Fee
1. City could be reimbursed for work related
to planning for new capacity.
2. Funds could come from Capital Reserve
funds and would not be charged to the
rate payers.
Page 4
Wastewater Management
2/3/04
Rate Setting
• County proposes annual rates.
1. Option A
o City must approve any rate increase.
2. Option B
o County must consider City comments prior to setting
final rates.
3. Option C
• Rates must be set based on cost of service.
o No Utility taxes will be assessed against the sewer
utility.
Page 5
Wastewater Management
2/3/04
STEP Program
• County proposes annual STEP program
1.Option A
City must approve the program prior to County
proceeding with the program.
2.Option B
County must consider City comments prior to
approving the annual program.
Page 6
Wastewater Management
2/3/04:
J
DBO Procurement
• Selection Committee
1. Option A
0 Representation base on volume of flow from
each jurisdiction.
Z. Option B
Equal representation from each government.
3. Option C
0 Spokane Valley to have a least one
representative.
Page 7 .-
Wastewater Management
2/3/04
Page 8
DBO Procurement (cont.)
• Contract Approval
1. .Option A
• Spokane Valley must approve selected DBO firm.
2. Option B
e County must consider Spokane Valley recommendation
prior to approval of DBO firm.
3. Option C
• County to make final selection based on committee
recommendation.
Wastewater Management
lz 1
2/3/04
Use of Reserve Funds
• County proposes to use Reserves.
1.Option A
City must approve Reserve Fund expenditures.
2.Option B
County must consider City comments prior to
spending Reserve Funds.
Page 9
Wastewater Management
2/3/04
Reserve Funds & Assumption
Page 10
• Reserve right to assumption.
• Transfer based on 36.94.180 RCW.
Wastewater Management
2/3/04
RCW 36.94.180
• Transfer of system upon annexation or incorporation of
area. In the event of the annexation to a city or town of
an area, or incorporation of an area, in which a county is
operating a sewerage and /or water system, the
property, facilities, and equipment of such sewerage
an /or water system lying within the annexed or
incorporated area may be transferred to the city or town
if such transfer will not materially affect the operation
of any of the remaining county system, subject to the
assumption by the city or town of the county's
obligations relating to such property, facilities, and
equipment, under the procedures specified in, and
pursuant to the authority contained in, chapter 35.13A
RCW.
Page 11
Wastewater Management
2/3/04
Meeting Date: February 3, 2004
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business
❑ information ❑ admin. report
City Manager Sign -off:
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: PROPOSED REVISION TO EMPLOYEE CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: City Resolution No. 03 -031, adopting job descriptions for city
employees; and City Resolution No. 03 -032, adopting a pay plan for the City.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: N/A
BACKGROUND: On May 13, council adopted job descriptions and a pay plan for City
employees. The resolutions called for a periodic review and update of all position descriptions.
Over the coming year, the City will undertake a review of all job descriptions, beginning with
those positions with previously identified revisions to consider. One such position is the Senior
Engineer, currently at Grade 17.
In the 2004 budget, the City eliminated the City Engineer position. With this change, the Senior
Engineer position reports directly to the Public Works Director. In addition, it becomes that
position's responsibility to accept engineering plans submitted by development clients (i.e.,
review and approve that the plans meet City standards), and to sign and stamp (i.e., create and
accept responsibility for) engineering plans for City capital projects.
Interim staff originally proposed an organizational structure as described above. Under that
scenario, the Senior Engineer position was placed at Grade 18 in recognition of the greater
authority that rested with it. When the City Engineer was created prior to adopting the final
version of the organizational structure, the Senior Engineer position was moved to Grade 17.
Staff proposes completing the transition to the original structure, which began with the
elimination of the City Engineer position. This would move the two full -time Senior Engineer
positions to Grade 18. The City also has a part -time Senior Engineer who analyzes the traffic
impacts of development proposals. This position, whose responsibilities have not changed,
would be renamed Traffic Engineer, and would remain at Grade 17.
OPTIONS: Move the full -time Senior Engineer positions to Grade 18 of the City's pay plan and
rename the part -time position "Traffic Engineer", or keep the positions at Grade 17.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Council input on proposal and, if appropriate,
direction to staff to prepare a resolution, amending the City's classification system,
BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: There is no direct financial impact to the position
reclassification. Any impact resulting from changing individuals' salaries will be absorbed by the
Public Works department.
