2004, 03-02 Regular MeetingAGENDA
SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
Tuesday, March 2, 2004 6:00 P.M.
CITY HALL AT REDWOOD PLAZA
11707 East Sprague Avenue, First Floor
Council Requests All Electronic Devices be Turned Oft During Council Meeting
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
INVOCATION: Pastor Mark VanBebbcr of Pasadena Park Nazarene Church
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF AGENDA
INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS
COMMITTEE, BOARD. LL%JSON SUMMARY REPORTS
MAYOR'S REPORT:
PUBLIC COMMENTS For member of thc Public to speak to the Council regarding matters NOT an
the .Agenda. Please state your name and address for the record and limit remarks to three minutes.
PUBLIC HEARING
1. CONSENT AGENDA Consists of items considered routine which arc approved as a group. A
Councilmember may remove an item from the Consent Agenda to be considered separately.
a. Approval of Regular Council Meeting Minutes of February 24. 2004
b. Approval of Claims in the amount of $ 1.555,765.91
NEW BUSINESS
2. Second Reading Proposed Building Code Ordinance 04 -010 (IIICA) - Tom Scholtens
[public comment]
3. First Reading Proposed Nearing Examiner Ordinance 04-012 - Stanley Schwartz [public comment]
4. First Reading Proposed Ordinance 04 - 013 Uniform Development Code re Enforcement R. Penalties -
Marina Sukup [public comment]
5. Mayor Appointments/Council Confirmation: Mayor DeVleming [public comment]
PUBLIC COMMENTS (Maximum of three minutes please: state your name and address for thc record)
ADMI-NISTRATIVF. REPORTS: [no public comment]
6. Senior Citizen Bus - Mike Jackson
7. Adult Entertainment Hours of Operation Discussion - Cary Driskell
8. Wastewater Ilacrioral Agreement Discussion -Neil Kersten
9. Advance Agenda Additions - Mayor DeV lemirtkt
Council Agenda 03 -O2.04 Regular Mecung Page 1 of 2
// 679),
INFORMATION ONLY: [no public commentl
10. Notes from February 7, 2004 Council Retreat
11. Notes from February 23, 2004 Joint Council/Planning Commission Meeting
12. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 12, 2004
ADJOURNMENT
FUTURE SCHEDULE
Regular Council Meetings arc generally held 2nd and 4 Tuesdays, beginning at 6:00 p.m.
Council Study Sessions are generally held I #, r and 5th Tuesdays, beginning at 6:00 p.m.
Other Upcoming Meetings/Events:
Marne 9, 2004 — No Meeting
March 16, 2004 —Study Session, 6:00 p. m
March 27, 2004 — Mayor's Hall, Mirabeau Hotel
NOTICE Individuals planning to anend the meeting who require special assistance to accommodate physical. hearing. or other
irnparrme its, please contact the City Clerk st (509) 921 -1000 as soon as possible so that nnangcments may be made.
Council Agenda 03 -02 -04 Regular Meeting
Pap 2af2
DRAFT
MINUTES
City of Spokane Valley
City Council Regular Meeting
Tuesday, February 24, 2004
Mayor DeVleming called the City of Spokane Valley Regular Meeting to order at 6:00 p.m., and
welcomed everyone to the 37 official meeting.
Attendance:
Councilmembers: Staff:
Michael DeVleming, Mayor Dave Mercier, City Manager
Diana Wilhite, Deputy Mayor Nina Regor, Deputy City Manager
Dick Denenny, Councilmember Stanley Schwartz, City Attorney
Mike Flanigan, Councilmember Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney
Richard Munson, Councilmember Ken Thompson, Finance Director
Gary Schimmels, Councilmember Marina Sukup, Community Development Director
Steve Taylor, Councilmember Cal Walker, Police Chief
Neil Kersten, Public Works Director
Mike Jackson, Parks & Recreation Director
Kevin Snyder, Current Planning Manager
John Hohman, Senior Development Engineer
Tom Scholtens, Building Official
Sue Pearson, Deputy City Clerk
Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor DeVleming led the Pledge of Allegiance.
INVOCATION: Pastor Manuel Denning of Fountain Ministries gave the invocation.
ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called roll. All councilmembers were present.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: City Manager Mercier stated he would like to have agenda item #4
removed from the agenda to be brought back at a later date. It was moved by Councilmember Munson
and seconded by Deputy Mayor Wilhite to approve the agenda as amended. Vote by Acclamation: In
Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried.
COMMITTEE. BOARD, LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS:
Councilmember S'chimmels: reported that he attended a Spokane Regional Transportation Meeting a few
weeks ago; that we submitted a request to them for some modeling and assistance on our roadway issues
primarily the Couplet, and they will solicit some information and public input; also that the construction
will start soon on 190; and the Department of Transportation will start a project soon from Sullivan east to
the state line repaving all ramps on I90, and will install a steel cable guardrail from Sullivan Road to the
state line to hopefully prevent any further head -on collisions such as have occurred in the past.
Councilmember Munson: said there will be a second round of the Community Development funding for
Spokane County held on March 4, and the City of Spokane Valley is looking at approximately $475,000 -
for funded projects.
Councihnember Denenny: mentioned that the STA will hold an important meeting tomorrow to consider
placing the matter on a ballot, and that the meeting will be held in the Champions Room at the Arena.
Council Minutes 02.24 -04 Page 1 of 6
Date Approved by Council:
DRAFT
Deputy Mayor Wilhite: said she and Mayor DeVleming represented the City at a press conference where
the Secretaries of Commerce, Labor and Treasury along with the U.S. SBA Administrator presented a
check to the Spokane Research and Institute Technology for three million dollars to build a new building.
Councilmember Flanigan: stated that he was in Olympia last week meeting with legislators regarding
pending legislation requesting a seat on the Public Facilities District, which so far has passed the Senate
47:1; and he also reminded everyone of the March 27 Mayor's Ball.
MAYOR'S REPORT: Mayor DeVleming said the City has placed an ad in the newspaper looking for
citizen participation on the Capital Facilities Task Force connected with the Library District, and
interested persons should contact City Hall.
PUBLIC COMMENT: None.
1. PUBLIC HEARING: Proposed Title Transfer Opportunity Township Hall
Mayor DeVleming said this is a public hearing regarding a proposal to transfer the Opportunity Township
Hall from the City of Spokane Valley to the Spokane Valley Legacy Foundation. Mayor DeVleming
opened the public hearing at 6:13 p.m. Parks & Recreation Director Jackson explained that staff is
submitting a proposed resolution which will authorize the conveyance of the Opportunity Township Hall
property to the Spokane Valley Legacy Foundation; that the resolution stipulates that if the Foundation
were to violate any of the terms of the resolution, that the property would convert to the ownership of the
City of Spokane Valley.
Mayor DeVleming invited public comment. Tony Lazanis: stated his support of the proposal and that he
hopes Council grants approval. Mayor DeVleming invited further public comment; none was offered.
Mayor DeVleming closed the public hearing at 6:15 p.m.
2. CONSENT AGENDA:
After City Clerk Bainbridge read the Consent Agenda, it was moved by Councilmember Munson and
Seconded by Councilmember Flanigan to approve the Consent Agenda. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor:
Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried.
3. Proposed Resolution 04 -003 Authorizing Conveyance of Opportunity Township Hall
After City Clerk Bainbridge read the Resolution by title, it was moved by Councilmember Flanigan and
seconded by Councilmember Munson to approve Resolution 04 -003 with the following amended
language: deleting the following from condition (4) on page 2 of 3, "avoid a bankruptcy or foreclosure"
and substituting "that it will not voluntarily place a mortgage or monetary lien" which could lead to
acquisition of the Property by creditors. Director Jackson added that staff feels the use of the facility for
a museum would be an excellent use. Mayor DeVleming invited public comment; none was offered.
Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried.
4— Second ad-ing-P- +-rotloscd =�8+ . Removed from the agenda.
5. Second Reading Proposed Flood Plain Ordinance 04 -004 — Marina Sukup
After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Mayor DeVleming and seconded by
Councilmember Flanigan to approve Ordinance 04 -004. Community Development Director Sukup said
there are a number of residential and non - residential structures located in the Valley, that the City is
currently operating under the umbrella of the County's participation in the National Flood Insurance
Program, and that this approval will start the year -long application process for the City's own
participation, which participation will enable people within the Valley to purchase flood insurance at
Council Minutes 02 -24-04
Date Approved by Council:
Page 2 of6
DRAFT
reasonable rates. Director Sukup added that staff and the Planning Commission recommend approval.
Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried.
6. First Reading Proposed Stormwater Ordinance 04-007 — Stanley Schwartz,
After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Mayor DeVleming and seconded by
Councilnremher Taylor to advance Ordinance 04 -007 to a second reading. City Attorney Schwartz
briefed council on the key sections of the ordinance. In reference to Section 7 Appeals, Attorney
Schwartz explained that if there is an appeal from a director's decision, the appeal goes to a body of three
civil engineers who will decide if the director's decision will remain or should be modified; however, in
this ordinance, Attorney Schwartz put that decision to the Hearing Examiner based upon conversations
with staff wherein the thought was it would be more uniform to continue to use the examiner process
when we have administrative matters which need review. Attorney Schwartz said he recommends the use
the examiner process rather than the three civil engineers. City Manger Mercier added that part of the
reasoning for this proposed change is to reinforce the architecture of the appeal process, that staff believes
the reference to the Hearing Examiner is the appropriate course of action, and staff anticipates no
significant cost difference. Mayor DeVleming invited public comment; none was offered. Vote by
Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried.
7. First Reading Proposed Amendment Sign Code Ordinance 04 -008, Institutional Uses — Scott
Kuhta
After City Clerk Bainbridge read t:he ordinance title it was moved by Deputy Mayor Wilhite and seconded
by Councilmember Munson to advance ordinance 04 -008 to a second reading. Current Planning
Manager Kevin Snyder, standing in for Long Range Planner Scott Kuhta, explained that applicant AiA,
Northwest Architectural Company, has requested an amendment to allow greater flexibility in size and
location of signage for hospitals located in the Urban Residential -22 (UR -22) Zone; that public uses such
as hospitals and schools located in this zone are allowed one wall sign at a maximum 32 square feet. This
proposal would allow hospitals to follow sign standards as allowed in commercial and industrial zones.
Mr. Snyder said that the Planning Commission considered the proposed amendment at a public hearing
and recommends allowing greater wall sigmage for all public uses and schools located in the UR -22 zone.
Mayor DeVleming invited public comment; none was offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor:
Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried
8. First Reading. Proposed amended Junk vehicle Ordinance 04 -009 — Cary Driskcll
City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title. 11 was moved by C'ouncilmenrber Munson and seconded
by Cotnrcilrnember Flanigan to suspend the rules and approve Ordinance 04 -009. Deputy City Attorney
Driskcll explained that as staff has processed various violations of this ordinance, it became apparent
there was a need to clarify certain language relating to hearings considered by the Hearing Examiner, and
to also add a provision for voluntary compliance. Mayor DeVleming invited public comment; none was
offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion
carried.
9. First Reading Proposed building Code Ordinance 04 -010 (113C) — Tom Scholtens
After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Mayor Devleming and seconded by
Deputy Mayor Wilhite to advance Ordinance 04 -010 to a second reading. Building Official Scholtens
explained the background as noted in his Request for Council Action form of 2- 12 -04, adding that the
Planning Commission recommended having an effective date of July 1, 2004 which would agree with an
effective date offered by the Homebuilders Association. Mayor DeVleming invited public comment;
none was offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None.
Motion carried.
Council Minutes o2 -24-44 Page 3 of 6
Date Approved by Council:
DRAFT
10. First Reading Proposed Sidewalk Ordinance 04 -011— Stanley Schwartz
After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Mayor DeVleming and seconded by
Councilmember Taylor to advance Ordinance 04 -011 to a second reading. Attorney Schwartz said that
the purpose of this ordinance is to recognize that cities cannot properly maintain and improve all
sidewalks within its jurisdiction, and this ordinance will have the adjoining property owner repair and
maintain sidewalks to make sure the sidewalks are safe for passage. Attorney Schwartz explained section
5; and said that the penalty for not complying with this ordinance could result in the issuance of a civil
infraction, which is similar to a speeding ticket. Council discussion ensued regarding this issue, and in
particular fences that may separate the property owner's property from a sidewalk, such as some
sidewalks at the rear of properties. Councilmember Munson also mentioned the possibility of
Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds to help with major repairs. Mayor DeVleming
invited public comment.
Dick Rehm, 3626 S Ridgeview Drive: said he objects to property owners being required to keep up and /or
repair sidewalks and that it should be the City's responsibility; or that there should be a public hearing on
the matter.
Bert Porter, 222 S Evergreen: agrees with the previous conunents; said his issue is allowing weeds on
sidewalks.
Tony Lazanis: asked about liability insurance if some were to fall due to icy conditions.
Mike Dempsey, Hearing Examiner: said he is familiar with County road standards and sidewalks are
located outside the right-of-way within border easements due to liability issues.
Bob Blum, 12722 E. IS said his sidewalk is at the back of the house with a fence adjacent to the
sidewalk; feels cleaning, maintaining and replacing sidewalks is asking too much of property owners.
Mike Dempsey: said there may be portions of Sprague that have sidewalks that are within the right -of-
way, as some older sidewalks have rights -of -way on sidewalks.
Council continued discussion concerning sidewalks the City might own, people with sidewalks behind
their property, and flexibility of the ordinance. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor. Unanimous. Opposed:
None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried.
11. Mavor Appointments /Council Confirmations — Mavor DeVleming
Mayor DeVleming proposed the following committee appointments:
a. Mayor DeVleming said that Parks & Recreation Director Jackson is organizing an Ad Hoc Committee
of approximately seven individuals including citizens at large, senior citizens, and councilmembers; that
said committee would work with the Senior Center Association in preparation for the move to
CenterPlace. Mayor (DeVleming recommended Councilmembers Schimmels and Flanigan to represent
council on the committee. It was moved by Counciltember Munson and seconded by Deputy Mayor
Wilhite to confirm the above appointments. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed:
None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried.
b. It was moved by Mayor DeVleming and seconded to advance the names of Jeff Fox and Harry Sladich
to the Hotel Advisory Commission. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Mayor DeVleming, Councilrembers
Schimmels, Taylor, Munson, Flanigan, and Denenny. Opposed: Deputy Mayor Wilhite; Abstentions:
None. Motion carried. It was then moved by Mayor DeVleming and seconded by Councilmember
Schimmels to appoint Councilmember Taylor as ex- officio member. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor:
Council Minutes 02 -24-04 Page 4 of 6
Date Approved by Council:
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS:
12. Pro.osed Amendment to Hearin Examiner Ordinance — Stanle Schwartz
City Attorney Schwartz explained that when a site- specific rezone request is received, the matter is heard
before the Hearing Examiner who makes a final decision, which administrative decision is appealable to
the City Council; and if there is no appeal, the decision is final. Attorney Schwartz said that consideration
should be given to memorializing that final decision, which is typically accomplished through an
Ordinance approved by Council. Attorney Schwartz said that the present ordinance does not seem to
adequately address the legislative. discretion the council should have; and as an alternative, the Hearing
Examiner, on a site specific re -zone would make a recommendation to the Council, the Council will then
act on that recommendation via a closed record public hearing; and after such decision, staff would
update the zoning map. Attorney Schwartz also mentioned that if the process used is a Council
recommendation, there would still have to be an additional record prepared of Council's review of the
Hearing Examiner recommendation, which review could include not only the opinion, but all exhibits and
transcript testimony. Attorney Schwartz said it might be easier to have an amendment to the Hearing
Examiner ordinance, that the examiner's decision is an administrative recommendation to the Council that
must be appealed within a certain time frame, and if there is no appeal, the decision is final. .After brief
discussion of the council's legislative role, zoning decisions, and appearance of fairness, City Manager
Mercier said that in any process wherein the Council would make a final decision in the matter, Council
should not participate in the lower process.
DRAFT
Mayor DeVleming, Councilmembers Schimmels, Taylor, Munson, Flanigan, and Denenny. Opposed:
Deputy Mayor Wilhite; Abstentions: None. Motion carried.
c. It was moved by Mayor DeVleming and seconded by Councibnember Munson to make the following
appointments to the Cable Advisory Committee: Alan Gilson to a three -year Term; John Horstketter to a
two-year term; and R.J. Demers to a one-year terns. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous.
Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Mation carried.
PUBLIC COMMENT: None was offered.
Mayor DeVleming called for a recess at 7:35 p.m., and reconvened the meeting at 7:45 p.m.
13. Compliance Regulation Discussion — Marina Sukup
After Community Development Director Sukup briefly went over proposed ordinance changes, it was
Council consensus to bring this ordinance back for further council consideration as a first reading at a
future meeting.
14. Discussion Proposed Ordinances to Amend Ordinance 40 & 41 — Tom Scholtens
Building Official Scholtens gave Council background information concerning the current Building Code
and Fire Code Ordinances, 1140 and ##41, and stated that those ordinances mandate fire sprinklers in all
buildings over 8,000 square feet; but that that portion of the code is not supported by current national and
State of Washington codes or the 2003 International Building Code. Mr. Scholtens said that the proposed
code supports the minimum requirements found in the International Codes and this change would allow
designers or contractors the ability to use the proposed Spokane Valley Building Code ordinance as an
alternative to the current Spokane Valley Building Code until July 1, 2004. Council said there is no
objection to move this forward to a first reading at a future meeting.
15. Senior Citizen Bus — M ike Jackson
Parks and Recreation Director Jackson reported that since his report last week, he received an e-mail from
John Haley informing him that the Senior Citizen Board offers the following: "for the City to strike a deal
with STA to maintain the bus; that the City would collect and keep revenue from advertising posted on
Council Minutes 02-24-04 Page 5 of 6
Date Approved by Council:
DRAFT
the bus; the seniors will pay $800 deductible annual bus expenses to the City, will pay for all fuel and all
tires, and will pay all drivers' wages outside the city limits only; and the City will discount the Senior
Center rent by $6,000 until such time as the center is moved to the new location." Director Jackson said
there are other transportation options available and the Seniors are exploring those. He also reiterated that
when this proposal was first issued, the Association readily accepted the bus, and that transaction was
between the then Association President and the County; also that in discussing the operation with the
seniors, Mr. Jackson suggested that he could bring forward an option to pay the money that the City had
already budgeted for the driver ($4300), and at the end of the year when the Association would pay the
City, with proper documentation, they would subtract whatever they had paid the driver from the $6,000
owing at the end of the year. City Manager Mercier said that the Department is attempting to move away
from being a provider of transportation in any recreation program as we don't have a commercially
licensed driver and that there are liability issues. Councilmember Munson said he feels STA will not be
in a position to help financially as they look to severely cut services.
Mayor DeVleming said he would like staff to bring back next week, a full cost analysis, including an
analysis of short and long -term options; and Deputy Mayor Wilhite added that Council should ask the
BOCC to consider delaying the transfer.
There being no further business, it was moved by Councilmember Flanigan, seconded, and unanimously
agreed upon to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 8:05 p.m.
ATTEST:
Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk
Mike DeVleming, Mayor
Council Minutes 02 -24-04 Page 6 of 6
Date Approved by Council:
Meeting Date: 3 -2 -04 City Manager Sign -off:
Item: Check all that apply: x consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing
El information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Claims: Voucher listing total for February 23, and February 27, 2004
OPTIONS:
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION:
Approve claims for 2/23/04 in the amount of $ 389,985.31
Approve claims for 2/2704 in the amount of $1,165.780.60
TOTAL CLAIMS $1,555,765.91
BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS:
STAFF CONTACT: Ellen Avey
ATTACHMENTS Voucher Lists
vchlist
02/23/2004 8:27:OOAM
Bank code : apbank
Voucher
4345
4346
4347
4348
4349
4350
4351
4352
4353
4354
4355
4356
Date . Vendor
2/20/2004 000427 76 /CIRCLE K FLEET SERVICES
2/20/2004 000037 AMERICAN LINEN
2120/2004 000030 AVISTA UTILITIES
2/20/2004 000052 BEST BUY SPOKANE EAST
2/20/2004 000429 COFFMAN ENGINEERS
2/20/2004 000035 CORPORATE EXPRESS
2/20/2004 000059
2/20/2004 000278
2/20/2004 000070
DEVLEMING, MICHAEL
DRISKELL, CARY
INLAND POWER AND LIGHT CO
Invoice
4357682
341310
Jan04
0369587
401332
49631467
49696561
49813455
021204
021804
94202 -002
2/20/2004 000423 ITE - INSTITUTE OF, TRANSPORTAT 251842
2/20/2004 000071 LARSON, SUE
2/20/2004 000033 MCPC
021204
4500646
4503746
Voucher List
Spokane Valley
PO #
40027
40035
40032
40031
40033
40036
Description /Account
VEHICLE FUEL
FLOOR MAT SERVICE
STREET LIGHTING /SIGNAL POW
Total :
COMPUTER HARDWARE
ENGINEERING SERVICES
OFFICE SUPPLIES
OFFICE SUPPLIES
OFFICE SUPPLIES
STREET LIGHTING
BOOK
MILEAGE
OFFICE SUPPLIES
OFFICE SUPPLIES
Total :
Total :
Total :
Total :
Total :
EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT
Total :
EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT
Total :
Total :
Total :
Total :
Page: 1
n..