STAFF CONTACT: Nina Regor, Deputy City Manager
ATTACHMENTS
1, Letter from Interim Human
Resouces Director Don Morrison
X new business ❑ public hearing
❑ pending legislation
incerely,
Don A. Morrison
1 231 Fara1!one Aver•ue • Fi:•crest, WA 98466 -671 8
Res: (251) i6S -6,_;O ° Off: ("•53) 565 -6253 • Fax: (253) 565 -257 • Entail: morrison(th i.oet
January 14, 2004
Dori Mon
Ms. Nina Regor, Deputy City Manager
City of Spokane Valley
11707 East Sprague, Suite 106
Spokane Valley, WA 99206
•
'o` o Spokane Vefi j �
RE: Engineering Positions
Dear Nina:
You had asked me for a written history of the organizational and classification consideration for
the Engineering positions in the City.
The original proposed organizational structure for startup operations included a Public Works
Director, two Senior Engineer positions, two Assistant Engineer positions, and an Engineering
Technician. As a side note, in the very early planning stages (Jan. of 2003), we were looking at a
PW Dir., 1 Sr. Eng. (Engineer I]), 2 Assistant Engineers (Engine..er l), and 1 Eng. Tech.
The position of City Engineer 'Ails not pal the 1: " ;itial °irganiz.ntionlii planning. However, 1vhen
Dick Thiel rarrIc along the position of City Engineer a> , n , :- iced. After furtl fir evaluating the
startup er'.gi.r ��ring nc-cds of the City, %•,e • ?ecid 'ct re_vi. e the organizaiion.11 plan for Pabli::
Works. `
As adopted, :rne engineering positions were all classified two (2) grades apart: Public Works
Director at glade 21, City Engineer at grade 19, and Senior Engineer at grade 17, and Assistant
Engineer at grade 15. This pattern provided a logical salary separation and career path. It was
also supported by the salary survey data I had compiled on the engineer positions.
The Senior Engineer positions had originally he c1,issified as a grade 18. hut wh.rn the. City
Engineer position was adopted at a grade 19, we slightly downgraded the two proposed senior
engineer positions as they would no longer have the supervisory or decision - making aut11 rity
that would justify quite as high a salary as originally anticipated (grade 18). Thus the Senior
Engineer positions w =.re adopted by Council as grAe 17. Note: we had also developed a
position of Associate Engineer at grade 16 (for future use), but never include such a position in
the 2003 budget.
don't have a t:opv of all of my notes and original files. but from I wiut 1 could find on my disk
files, 1 llel ` e above is an accurate description of our organizational planning for the
engird„• ring fun tion. Hope this helps. Feel free to call me or write with any questions.
Meeting Date: 02 - 03 - 04 City Manager Sign -off:
Item: Check all that apply ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing
❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE : Council Travel Policy
GOVERNING LEGISLATION:
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN:
BACKGROUND:
Method for travel funds disbursement. Discussion elements.
1. Mike Flannigan has suggested we divide the council travel budget by seven and let each of us
manage our travel needs. When the moncy runs out, we either don't go, or we pay for it out of our
pockets.
2. A derivative of this basic concept would be that if an individual believes he/she would not need
all of their budgeted amount, they could allow another council member to use that unused
portion.
BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS:
$33,400 is budgeted in the 2004 travel/training /mileage line item. While this line item may be used for
any travel - related purpose, the assumptions used for coming up with that amount are as follows:
$11,900 June & Feb. AWC meetings — each Council member
attends one of the meetings
$14,000 NLC Conferences (Dec. and March) — each Council member
attends one of the conferences
$ 2,500 Advocacy in Olympia: five 2- member trips
$ 5,000 Other City Council business travel
$33,400 Total
For 2003, $5,500 was budgeted for Council travel.
STAFF CONTACT:
�) ATTACHMENTS
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
DRAFT
ADVANCE AGENDA
For Planning Discussion Purposes Only
as of January 29, 2004 1:30 p.m.