Amount
151.45
151.45
67.47
67.47
1,463.49
1,463.49
562.10
562.10
22,400.00
22,400.00
639.76
79.94
14.12
733.82
28.50
28.50
37.35
37.35
137.04
137.04
364.00
364.00
8.63
8.63
207.24
470.53
1
vchlist
02/23/2004 8:27:OOAM
Bank code : apbank
\
Voucher List Page: 2
Spokane Valley
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description /Account Amount
4356 2/20/2004 000033 000033 MCPC (Continued) Total : 677.77
4357 2/20/2004 000069 MERCIER, DAVID 021804 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 113.20
Total : 113.20
4358 2/20/2004 000430 MYRE, KEVIN 021304 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 30.00
Total : 30.00
4359 2/20/2004 000036 OFFICE DEPOT 235692073 40044 OFFICE SUPPLIES 82.66
Total : 82.66
4360 2/20/2004 000149 PIP PRINTING OF SPOKANE 1330026130 40038 PRINTING 115.31
Total : 115.31
4361 2/20/2004 000019 PURRFECT LOGOS, INC. 10179 OUTDOOR BLDG SIGN 378.35
Total : 378.35
4362 2/20/2004 000024 RESOURCE COMPUTING INC. 36248 IT TECH SUPPORT 3,459.20
Total : 3,459.20
4363 2/20/2004 000341 RICOH CORPORATION 04034352354 COPY EQUIPMENT LEASE 656.17
Total : 656.17
4364 2/20/2004 000172 SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER 04 -17 ROAD MAINTENANCE 347,720.34
Total : 347,720.34
4365 2/20/2004 000090 SPOKANE COUNTY INFORMATION, : 40143 GIS SERVICES; JAN 2004 8,117.33
Total : 8,117.33
4366 2/20/2004 000211 STATE TREASURER dol -cd NOTARY LICENSE FEE 20.00
Total : 20.00
4367 2/20/2004 000419 SUMMIT LAW GROUP 20611 LEGAL SERVICES 2,350.00
Total : 2,350.00
4368 2/20/2004 000337 UNITED PARCEL SERVICE Y3F950064 UPS GROUND SHIPPING 43.95
Y3F950074 GROUND SHIPPING CHARGES 43.30
Total : 87.25
Page: 2
vchlist
02/23/2004 8:27:OOAM
Bank code : apbank
Voucher List Page: 3
Spokane Valley
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description /Account Amount
4369 2/20/2004 000167 VERA WATER & POWER Jan /Feb 2004 STREET LIGHTING /SIGNAL POW 173.88
Total : 173.88
4370 2/20/2004 000098 WA CITIES INSURANCE AUTHORITY NBond NOTARY BOND 50,00
Total : 50.00
26 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total : 389,985.31
26 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 389,985.31
I, the undersigned, do certify under penalty of perjury,
that the materials have been furnished, the services
rendered, or the labor performed as described herein
and that the claim is just, due and an unpaid obligation
against the City of Spokane Valley, and that I am
authorized to authenticate and certify to said claim.
Finance Director Date
ge: 3
vchlist
02/27/2004 10: 57:14AM
Bank code : apbank
Voucher
4371
4372
4373
4374
4375
4376
Date Vendor
2/25/2004 000432 WESTLAND ELECTRIC CO.
2/25/2004 000433 KOP CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
2/27/2004 000109 COFFEE SYSTEMS INC
2/27/2004 000035 CORPORATE EXPRESS
2/27/2004 000321 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCI MF- edc /04
2/27/2004 000028 FARMERS & MERCHANTS BANK
Invoice
022504
022504
18693
49388704
4377 2/27/2004 000002 H & H BUSINESS SYSTEMS 100538
116871
117043
Voucher List
Spokane Valley
1217 - JanlFeb 04
1225-Jan/Feb 04
1332-Jan/Feb 04
5045 - Jan /Feb 04
PO #
4378 2/27/2004 000434 HUSFLOEN, BARRY 022504
4379 2/27/2004 000353 INTERNATIONAL TRADE, ALLIANCE 022404
4380 2/27/2004 000012 JOURNAL OF BUSINESS 001904513
4381 2/27/2004 000033 MCPC 4505710 40043
Description /Account
DEPOSIT REFUND
DEPOSIT REFUND
COFFEE
OFFICE SUPPLIES
REGISTRATION
CREDIT CARD PAYMENT
CREDIT CARD PAYMENT
CREDIT CARD PAYMENT
CREDIT CARD PAYMENT
REFUND OF BENEFITS
REGISTRATION
CLASSIFIED DISPLAY AD
OFFICE SUPPLIES
Total :
Total :
Total :
Total :
Total :
Total :
COPIER SUPPLIES
COPY CHARGES
COPY CHARGES; RICOH W780
Total :
Total :
Total :
Total :
Page: 1
Amount
150.00
150.00
150.00
150.00
118.90
118.90
97.89
97.89
35.00
35.00
268.98
461.07
209.91
418.42
1,358.38
146.58
242.54
49.21
562.04
272.43
272.43
60.00
60.00
140.00
140.00
52.60
Page: 1
vchlist
02/27/2004 10:57:14AM
Bank code : apbank
Voucher
4383
4384
4385
4386
4387
4388
4389
4390
4391
4392
4393
Date Vendor
4381 2/27/2004 000033 000033 MCPC
2/27/2004 000435
2/27/2004 000013
2/27/2004 000043
2/27/2004 000239
2/27/2004 000193
2/27/2004 000121
2/27/2004 000036
2/27/2004 000431
2/27/2004 000019
2/27/2004 000003
2/27/2004 000001
NCW CHAPTER OF ICC
NEOPOST, INC.
NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS
NORTHWEST BUSINESS STAMP
NORTHWEST MAILING INC
OFFICE DEPOT
Invoice
4382 2/27/2004 000331 MEASUREMENT RESEARCH CORP., 223004
NORTHWEST CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS March 04
5416
237921921
PARAS GENERAL CONTRACTORS 022404
PURRFECT LOGOS, INC. 10202
ROYAL BUSINESS SYSTEMS 187997
Voucher List
Spokane Valley
(Continued)
022704
41638053
432169121 -011
47597
SPOKANE COUNTY TREASURER Feb04
Feb2004
Jan04
PO #
40015 ROAD ENGINEERING SOFTWAR
Total :
40058
40046
40050
Description /Account
REGISTRATIONS
CELL PHONE CHARGES
NAME PLATE
CITY HALL RENT
MAIL MACHINE SUPPLIES
OFFICE SUPPLIES
DEPOSIT REFUND
VEHICLE DECALS
COPY CHARGES
Total :
Total :
POSTAGE METER RENTAL
Total :
Total :
Total :
Total :
Total :
Total :
Total :
Total :
Total :
SPOKANE COUNTY CONTRACT
SHERIFF LAW ENFORCEMENT
HEARING EXAMINER SERVICES
Page: 2
Amount
52.60
2,720.00
2,720.00
550.00
550.00
207.55
207.55
454.93
454.93
14.38
14.38
22,738.68
22,738.68
70.05
70.05
35.10
35.10
300.00
300.00
8.11
8.11
240.82
240.82
151,483.29
980,564.33
2,780.50
ge: 2
vchlist
02/27/2004 10: 57:14AM
Bank code : apbank
Voucher
Date Vendor
4393 2/27/2004 000001 000001 SPOKANE COUNTY TREASURE (Continued)
4394 2/27/2004 000311 SPRINT PCS 1/15 -2/15
4395 2/27/2004 000211 STATE TREASURER
4396 2/27/2004 000337 UNITED PARCEL SERVICE
4397 2/27/2004 000167 VERA WATER & POWER
4398 2/27/2004 000310 WSAMA
28 Vouchers for bank code : apbank
28 Vouchers in this report
I. the undersigned, do certify under penalty of perjury,
that the materials have been furnished, the services
rendered, or the labor performed as described herein
and that the claim is just. due and an unpaid obligation
against the City of Spokane Valley, and that I am
authorized to authenticate and certify to said claim_
Finance Director Date
Invoice
Voucner List
Spokane Valley
DR21804
Y3F950084
E09709
W SAM A04
PO #
Description /Account
CELL PHONE CHARGES
SHIPPING CHARGES
UTILITY CHARGE
REGISTRATION
Total : 1,134,828.12
Total :
PROFESSIONAL LICENSE FEE
Total :
Total :
Total :
Total :
Bank total :
Total vouchers :
Page:
3
Amount
58.75
58.75
116.00
116.00
102.87
102.87
198.00
198.00
140.00
140.00
1 ,165,780.60
1,165,780.60
Page: 3
,
GOVERNING LEGISLATION:
SHB 1734
RCW 19.27 State Building Code
WAC 51 -50 -007 Exceptions
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: 3/2/04 Manager Sign -off:
Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business I J new business ❑ public hearing ❑
information ❑ admin. report g pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE : Second Reading: Article III City of Spokane Valley Uniform Development
Code City of Spokane Valley Building Code
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: First Reading Approved at February 24, 2004 Council
Meeting
City of Spokane Valley Ordinance #40
City of Spokane Valley Ordinance #41
City of Spokane Valley Ordinance #42
City of Spokane Valley Ordinance #43
BACKGROUND:
Washington statute requires all jurisdictions in the state to adopt by reference and
enforce the same building code throughout Washington. Although local jurisdictions
may amend those referenced codes to address special local conditions, the intent is to
have the same rules for construction across the state.
Over the last six years building codes have undergone a huge change. Prior to 2000
there were three major building code writing /enforcement organizations — ICBO, SBCCI
and BOCA. Although many of the provisions of the individual codes were the same
and many of the provisions were similar, many of the provisions of the different codes
were at odds with their sister codes across the country. This created very expensive
conflicts when a designer or contractor began to become more global in their business.
The result was a combination of the three model code groups into one group, the
International Code Council, or ICC.
The ICC promulgated the International family of codes, and Washington chose those
codes as the basis of the new State Building Code in SHB 1734 and RCW 19.27. The
exceptions to the International Codes are the 2003 Uniform Plumbing Code published
by the Intemational Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials and the National
Electrical Code, published by the National Fire Protection Association.
In addition to the referenced codes, Washington previously developed an energy
conservation code and a code for the elimination of physical barriers to promote
accessibility. The Washington State Energy Code is a stand alone code while the
accessibility provisions reside as a state amendment to the International Building Code.
Although there are substantial changes in the International Codes from the previous
Uniform Codes, those changes are no more difficult to understand than changes
typically presented every three years as the methods or materials of construction
changed and a new code was adopted.
One of the more useful codes that evolved from the development of the International
Codes is the International Residential Code. This code gives all the rules for building a
one or two family dwelling in one book, rather than having all the code books to sort
through to determine the rules for construction. It was meant to simplify the process.
The Washington Association of Building Officials passed resolution 2003 -02 that, in
part, promotes the local adoption of the International Codes and Uniform Plumbing
Code with as few local amendments as possible. The Building Division has followed
that direction and is offering a very simple adoption ordinance for approval. The five
pages of the proposed ordinance replace four ordinances.
The public hearing was conducted in front of the Planning Commission on 22 January
2004 and continued to 12 February 2004. At that meeting it was forwarded to Council
with approval and suggested implementation date of 1 July 2004.
City Council passed the Ordinance on First Reading, 2/24/04, agreeing with the
Planning Commission's suggested July 1, 2004 implementation date.
OPTIONS: None. The enforcement of a state wide building code is mandated by statute. July 1
2004 effective date is mandated by state statute.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Approval of ordinance as submitted on Second Reading
with the implementation /effective date of July 1, 2004.
BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None.
STAFF CONTACT: Spokane Valley Building Official Scholtens
Attachment: Article III Spokane Valley Uniform Development Code Spokane Valley Building Code
DRAFT
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. 04-010
AN ORDINANCE OF THE. CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY
WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING ARTICLE III OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY UNIFORM
DEVELOPMENT CODE RELATING TO BUILDING CODES; REPEALING ORDINANCES IN
CONFLICT; ESTABLISHING PENALTIES FOR NON - COMPLIANCE; AND PROVIDING
FOR SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, Washington statutes require all jurisdictions in the state to adopt by reference and
enforce the same building code throughout Washington; and
WHEREAS, Washington established the 2003 International Codes, promulgated by the
international Code Council (ICC), as the basis of the new State Building Code pursuant to S1 -1:I3 1734 and
RCW 19.27. The exceptions to the International Codes are the 2003 Uniform Plumbing Code published
by the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials and the National Electrical Code,
published by the National Fire Protection Association.
WHEREAS, Washington previously developed an energy conservation code and a code for the
elimination of physical barriers to promote accessibility; and
WHEREAS, the Washington State Energy Code is a stand alone code while the accessibility
provisions reside as a state amendment to the International Building Code; and
WHEREAS, the Washington Association of Building Officials passed resolution 2003 -02 that, in
part, promotes the local adoption of the International Codes and Uniform Plumbing Code with as few
local amendments as possible;
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Washington, do ordain
as follows:
Section 1. Article 111 of the Spokane Valley Development Code is hereby established to read as
follows:
ARTICLE Ili.i
SPOKANE VALLEY BUILDING CODE
Section 3.01. Adoption of Referenced Codes.
The City of Spokane Valley hereby adopts the following codes, as amended by the Washington State
Building Code Council pursuant to RCW 19.27.074 for the purpose of establishing rules and regulations
for the construction, alteration, removal, demolition, equipment, use and occupancy, location and
maintenance of buildings and structures, including permits and penalties:
1. a). The 2003 International Building Code published by the International Code Council,
Inc.(IBC). The following Appendix is specifically adopted:
Draft Ordinance 04 -010; Article III Uniform Dev Code Page 1 of 7
DRAFT
Appendix H, Signs.
Appendix I, Patio Covers.
b). The 2003 International Residential Code published by the international Code Council, Inc.
(IRC) The following Appendices are specifically adopted:
Appendix A (IFGC), Sizing and Capacities of Gas Piping.
Appendix B (IFGC), Sizing of Venting Systems Serving Appliances Equipped with Draft Hoods,
Category I Appliances and Appliances Listed for Use and Type B Vents.
Appendix C, Exit Terminals of Mechanical Draft and Direct -Vent Venting Systems.
Appendix F, Radon Control Methods.
Appendix H, Patio Covers.
Appendix J, Existing Buildings and Structures.
2. The 2003 International Mechanical Code published by the International Code Council, Inc.
(IMC) except that the standards for liquefied petroleum gas installations shall be NFPA 58
(Storage and Handling of Liquefied Petroleum Gases) and ANSI Z223.1/NFPA 54 (National Fuel -
Gas Code).
3. The 2003 International Fire Code, published by the International Code Council, Inc.(IFC),
including those standards of the National Fire Protection Association specifically referenced in
the International Fire Code: PROVIDED, That, notwithstanding any wording in this code,
participants in religious ceremonies shall not be precluded from carrying hand -held candles. The
following Appendices are specifically adopted:
Appendix 13, Fire Flow for Buildings.
Appendix C, Fire Hydrant Locations and Distribution.
Appendix D. Fire Apparatus Access Roads.
Appendix E, Hazard Categories.
Appendix F, Hazard Ranking.
Appendix 0, Cryogenic Fluids - Weight and Volume Equivalents.
4. Except as provided in RCW 19.27.170, the 2003 Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC) and Uniform
Plumbing Code Standards, published by the International Association of Plumbing and
Mechanical Officials: PROVIDED, that any provisions of such code affecting sewers or fuel gas
piping are not adopted; and
The rules adopted by the Washington State Building Code Council establishing standards for
making buildings and facilities accessible to and usable by the physically disabled or elderly
persons as provided in RCW 70.92.100 through 70.92.160.
In case of conflict among the codes enumerated in subsections 1, 2, 3, and 4. of this section, the
first named code shall govern over those following.
5. The 2003 International Fuel Gas Code as published by the international Code Council,
Inc.(IFC).
Draft Ordinance 04 -010; Article III Uniform Dev Code Page 2 of 7
C Ground
Snow
Load '
Wind
Spud
(Gust)
Seismic
Design
Category
Weathering
Frost
line
depth
Termites
Decay
Winter
Design
Temp
Ice
Shield
Underlay
Flood
Hazards
Air
Freeze
Index
Mcan
Annual
Temp
39
Ihs /(l ,
mph
C
Severe
ri
Slight to
Slight
Moderate
N to
slight
10°
Ycs
2003
1992
FIRM
12.32
47.2°
1
DRAFT
6. The 2001, Second Edition, Washington State Energy Code Chapter 51 -1 1 WAC.
7. The 1997 Edition of the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings published
by the International Conference of Building Officials, Whittier California.
8. The 2003 International Property Maintenance Code as published by the International Code
Council, Inc.
Section 3.02. General Requirements for all Referenced Codes:
Section 3.02.01. Conflict between Codes. Whenever there is a conflict between a Referenced Code
in Section 3.01 of this code and the General Requirements contained in Section 3.02. of this code,
the General Requirements shall apply.
Section 3.02.02 Reserved.
Section 3.02.03 Design Requirements:
* Minimum roof snow Toad to be 30 lbs /ft in the City of Spokane Valley.
Section 3.02.04 Professional Preparation of Plans. The City of Spokane Valley shall require a
Washington licensed design professional, licensed under the provisions of RCW 18.08 , WAC 308 -12 or
RCW 18.43 to prepare or oversee the preparation of plans for any building or structure containing five or
more residential dwelling units or doing design work including preparing construction contract
documents and administering the contract for construction, erection, enlargement, alteration, or repairs of
or to a building of any occupancy over four thousand square feet of construction.
Section 3.02.04
Section 3.02.05 Construction Plans. All submitted construction documents must be of sufficient detail to
show the entire project with emphasis on the following:
• Structural integrity
• Life safety
• Architectural barriers (ADA handicap compliance)
• Compliance with all codes having jurisdiction
• Scope of work
• Special Inspection requirements and protocols.
• Deferred Submittal Schedule
In general, the amount of detail required will vary, depending on the nature and complexity of the
project.
Section 3.02.06 Permits.
Section 3.02.06.1 Ownership. The ownership of a Spokane Valley Development Permit inure to
the property owner. The Permit Applicant is, by definition, an agent of the property owner if not
the property owner.
Draft Ordinance 04 -010; Article 11I Uniform Dev Code Page 3 of 7
DRAFT
Section 3.02.06.2 Expiration of Permits. All permits shall expire by limitation and be declared
void if a) work is not started within 180 days of obtaining a permit, or b) work is abandoned for
180 days or more after beginning work, or c) after two years from the date of permit issuance,
regardless of whether the work is finished. If a permit is expired for time, a new permit may be
obtained for 'V2 the permit fee for the value of the remainder of the work to finish the original
permit.
Section 3.02.07 Referenced Codes. All referenced codes are available for review at the City of Spokane
Valley Permit Center.
Section 3.02.08 Fees. All Spokane Valley Permit fees shall be established by a City of Spokane Valley
Resolution and may be found in Appendix B, Schedule C of the Spokane Valley Uniform
Development Code.
Section 3.02.08.1 Investigation Fees: Work without a Permit.
a. investigation. Whenever any work for which a permit is required by this code has been
commenced without first obtaining said permit, a special investigation shall be made before a
permit may be issued for such work.
b. Fee. An investigation fee, in addition to the permit fee, shall be collected whether or not a
permit is then or subsequently issued. The investigation fee shall be equal to the amount of
the permit fee required by this code. The minimum investigation fee shall be the same as the
minimum fee set forth in Schedule C. This fee is an additional, punitive fee and shall not
apply to any Spokane Valley Grading or Building Permit Fee that may subsequently be
issued. Payment of the investigative fee does not vest the illegal work with any legitimacy,
nor does it establish any right to a Spokane Valley Permit for continued development of that
project. If the work done remains illegal for 90 days after service of the Stop Work Order, it
shall be considered hav'rdous.
c. The payment of such investigation fee shall not exempt any person from compliance with all
other provisions of this code nor from any penalty prescribed by law.
Section 3.02.08.2 Fee Refunds.
The building official may authorize the refunding of:
1. 100% of any fee erroneously paid or collected.
2. Up to 80% of the permit fee paid when no work has been done under a permit issued in
accordance with this code.
3. Up to 80% of the plan review fee paid when an application for a permit for which a plan review
fee has been paid is withdrawn or canceled before any plan reviewing is done.
The building official shall not authorize refunding of any fee paid except on written application filed by
the original permitee not later than 180 days after the date of fee payment.
Section 3.02.09.Appeals. All appeals of any Building Official decision, order or determination relative
to the application and interpretation of Article III of the Spokane Valley Uniform Development Code
shall be made in conformance with the City of Spokane Valley Uniform Development Code Section
1.20.39.13.
Section 3.02.10.Floodplain Development. All development within a designated floodplain located in the
City of Spokane Valley jurisdiction shall comply with Section 5.01 of the Spokane Valley Uniform
Development Code and the construction specifications detailed in the 2003 IRC Section R323 Flood -
Resistant Construction as amended.