Please note this is a work in progress; items are tentative
To: Council & Staff
From: City Manager
Re: Draft Schedule for Upcoming Council Meetings
February 7, 2004, 9 a.m. — 4 p.m. — Council Retreat
February 10, 2004 Regular Meeting 6:011 p.m. [due date Jan 30]
1. First Reading Proposed Flood Plain Ordinance — Marina Sukup [10 minutes]
2. First Reading Proposed Ordinance Planning Commission Rule Change — Marina Sukup [10 minutes]
3. First Reading Proposed Stormwater Ordinance — Stanley Schwartz [10 minutes]
4. First Reading Proposed Ordinance Adopting Municipal Code — Chris Bainbridge [5 minutes]
5. Motion Consideration: Set Public Hearing for 3/2/04 to Adopt Municipal Code — Chris Bainbridge [5 mins]
6. Motion Consideration: Library Services Agreement — Nina Regor (10 minutes)
7. Motion Consideration: Tourism Promotion Area Interlocal Agreement — Stanley Schwartz [15 minutes]
8. Mayor Appointments /Council Confirmation: Cable Advisory Board — Mayor DeVleming [5 minutes]
9. Administrative Reports: [no public comment]
a. Sidewalk Responsibility Discussion — Stanley Schwartz [20 minutes]
b. Adult Entertainment Hours of Operation Discussion — Cary Driskell [20 minutes]
c. Proposed Franchise Ordinance for One - EIGHTY Networks Discussion — Cary Driskell [ 10 minutes]
d. Proposed Towing Ordinance Discussion — Cary Driskell [10 minutes]
10. Information Only: [no public comment]
a. Status of Previous Public Comments /Concerns
b. Minutes of Planning Commission
[estimated meeting time: 130 minutes* ]
February 17, 2004. Study Session 6:00 p.m. [duc date Feb 6]
1. Refreshment Policy Draft — Ken Thompson (5 minutes)
2. Fiscal Policy/Investment Review — Ken Thompson (10 minutes)
3. Proposed Amended Sign Code Ordinance Discussion — Scott Kuhta (10 minutes)
4. Proposed Junk Vehicle Ordinance Amendment Discussion — Cary Driskell (5 minutes)
5. Wastewater Interlocal Agreement Discussion — Neil Kersten (20 minutes)
6. Report on Uniform Development: Code — Marina Sukup (10 minutes)
7. Council Check in — Dave Mercier (10 minutes)
8. Advance Agenda Additions — Mayor DeVleming (5 minutes)
9. City Manager Comments — Dave Mercier (10 minutes)
TOTAL i\'UNUTES: 85
Max mtg time: 120 minutes
Advance Agenda — Draft Page 1 of 3
Revised; 1/29/2004 1:20 PM
February 24, 2004 Regular Meeting 6:00 p.m. [due date Feb 13]
1. PUBLIC HEARING: Title Transfer: Opportunity Hall [ 10 minutes]
2. Second Reacting Proposed Towing Ordinance - Cary Driskell [10 minutes]
3. Second Reading Proposed Stormwater Ordinance - Stanley Schwartz [ 10 minutes]
4. Second Reading Proposed Planning Commission Rule Change Ordinance - Marina Sukup [10 minutes]
5. Second Reading Proposed Franchise Ordinance for One- EIGHTY Networks - Cary Driskell [5 minutes]
6. Second Reading Proposed Flood Plain Ordinance - Marina Sukup [ 10 minutes]
7. First Reading Proposed Amendment Sign Code Ordinance- Scott Kuhta [10 minutes]
8. First Reading Proposed Building Code Ordinance (IBCA) - Tom Scholtens [10 minutes]
9. First Reading Proposed Sidewalk Ordinance - Stanley Schwartz [10 minutes]
10. First Reading Proposed Ordinances Amending Ordinance 40 & 41 (Building Code, Fire Code)
Tom Scholtens [10 minutes]
11. Proposed Resolution Refreshment Policy - Ken Thompson [10 minutes]
12. Proposed Resolution: Walgreen's Public Access Easement - Kevin Snyder [10 minutes]
13. Motion Consideration: Approval of Transfer of Title: Opportunity Hall - Mike Jackson [5 minutes]
14. Administrative Reports: [no public comment]
a. Precinct Lease Agreement Discussion - Cal Walker [ 15 minutes]
15. Information Only: [no public comment]
a. Status of Previous Public Comments/Concerns
b. Minutes of Planning Commission
c. Departmental Monthly Reports [estimated meeting time: 135 minutes* ]
March 2, 2004, Regular Meeting 6:00 p.m. [due date Feb 201
1. PUBLIC HEARING: Adoption of Municipal Code [10 minutes]
2. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance Adopting Municipal Code - Chris Bainbridge [5 minutes]
3. Second Reading Proposed Sidewalk Ordinance - Stanley Schwartz [ 10 minutes]
4. Second Reading Proposed Building Code Ordinance (IBCA) - Tom Scholtens [10 minutes]
5. Second Reading Proposed Amendment Sign Code Ordinance - Scott Kuhta [5 minutes]
6. Second Reading Proposed Ordinances Amending Ordinance 40 and 41 (Building Code, Fire Code)
Tom Scholtens
7. Administrative Reports: [no comments]
8. Council Check in - Dave Mercier
9. Advance Agenda Additions - Mayor DeVleming
10. City Manager Comments - Dave Mercier
11. Information Only: [no public comment]
a. Status of Previous Public Comments /Concerns
b. Minutes of Planning Commission
March 5 - 9, 2004. Congressional City Conference, Washington, D.C.