Section 3.02.11 Reserved.
Draft Ordinance 04 -010; Article 111 Uniform Dcv Codc Page 4 of 7
DRAFT
Section 3.03 Amendments to the referenced codes.
Section 3.03.1 2003 International Building Code.
a) Amend Section 105.2 Work exempt from permit. Building: 1. by substituting "200" for
"150" in the square feet of floor area exempt from building permits.
Section 3.03.2 2003 International Residential Code.
a) Add Section R 310.1.5 Replacement of Emergency Escape and Rescue Openings. If
emergency escape and rescue openings are replaced or renewed, except for glazing replacement
or renewal, the opening sizes shall be as required for new construction.
b). Amend R323.1.3 Establishing the design flood elevation. Add a first sentence: The design
flood elevation is equal to base flood elevation plus one foot.
c). Amend R323.2.1 Elevation Requirements by rewriting #1. to read: Buildings and
structures shall have the lowest floors elevated to or above base flood elevation plus one foot.
Also by rewriting #3 to read: .Basement floors that are below grade on all sides shall be elevated
to or above base flood elevation plus one foot.
d). Add a second paragraph to R323.3.6 Construction documents to read: The documents
shall include a verification of foundation elevation prior to footing inspection approval and a
verification of lowest floor elevation to be base flood elevation plus one foot prior to framing
inspection approval.
e). Delete Part iV —Energy Conservation in its entirety.
f). Delete Part VIl - Plumbing in its entirety. References to chapters in Part Vll shall be made
instead to the appropriate sections of the 2003 Uniform► Plumbing Code published by IAPMO.
g). Delete Part VIII — Electrical in its entirety. References to chapters in Part VIII shall be made
instead to the National Electrical Code published by the NFPA and enforced in Spokane Valley
by the state of Washington Department of Labor and Industries.
Section 3.03.3 2003 international Mechanical Codc - Reserved.
Section 3.03.4 2003 International Fire Code
Amend Appendix C:
Add an Exception after the last paragraph in C105.1 Hydrant spacing.
Exception: The Ore chief is authorized to reduce the number of required hydrants by up to 50%
when the building is equipped with an approved, automatic fire sprinkler system and the.fre chief
has approved the location of those required fire hydrants.
Amend Appendix D:
1)1 Scope. Fire apparatus access roads shall be in accordance with this appendix and all
other applicable requirement's of the International Fire Code including the provisions of Section
503 Fire Apparatus Access Roads.
Section 3.03.5 2003 Uniform Plumbing Code - Reserved
Section 3.03.6 2003 International Fuel Gas Code - Reserved.
Section 3.03.7 2001 Second Edition, Washington State Energy Code - Reserved.
Section 3.03.8 1997 Uniform Codc for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings
Draft Ordinance 04 -010; Article 111 Uniform Dev Codc Page 5 of 7
DRAFT
3.03.8.1 Section 302 Dangerous Buildings. Add additional definitions of a dangerous building:
19. Drug Properties and Structures. It is hereby declared that any building, structure and /or
associated property, identified by the City of Spokane Valley Chief of Police, wherein or upon
which the manufacture, distribution, production or storage of illegal drugs or the precursors to
create illegal drugs has taken place in a manner which could endanger the public, such building,
structure and/or associated property is not only a dangerous property as defined by the City of
Spokane Valley but is also a classification of property calling for the special procedures set forth
in this section. The Building Official is authorized to abate such dangerous buildings, structures,
and/or associated properties in accordance with the dangerous building procedures set forth in this
code and Washington statute, RCW 64.44.010, with the following modifications:
19.1. Due to public safety hazard in drug production facilities, the utilities shall be
disconnected;
19.2. Building(s) and structures shall be inspected to determine compliance with all city
ordinances and codes;
19.3. Building(s) and any entry gates to the property shall be secured against entry in the
manner set forth in this code;
19.4. No reconnection of utilities or occupancy of the building(s), structures or property shall
be allowed until all violations have been successfully addressed, all dangerous conditions
abated and a notice of release for re- occupancy has been received from the health
department and sheriffs office; and
19.5. If dangerous conditions cannot be abated, occupancy shall be prohibited. Resolution of
said property shall be in conformance with RCW 35.80A.010, Condemnation of blighted
property.
20. Blighted Property. In conformance with RCW 35.80A.010, the City of Spokane Valley
may acquire by condemnation, in accordance with the notice requirements and other procedures
for condemnation provided in Title 8 RCW, any property, dwelling, building, or structure which
constitutes a blight on the surrounding neighborhood. A "blight on the surrounding
neighborhood" is any property, dwelling, building, or structure that meets any two of the
following factors:
20.1 If a dwelling, building, or structure exists on the property, the dwelling, building, or
structure has not been lawfully occupied for a period of one year or more;
20.2 the property, dwelling, building, or structure constitutes a threat to the public health,
safety, or welfare as determined by the executive authority of the City of Spokane Valley
or the designee of the executive authority; or
20.3 the property, dwelling, building, or structure is or has been associated with illegal drug
activity during the previous twelve months.
Prior to such condemnation, the City of Spokane Valley City Council shall adopt a resolution
declaring that the acquisition of the real property described therein is necessary to eliminate
neighborhood blight. Condemnation of property, dwellings, buildings, and structures for the
purposes described in this chapter is declared to be for a public use.
Section 303.9 The 2003 International Property Maintenance Code - Reserved.
Draft Ordinance 04 -010; Article 111 Uniform Dev Code Page 6 of 7
DRAFT
Section 2. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance shall be held to be
invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall
not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this
ordinance.
Section 3. Effective date. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect July 1, 2004.
ATTEST:
Approved by the City Council this
Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
Cary P. Driskell, Deputy City Attorney
Date of publication:
Effective date:
Michael DeVleming, Mayor
day of . 2004.
Draft Ordinance 04 -010; Article 111 Uniform Dcv Code Page 7 of 7
ATTACHMENTS Ordinance
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: March 2,2004 City Manager
Sign -off:
Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing
❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE : Amendment of Hearing Examiner Ordinance
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Ordinance No. 57, RCW 35A.63.100
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Received Administrative Report
BACKGROUND: The City Hearing Examiner on a site specific rezone makes an "administrative
decision" that is appealable to the City Council. If there is no appeal, the Hearing Examiner
decision is final. Where the Examiner approves the rezone, the action of the City is completed
by a notation on the official zoning map of the City. Zoning is a legislative function. The above
amendment authorizes, where there is no appeal to the City Council, staff to amend the official
zoning map of the City.
OPTIONS:
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Approve
BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS:
STAFF CONTACT: M. Sukup or S. Schwartz
DRAFT
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. 04 -012
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CiTY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 57 ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE
CITY OF SPOKANIL VALLEY, WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING THE OFFICE OF THE
HEARING EXAMINER, ADOPTING A HEA_RI:N'G EXAMINER SYSTEM, CONFERING
JURISDICTION ANT) PROVIDING FOR RULES AND REGULATIONS."
WHEREAS, for quasi-judicial land use hearings the City has established a Hearing Examiner
system for the purpose of receiving evidence, developing a record and rendering a decision;
WHEREAS, Washington law provides that a quasi- judicial site specific zone change decision
made by a Hearing Examiner must be either a recommendation to the City Council for final approval or a
administrative decision that may be appealed to the City Council;
WHEREAS, the final implementation of the site specific zone change is a modification to the
official zoning map of the City through ordinance of the City or other action authorized by ordinance
pursuant to RCW 35A.63.100;
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to authorize the City Manager or designee to modify the official
zoning map following a final decision of the Hearing Examiner on a site specific zone change that is not
appealed to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, this amendment will facilitate and complete the land use hearing and permitting process
in a manner that serves the interest of the community.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington,
do ordain as follows:
Section 1. Amendment. Ordinance No. 57, Section 15 is hereby amended as follows.
Section 15. Appeals. Unless provided otherwise by this Ordinance or statute (see
RCW Chapter 36.70C and RCW Chapter 90.58), any aggrieved person may submit a written
appeal of the Examiner's Decision to the Council within fourteen (1 4) calendar days from the
date the final decision of the Examiner is rendered. For purposes of this section an "aggrieved
person" means an individual or entity who appeared and submitted testimony or evidence at
the hearing before the Examiner. The Council shall hold a closed - record hearing on the
appeal.
Such written appeal shall allege specific errors of law or fact, specific procedural
errors or errors in the interpretation of the Comprehensive Plan or development regulations.
Upon such written appeal being filed within the time period allotted and upon
payment of fees as required, a hearing will be held by the City Council. Such hearing will be
held in accord with appeal procedures adopted by the City Council. If the Examiner has
recommended approval of the proposal, such recommendation will be considered by the City
S :lebainbridgelOrdinances'Hearing Examiner Ordinance Amendment 2 for 3- 2- 04.doc Page 1 of 2
DRAFT
Section 2. Effect. Except as set forth above, Ordinance No. 57, as amended, shall remain in full force
and effect.
Section 3. Severabilitv. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance shall be held to be
invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not
affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance.
Section 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five (5) days after date of
publication of this Ordinance or a summary thereof in the official newspaper of the City.
ATTEST:
Approved as to Form:
Council at the same time as the consideration of the appeal. The :Examiner's decision will be
presumed to be correct and supported by the record and law.
Where the Examiner's Decision recommends approval of the proposal and no appeal
has been filed within the time period set forth above, the City Manager or designee staff shall
prepare -an - erg- inanee{er otherapprepri modify the official zoning map
of the City according to the Hearing Examiner's Decision. The modification of the zoning
map completes the Examiner's Decision and shall be considered thethrough final legislative
action of the City Council. Such final action, for zoning purposes, is considered an "official
control" of the City by exercise of it's zoning and planning authority pursuant to Washington
law.
PASSED by the City Council this day of March, 2004.
City Clerk, Christine Bainbridge
Interim City Attorney, Stanley M. Schwartz
Date of Publication:
Effective Date:
Mayor, Michael DeVleming
S: Icbainbridge10rdinanccs4Henring Examiner Ordinance Amendment 2 for 3- 244.doc Page 2 of 2
Meeting Date: March 2, 2004
Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent
El information
ATTACHMENTS Draft Ordinance
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 7.80 et seq.
City Manager Sign -off:
❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing
❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Consideration of an Ordinance establishing Article I Section 1.20 of
the Spokane Valley Uniform Development Code relating to
Enforcement & Penalties; repealing ordinances in conflict, providing
for severability and effective date.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Zoning Code Compliance Ordinance No. 03 -078 was
adopted on September 17, 2003. City Council was
briefed on the proposed amendments on February
24, 2004.
The Planning Commission held a public hearing on
February 26, 2004, and recommended approval.
� 1
BACKGROUND: The provisions of the Zoning Code Compliance (Ordinance No. 03 -078), with
minor modifications, provides the necessary authority and procedural tools for the uniform
enforcement of many land use violations, including those related to planning, engineering
design, building and flood plain regulations, as well as zoning.
The proposed provisions generally replace the word "Director" which related specifically to the
Community Development Director with "City" or °authorized representative of the City ". This will
enable the Director of Public Works, the Building Official and the Community Development
Director, or other official identified by specific regulation, to enforce provisions of the Code in a
uniform manner. The word "citation" has been replaced with 'notice of violation" throughout,
inasmuch as citations are permitted only sworn peace officers.
OPTIONS: No action.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Advance to second reading.
BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Not Applicable.
STAFF CONTACTS: Marina Sukup, AICP, Community Development Director
Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney.
DRAFT
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. 04 -013
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON,
ESTABLISHING ARTICLE I SECTION 1.20 OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY UNIFORM
DEVELOPMENT CODE RELATING TO ENFORCEMENT AND PENALTIES;
REPEALING ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT; AND PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND
EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 03 -078 was published on September 12, 2003; and
WHEREAS, It is the policy of the City of Spokane Valley to emphasize code compliance by education
and prevention as a first step. This policy is dcsiened to ensure code compliance and timely action that is
available to all persons and uniform in its implementation; and
WHEREAS, this policy is designed to ensure code compliance and timely action that is available to all
persons and is uniform in its implementation; and
WHEREAS, It is the intention of the City to pursue code compliance actively and vigorously in order
to protect the health, safety and welfare of the general public;
follows:
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Washington, do ordain as
Section 1. Article I of the Spokane Valley Development Code is hereby established pursuant to Attachment
"A" made a part hereof for all purposes.
Section 2. Severability. I any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance should be held to be
invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not
affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance
Section 3. 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.
ATTEST:
Approved by the City Council this day of , 2004.
Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
Cary P. Driskell, Deputy City Attorney
Date of publication:
Effective date:
(lrtlinanra 1144111 Artirla 1 Sartinn 1 7(1 Fnfnrrement /Penalties
Michael IOeVlemine, Mayor
Paoe 1 of 17
DRAFT
Section 1.0.-1.19. Reserved.
Section 1.20. Enforcement and Penalties.
1.20.01. — Definitions.
Attachment "A"
ARTICLE 1
A. "abate" means to take whatever steps are deemed necessary by the Diree>er• to ensure that the property
complies with applicable code requirements. Abatement may include, but is not limited to, rehabilitation,
demolition, removal, replacement or repair.
B. "eivil code violation" means and includes an act or omission contrary to:
1. Any ordinance, resolution, regulation or public rule of the City that regulates or protects the use
and development of land or water; and/or
2. The conditions of any permit, notice and order or stop work order issued pursuant to any such
ordinance, resolution, regulation or public rule.
C. "The City" means the City of Spokane Valley, Washington, acting by and through the authorized
representatives and agents designated by the City Manager.
D. "days" will be counted as business days when five or less days are allowed to do an act required by this
Ordinance. "days" will be considered calendar days when more than five days are allowed to do an act required
by this Ordinance.
E. "determination of compliance" means a written statement from the ity that the
evidence to determine that the violation(s) has been sufficiently abated as to the
violation(s) stated in the voluntary compliance agreement, eitetien notice of violation, notice and order or stop
work order.
F. " Dii=eeto-" __...._..L nW
G. "found in violation" means"
1. That a citation notice of violation, notice and order or stop work order has been issued and not
timely appealed; or
2. That a voluntary compliance agreement has been entered into; or
3. That the Hearing Examiner has determined that the violation has occurred and such
determination has not been stayed or reversed on appeal.
H. "Hearing Examiner" means the City of Spokane Valley Hearing Examiner, as provided by City of
Spokane Valley Ordinance number 57 as adopted or hereafter amended.
I. "mitigate" means to take measures, subject to City approval, to minimize the harmful effects of the
violation where remediation is either impossible or unreasonably burdensome.
J. '` permit" means any form of certificate, approval, registration, license or any other written permission
issued by the City. All conditions of approval, and all easements and use limitations shown on the face of an
Ordinance 04 -013 Article I Section 1.20 Enforcement/Penalties Page 2 of 17
\D
A.
DRAFT
approved final plat map which are intended to serve or protect the general public are deemed conditions
applicable to all subsequent. plat property owners, owner's tenants, and owner's agents as permit requirements
enforceable under this chapter.
K. "person" means any individual, association, partnership, corporation or legal entity, public or private,
and the agents and assigns of such individual, association, partnership, corporation or legal entity.
L. "person responsible for a code violation" means the person who caused the violation, if that can be
determined, and/or the owner, lessor, tenant or other person entitled to control, use and /or occupancy of the
property where the civil code violation occurs.
M. "public rule" means any rule properly promulgated to implement City- ei.il-ede provisions of this code.
N. "remediate" means to restore a site to a condition that complies with sensitive area or other regulatory
requirements as they existed before the violation occurred; or, for sites that have been degraded under prior
ownerships, restore to a condition which does not pose a probable threat to the environment or to the general
public health, safety or welfare.
O. "resolution" for purposes of this chapter means any resolution adopted by the City of Spokane Valley
City Council.
1.20.02. – Relationship to Growth Management Plan. This chapter is adopted as development regulations
pursuant to RCW 36.70A (Growth Management Act).
1.20.03. – Declaration of public nuisance – misdemeanor.
All eat -cede violations of this Code are hereby determined to be detrimental to the general public health, safety
and welfare and are hereby declared public nuisances. All conditions determined to be eil -eede violations of
this Code shall be subject to and enforced pursuant to the provisions of this chapter except where specifically
excluded by law or regulation.
B. Any person who willfully or knowingly causes, aids or abets a civil code violation pursuant to this chapter by
any act of commission or omission is guilty of a misdemeanor. Upon conviction, the person shall be punished
by a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars and /or incarceration for a term not to exceed ninety days. Each
week (seven consecutive days) such violation continues shall be considered a separate misdemeanor offense. As
an alternative, or in addition to any other judicial or administrative remedy provided in this chapter or by law or
other regulation, the hector the authorized representative of the City may recommend that the Office of the
City Attorney file a misdemeanor complaint against the person responsible for code violation when the City has
documentation or other evidence that the violation was willful and knowing.
1.20.04. – Enforcement, authority and administration.
A. In order to discourage public nuisances and otherwise promote compliance with applicable code provisions, the
Director City may, in response to field observations or reliable complaints, determine that civil -cede violations
of this Code have occurred or are occurring, and may:
l . Enter into voluntary compliance agreements with persons responsible for code violations;
2. Issue citations notice of violation and assess civil penalties as authorized by this chapter;
3. Issue notice and orders, assess civil penalties and recover costs as authorized by this chapter;
4. Require abatement by means of a judicial abatement order, and if such abatement is not timely
completed by the person or persons responsible for a code violation, undertake the abatement and charge the
CD reasonable costs of such work as authorized by this chapter;
5. Allow a person responsible for the code violation to perform community service in lieu of paying civil
penalties as authorized by ?C- 3.4-496=530 this chapter;
Ordinance 04 -013 Article I Section 1.20 Enforcement/Penalties Page 3 of 17
DRAFT
6. Order work stopped at a site by means of a stop work order, and if such order is not complied with,
assess civil penalties as authorized by this chapter;
7. Suspend, revoke or modify any permit previously issued by the Direetef CibLor deny a permit
application as authorized by this chapter when other efforts to achieve compliance have failed; and
8. Forward a written statement providing all relevant information relating to the violation to the Office of
City Attorney with a recommendation to prosecute willful and knowing violations as a misdemeanor offense.
B. The procedures set forth in this title are not exclusive. These procedures shall not in any manner limit or restrict
the City from remedying or abating civil eede violations of this code in any other manner
authorized by law.
C. In addition, or as an alternative, to utilizing the procedures set forth in this chapter, the City may seek legal or
equitable relief to abate any conditions or enjoin any acts or practices which constitute a eivil -code violation.
D. In addition, or as an alternative, to utilizing the procedures set forth in this chapter, the City may assess or
recover civil penalties accruing under this chapter by legal action filed in Spokane County District Court by the
Office of the City Attorney.
E. The provisions of this chapter shall in no way adversely affect the rights of the owner, lessee or occupant of any
property to recover all costs and expenses incurred and required by this chapter from any person causing such
violation.
F. In administering the provisions for code enforcement, the Director City shall have the authority to waive any
one or more such provisions so as to avoid substantial injustice by application thereof to the acts or omissions of
a public or private entity or individual. or acts or omissions on public or private property including, for example,
property belonging to public or private utilities, where no apparent benefit has accrued to such entity or
individual from a code violation. Any determination of substantial injustice shall be made in writing supported
by appropriate facts. For purposes of this clause, substantial injustice cannot be based exclusively on financial
hardship.
G. The provisions of this chapter detailing the administration of code compliance procedures are intended only for
the purpose of providing guidance to City employees and are not jurisdictional, and are not to be construed as
creating a basis for appeal or a defense of any kind to an alleged code violation.
H. The Direeter City may, upon presentation of proper credentials, with the consent of the owner or occupier of a
building or premises, or pursuant to a lawfully issued inspection warrant, enter at reasonable times any building
or premises subject to the consent or warrant to perform the duties imposed by this chapter. It is the intent of the
City Council that any entry made to private property for the purpose of inspection for code violations be
accomplished in strict conformity with constitutional and statutory constraints on entry, and the holdings of the
relevant court cases regarding entry. The right -of -entry authorized by this chapter shall not supersede those
legal constraints.
I. The Director or his or her- i -:e City may request that the police, appropriate fire district, Spokane
Regional Health District or other appropriate City department or other non -city agency assist in enforcement.
1.20.05. — Guidelines for departmental responses to complaints.
A. The following guidelines should be applied by the Director City, subject to resource limitations, when
responding to code compliance complaints. The timelines identified below may be modified by Department
rule, subject to council review and approval.
1. High risk investigations needing an urgent response (within 24 hours) include any cases in which there is an
imminent likelihood of or actual bodily harm, damage to public resources or facilities, damage to real or
personal property, public health exposure or environmental damage or contamination.
2. Moderate risk investigations needing a prompt response (within 72 hours) include cases in which there is risk
of bodily harm, damage to public resources and/or facilities, damage to real or personal property, or
environmental damage or contamination
3. Low risk investigations needing response as time permits (within 14 days of violation being identified by
code compliance staff) including cases where the violation is non - emergent, does not fit within the high risk or
moderate risk categories and has only minor public impacts.