March 9, 2004 Possible No Meeting
March 16, 2004, Study Session 6:00 p.m. 'due date M
1. Proposed Sewer Ordinance Discussion - Neil Kersten
2. Results of Grading Code Public Wearing - Tom Scholtens
3 Alcohol Use on Public Property Discussion - Mike Jackson
4. Council Check in - Dave Mercier
5. Advance Agenda Additions - Mayor DeVleming
6. City Manager Comments - Dave Mercier
Advance Agenda - Draft
Revised: 1/29/2004 1:20 PM
[estimated meeting time: 70 minutes*]
March 51
[5 minutes]
[10 minutes]
[5 minutes)]
[10 minutes]
(20 minutes)
(15 minutes)
(15 minutes)
(10 minutes)
(5 minutes)
(10 minutes)
TOTAL MINUTES: 75
Max mtg time: 120 minutes
Page 2 or3
March 23, 2004 Regular Meeting 6:00 p.m. [due date March 121
1. First Reading Proposed Sewer Ordinance —Neil Kcrsten
2. First Reading Proposed Grading Ordinance — Tom Scholtens
3. Administrative Reports: [no public comment]
4. Information Only: [no public comment]
Status of Previous Public. Comments /Concerns
Minutes of Planning Commission
Departmental Monthly Reports
Saturday, March 27, 2004 — Mayor's Ball — Mirabeau Hotel
March 30, 2004, Study Session 6:00 p.m. [due date March 19]
1. Second Reading Proposed Grading Ordinance —Tom Scholtens
2. Council Check in — Dave Mercier
3. Advance Agenda Additions — Mayor DeVleming
4. City Manager Comments — Dave Mercier
April 6, 2004, Study Session 6:00 p.m.
1. Council Check in — Dave Mercier
2. Advance Agenda Additions — Mayor DeVleming
3. City Manager Comments — Dave Mercier
April 13, 2994 Regular Meeting 6:00 p.m. (due date April 2]
1. Proposed Sewer Ordinance Second Reading [10 minutes]
April 20, 2004, Study Session 6:00 p.m.
1. Advance Agenda Additions — Mayor DeVleming
2. City Manager Comments — Dave Mercier
April 27. 2004 Regular Meeting 6:00 p.m.
1. Administrative Reports: [no public comment]
2. Information Only: [no public comment]
Status of Previous Public Comments /Concerns
Minutes of Planning Commission
Departmental Monthly Reports
[estimated meeting time: minutes* ]
TOTAL MINUTES:
Max mtg time: 120 minutes
[due date March 26]
(10 minutes)
(5 minutes)
(10 minutes)
TOTAL MINUTES:
Max mtg time: 120 minutes
(due date April 91
(5 minutes)
(10 minutes)
TOTAL MINUTES:
Max mtg time: 120 minutes
[due date April 16]
[# estimated meeting time does not include time for public comments]
[20 minutes]
[15 minutes]
(I0 minutes)
(10 minutes)
(5 minutes)
(10 minutes)
[estimated meeting time: minutes* ]
Advance Agenda— Draft Page 3 of 3
Revised' 1/29/2004 1:20 PM