B. The response times set out in this chapter are not jurisdictional, and failure to meet them in any particular case
shall not affect the City's authority to enforce City code provisions with regard to that case.
Ordinance 04 -013 Article I Section 1.20 Enforcement/Penalties Page 4 of 17
DRAFT
The Direetei—is City representatives are authorized to determine, based upon past complaints regarding a
property, subsequent field investigations, and other relevant criteria, whether a complaint is reliable. If the
Director City determines a cornplaint is not reliable, the Direetor City is not obligated to conduct a field
investigation.
1.20.06. — initial investigation. This chapter section sets forth guidelines for more specific procedures to be
used by the Director City in implementing this chapter. The guidelines set forth in this chapter are not
jurisdictional, and failure to meet them in any particular case shall not affect the City's authority to enforce city
code provisions with regard to that case.
A. Field verification required. Except in emergencies and for low risk case complaints, field verification should be
made if possible prior to, concurrent with, or shortly after notifying the person responsible for the code violation
or alleged code violation. Low risk case complaints should be acknowledged by sending a letter to the person(s)
responsible for the code violation. The letter should state that a violation may have occurred, but has not been
verified, and should ask the recipient to contact the person issuing the letter.
B. Advising interested parties of receipt of complaint and/or field investigation.
1. The person responsible for the code violation should be advised of any complaint by personal contact; phone;
posting and mail (return receipt requested).
2. The complainant should be contacted by phone, and if possible, in person during the field visit.
C. The Director City will record all violations in a database system, including a list of all actions taken on the
complaint.
D. To the extent possible, the Department City shall check its own records and the records of other agencies for
previous violations on the site of the alleged violation or by the owner or occupant of the site or such other
person as may be responsible for the code violation.
Staff undertaking field investigations shall comply with the provisions of this chapter regarding right of entry.
1.20.07. — Procedures when probable violation is identified.
A. The Director City shall determine, based upon information derived from sources such as field observations, the
statements of witnesses, relevant documents and data systems for tracking violations and applicable City codes,
whether or not a violation has occurred. As soon as the Director City has reasonable cause to determine that a
violation has occurred, he or she shall document the violation and promptly notify the person(s) responsible for
the code violation.
B. Except as provided in subsection D, a warning shall be issued verbally or in writing promptly when a field
inspection reveals a violation, or as soon as the Director City otherwise determines a violation has occurred.
The warning shall inform the person determined to be responsible for a code violation of the violation and allow
the person an opportunity to correct it or enter into a voluntary compliance agreement as provided for by this
chapter. Verbal warnings shall be logged and followed up with a written warning within five (5) days, and the
site shall be re-inspected within fourteen (14) days.
C. No warning need be issued in high risk cases, emergencies, repeat violation cases, cases that are already subject
to a voluntary compliance agreement, cases where the violation creates or has created a situation or condition
that is not likely to be corrected within seventy-two (72) hours, cases where a stop work order is necessary, or
when the person responsible for the code violation knows, or reasonably should have known that the action was
a eivil code violation.
D. Citations notice of violation may be issued in moderate and low risk cases, provided that the DDireeter City
determines it is probable that the violation can likely be fully corrected in a short period of time.
E. Notice and orders should be issued in all high risk cases in which a voluntary compliance agreement has not
been entered into within two (2) days of notification by the Directed; City. Notice and orders may be issued in
moderate and low risk cases where the T=eeter City determines that the violation is unlikely to be fully
corrected in a short period of time.
1F. The Director City shall use all reasonable means to determine and cite the person actually responsible for the
code violation occurring when the property owner has not directly or indirectly caused the violation.
G. If the violation is not corrected, or a voluntary compliance agreement is not achieved within fifteen (15) days of
notification by the Direetee City, a notice and order or stop work order should be issued. Citations should be
Ordinance 04 -013 Artide I Section 1.20 Enforcement/Penalties Page 5 of 17
DRAFT
issued within fifteen (15) days from receipt of a complaint. Notice and orders should be issued within twenty
(20) days from receipt of a complaint. Stop work orders should be issued promptly upon discovery of a
violation in progcss.
H. All complainants will be asked by staff at the time the complaint is filed whether they wish to be kept advised of
enforcement efforts. Any complainant who provides a mailing address and requests to be kept advised of
enforcement efforts should be mailed a copy of all written warnings, voluntary compliance agreements, citation
notice of violation, notice and orders, stop work orders and notices of settlement conferences issued by the
teeter City with regard to the alleged violation. Any complainant may appeal a determination of code
compliance issued by the Ci r
• .
.1 t I
1.20.08. — Service — citation notice of violation, notice and order, and stop work order.
A. Service of a eitatien notice of violation or notice and order shall be made on a person responsible for code
violation by one or more of the following methods:
2. Personal service of a citation notice of violation or notice and order may be made on the person identified by
the Department City as being responsible for the code violation, or by leaving a copy of the eitutien notice of
violation or notice and order at the person's house of usual abode with a person of suitable age and discretion
who resides there;
2. Service directed to the landowner and/or occupant of the property may be made by posting the citation notice
of violation or notice and order in a conspicuous place on the property where the violation occurred and
concurrently mailing notice as provided for below, if a mailing address is available;
3. Service by mail may be made for a citation notice of violation or a notice and order by mailing two copies,
postage prepaid, one by ordinary first class mail and the other by certified mail, to the person responsible for the
code violation at his or her last known address, at the address of the violation, or at the address of the place of
business of the person responsible for the code violation. The taxpayer's address as shown on the tax records of
Spokane County shall be deemed to be the proper address for the purpose of mailing such notice to the
landowner of the property where the violation occurred. Service by mail shall be presumed effective upon the
third business day following the day upon which the citation notice of violation or notice and order was placed
in the mail.
B. For notice and orders only, when the address of the person responsible for the code violation cannot be
reasonably determined, service may be made by publication once in the City's newspaper of record. Service by
publication shall conform to the requirements of Civil Rule 4 of the Rules for Superior Court.
C. Service of a stop work order on a person responsible for a code violation may be made by posting the stop work
order in a conspicuous place on the property where the violation occurred or by serving the stop work order in
any other manner permitted by this chapter.
D. The failure of the Director City to make or attempt service on any person named in the citation notice of
violation, notice and order or stop work order shall not invalidate any proceedings as to any other person duly
served.
1.20.09. — Training and rulemaking.
A. In order to ensure strict conformity with the constraints on entry imposed by state and federal law, and to ensure
that City employees deal with the public in a manner which respects the rights of private property owners, the
Director City shall develop and adopt internal procedures, protocols and training programs governing the
conduct of searches by compliance officers.
B. The Director City shall adopt procedures to implement the provisions of this chapter, and specifically the
guidelines set out in this chapter describing reasonable and appropriate protocols for investigating code
violations.
1.20.10. — Obligations of persons responsible for code violation.
A. It shall be the responsibility of any person identified as responsible for a code violation to bring the property into
a safe and reasonable condition to achieve code compliance. Payment of civil penalties, applications for
permits, acknowledgement of stop work orders and compliance with other remedies does not substitute for
Ordinance 04 -013 Article I Section 1.20 Enforcement/Penalties Page 6 of 17
DRAFT
i - �
performing the corrective work required and having the property brought into compliance to the extent
reasonably possible under the circumstances.
B. Persons determined to be responsible for a code violation pursuant to a 644km notice of violation or notice and
order shall be liable for the payment of any civil penalties and abatement costs, provided however, that if a
property owner affirmatively demonstrates that the action which resulted in the violation was taken without the
owner's knowledge or consent by someone other than the owner or someone acting on the owner's behalf, that
owner shall be responsible only for bringing the property into compliance to the extent reasonably feasible under
the circumstances. Should the owner not correct the violation, only those abatement costs necessary to bring the
property into a safe and reasonable condition, as determined by the Di -ft.tor City, shall be assessed by the City.
No civil penalties shall be assessed against such an owner or his or her property interest.
1.20.11. — Determination of compliance. After issuance of a warning, voluntary compliance agreement,
citation notice of violation, notice and order, or stop work order, and after the person(s) responsible for a
violation have come into - code- compliance - , .. • •; - = - - , the Pireeter City shall issue
a written determination of compliance. The Difeeter City shall mail copies of the determination of compliance
to each person originally named in the warning, voluntary compliance agreement, citation, notice and order, or
stop work order, as well as the complainant, by certified mail, five -day return receipt requested.
1.20.12. — Voluntary compliance agreement — authority.
A. Whenever the D enter- -City determines that a code violation has occurred or is occurring, the li'eeter City shall
make reasonable efforts to secure voluntary compliance from the person responsible for the code violation.
Upon contacting the person responsible for the code violation, the Director City may enter into a voluntary
compliance agreement as provided for in this chapter.
0 3. A voluntary compliance agreement may be entered into at any time after issuance of a verbal or written warning,
a eitation notice of violation. notice and order or a stop work order and before an appeal is decided pu *te
SVZC 14.406.630.
C. Upon entering into a voluntary compliance agreement, a person responsible for a code violation waives the right
to administratively appeal, and thereby admits that the conditions described in the voluntary compliance
agreement existed and constituted a civil code violation.
D. The voluntary compliance agreement shall incorporate the shortest reasonable time period for compliance, as
determined by the Dir oter City. An extension of the time limit for compliance, or a modification of the
required corrective action may be granted by the Dii-eetec City if the person responsible for the code violation
has shown due diligence or substantial progress in correcting the violation, but circumstances render full and
timely compliance under the original conditions unattainable. Any such extension or modification must be in .
writing and signed by the meter authorized representative of the City and person(s) who signed the original
voluntary compliance agreement.
E. The voluntary compliance agreement is not a settlement. agreement.
1.20.13. — Voluntary compliance agreement— contents.
A. The voluntary compliance agreement is a written, sued commitment by the person(s) responsible for a code
violation in which such person(s) agrees to abate the violation, remediate the site, and /or mitigate the impacts of
the violation. The voluntary compliance agreement shall include the following:
1. The name and address of the person responsible for the code violation;
2. The address or other identification of the location of the violation;
3. A description of the violation and a reference to the provision(s) of the ordinance, resolution or regulation
which has been violated;
4. A description of the necessary corrective action to be taken and identification of the date or time by which
( Thcomplianee must be completed;
) 5. The amount of the civil penalty that will be imposed • - ' - - ' . "• _' if the voluntary
compliance agreement is not satisfied;
6. An acknowledgement that if the Director City determines that the terms of the voluntary compliance
agreement are not met, the City may, without issuing a eitetion notice of violation, notice and order or stop work
Ordinance 04 - 013 Article 1 Section 1.20 Enforcement/Penatties Page 7 of 17
DRAFT
order, impose any remedy authorized by this chapter, enter the real property and perform abatement of the violation
by the City, assess the costs incurred by the City to pursue code compliance and to abate the violation, including
reasonable legal fees and costs, and the suspension, revocation or limitation of a development permit obtained or to
be sought by the person responsible for the code violation;
7. An acknowledgement that if a penalty is assessed, and if any assessed penalty, fee or cost is not paid, the
City may charge the unpaid amount as a lien against the property where the civil code violation occurred if
owned by the person responsible for the code violation, and that the unpaid amount may be a joint and several
personal obligation of all persons responsible for the violation;
8. An acknowledgement that by entering into the voluntary compliance agreement, the person responsible for
the code violation thereby admits that the conditions described in the voluntary compliance ageement existed and
constituted a civil code violation; and
9. An acknowledgement that the person responsible for the code violation understands that he or she has the
right to be served with a eitatien-notice of violation, notice and order, or stop work order for any violation identified
in the voluntary compliance agreement, has the right to administratively appeal any such eitatien notice of violation,
notice and order, or stop work order, and that he or she is knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waiving those
rights.
e.
1.20.14. - Failure to meet terms of voluntary compliance agreement.
A. If the terms of the voluntary compliance agreement are not completely met, and an extension of time has not
been granted, the $ireeter authorized representatives of the City may enter the real property and abate the
violation without seeking a judicial abatement order. The person responsible for code compliance may, without
being issued a eitatien notice of violation. notice and order, or stop work order, be assessed a civil penalty as set
forth by this chapter, plus all costs incurred by the City to pursue code compliance and to abate the violation,
and may be subject to other remedies authorized by this chapter. Penalties imposed when a voluntary
compliance agreement is not met accrue from the date that an appeal of any preceding eitft-ion notice of
violation, notice and order, or stop work order was to have been filed or from the date the voluntary compliance
agreement was entered into if there was not preceding ei-ta ten notice of violation, notice and order, or stop work
order.
B. The DireetoF City may issue a eittrtien notice of violation, notice and order, or 'stop work order for failure to
meet the terms of a voluntary compliance agreement.
1.20.15. - Citations - authority. Whenever the Directer City has determined, based upon investigation of
documents and/or physical evidence, that a civil code violation has occurred, the 1iFeetef City may issue a
citation to any person responsible for code violation. The 13iFeeter City shall make a determination whether or
not to issue a citation within fifteen (15) days of receiving a complaint alleging a violation or otherwise
discovering that a violation may potentially exist. Subsequent complaints shall be treated as new complaints for
purposes of this chapter. However, such subsequent complaints shall not constitute a separate violation to which
the penalties of this chapter apply.
1.20.16. - Eitittions Notice of Violation - effect.
A. A eitation notice of violation represents a determination that a civil code violation has occurred and that the
cited party is a person responsible for a code violation.
B. A ettntienn notice of violation subjects the person responsible for a code violation to civil penalties pfeseFibed -by
S-V - 14.486 -399.
C. The person responsible for a code violation shall either pay the civil penalties assessed within twenty (20) days
of the date of issuance of the eitatien notice of violation, or appeal the eitatien notice of violation according to
the procedures described herein ' .
D. Failure to appeal the eitatien notice of violation within twenty (20) days shall render the en-alien notice of
violation a final determination that the conditions described in the citation notice of violation existed and
constituted a civil code violation, and that the cited party is liable as a person responsible.
Ordinance 04 -013 Artide 1 Section 1.20 Enforcement/Penalties Page B of 17
DRAFT
)E. .Imposition of a civil penalty creates a joint and several personal obligation in all persons responsible for a code
violation who are served with notice of the violation. The Office of the City Attorney, on behalf of the City of
Spokane Valley, may collect the civil penalties assessed by any appropriate legal means.
F. Issuance of a citation notice of violation in no way limits the City's authority to issue a notice and order or stop
work order to any person responsible for a code violation pursuant to this chapter.
1.20.17. — Citation Notice of Violation — contents. The citation notice of violation shall include all of the
following information:
A. The address, when available, or location of the civil code violation;
13. A legal description of the real property or the Spokane County tax parcel number where the violation occurrcxl
or is located, or a description identifying the property by commonly used locators;
C. A statement that the Director City has found the named person(s) to have committed a eivil code violation and a
brief description of the violation(s) found;
D. A statement of the specific ordinance, resolution, regulation, public rule, permit condition, notice and order
provision or stop work order provision that was or is being violated;
E. A statement that the citation notice of violation represents a detemuination that a oivi4 code violation has
occurred and that the cited party is subject to a civil penalty;
F. A statement of the amount of the civil penalty assessed, that payment of the civil penalties assessed under this
chapter does not relieve a person found to be responsible for a code violation of his or her duty to correct the
violation and/or to pay any and all civil penalties or other cost assessments issued pursuant to this chapter, and
that the penalty must be paid within twenty (20) days, if not appealed .. - - ' .' : e = e .
G. A statement of the corrective or abatement action required to be taken and that all required permits to perform
the corrective action must be obtained from the proper issuing agency;
c j
H. A statement advising that any person named in the eitation notice of violation. or having any record or equitable
title in the property against which the citation is issued may appeal from the citation to the Hearing Examiner
within twenty (20) days of the date of service of the citation;
I. A statement advising that a failure to appeal the citation notice of violation within twenty (20) days renders the
citation notice of violation a final determination that the conditions described in the citet-ion notice of violation
existed and constituted a civil code violation, and that the named party is liable as a person responsible for a
code violation; and
J. A statement advising that a willful and knowing violation may be referred to the Office of the City Attorney for
prosecution ptt aw t-te EV C _ 4. 0'_=`.
1.20.18. — C—itntien Notice of Violation — modification or revocation.
A. The Director City may add to, revoke in whole or in part, or otherwise modify a eitation notice of violation by
issuing a written supplemental citation. The supplemental citation notice of violation shall be governed by the
same procedures and time limits applicable to all citations notice of violation contained in this chapter.
B. The Director City may e- a— sttpplementel citation, or revoke or issue a supplemental notice of violation a
emotion- issat*ed under this chapter
1. if the original citation notice of violation was issued in error;
2. whenever there is new information or change of circumstances; or
3. if a party to a 644i-en notice of violation was incorrectly named.
C. Such revocation or modification shall identify the reasons and underlying facts for modification or revocation,
and shall be served on the person responsible for a violation in conformity with this article.
1.20.19. — Citation Notice of Violation — remedy — civil penalties. A eitntion notice of violation shall carry a
civil penalty to be determined with reference to the schedule contained herein .
1.20.20. — Notice and order — authority. When the Direeter City has reason to believe, based on investigation
of documents and/or physical evidence, that a code violation exists or has occurred, or that the eiil code
violations cited in a citation notice of violation have not been corrected, or that the terms of a voluntary
compliance agreement have not been met, the Dircetor City is authorized to issue a notice and order to any
Ordinance 04 -013 Article I Section 1.20 Enforcement/Penalties Page 9 of 17
DRAFT
person responsible for a code violation. The 13ifector gin: shall make a determination whether or not to issue a
notice and order within twenty (20) days of receiving a complaint alleging a violation or otherwise discovering
that a violation may potentially exist, or within ten (10) days of the end of a voluntary compliance agreement
time period which has not been met. Subsequent complaints shall be treated as new complaints for the purposes
of this chapter. Issuance of a eitetien notice of violation is not a condition precedent to the issuance of a notice
and order.
1.20.21. - Notice and order - effect.
A. A notice and order represents a determination that a violation has occurred, that the eitef} party to whom the
notice is issued is a person responsible for a code violation, and that the violations set out in the notice and order
require the assessment of penalties and other remedies that may be specified in the notice and order.
B. Upon a determination by the City that a violation has occurred pursuant to a notice and order, the Direeter City
is authorized to impose civil penalties ep
C. Any person identified in the notice and order as responsible for a code violation may appeal the notice and order
within twenty (20) days
D. Failure to appeal the notice and order within the applicable time limits shall render the notice and order a final
determination that the conditions described in the notice and order existed and constituted a violation, and that
the named party is liable as a person responsible for a code violation.
E. Issuance of a notice and order in no way limits a-Pieeetegs the City's authority to issue a eitatien notice of
violation or stop work order to a person previously cited through the notice and order process pursuant to this
chapter.
1.20.22. - Notice and order - contents. The notice and order shall contain the following information:
A. The address, when available, or location of the violation;
B. A legal description of the real property or the Spokane County tax parcel number where the violation occurred
or is located, or a description identifying the property by commonly used locators;
C. A statement that the afeeter -City has found the named person(s) to have committed a violation and a brief
description of the violation(s) found;
D. A statement of the specific provisions of the ordinance, resolution, regulation, public rule, permit condition,
notice and order provision or stop work order that was or is being violated;
E. A statement that a civil penalty is being assessed, including the dollar amount of the civil penalties per separate
violation, and that any assessed penalties must be paid within twenty (20) days of service of the notice and
order,
F. A statement advising that any costs of enforcement incurred by the City shall also be assessed against the person
to whom the notice and order is directed;
G. A statement that payment of the civil penalties assessed under this chapter does not relieve a person found to be
responsible for a code violation of his or her duty to correct the violation and/or to pay any and all civil penalties
or other cost assessments issued pursuant to this chapter;
H. A statement advising that the notice and order will be recorded against the property in the Spokane County
Auditor's Office subsequent to service;
I. A statement of the corrective or abatement action required to be taken and that all required permits to perform
the corrective action must be obtained from the proper issuing agency;
J. A statement advising that, if any required work is not commenced or completed within the time specified by the
notice and order, the Difeeter -City may proceed to seek a judicial abatement order from Spokane County
Superior Court to abate the violation .
K. A statement advising that, if any assessed penalty, fee or cost is not paid on or before the due date, the Director
City may charge the unpaid amount as a lien against the property where the ei'ii -code violation occurred if
owned by a person responsible for a violation, and as a joint and several personal obligation of all persons
responsible for a code violation;
L. A statement advising that any person named in the notice and order, or having any record or equitable title in the
property against which the notice and order is recorded may appeal from the notice and order to the Hearing
Examiner within twenty (20) days of the date of service of the notice and order;
Ordinance 04 -013 Article I Section 1.20 Enforcement/Penalties Page 10 of 17
)M. A statement advising that a failure to correct the violations cited in the notice and order could lead to the denial
of subsequent Spokane Valley permit applications on the subject property;
N. A statement advising that a failure to appeal the notice and order within the applicable time limits renders the
notice and order a final determination that the conditions described in the notice and order existed and
constituted a violation, and that the named party is liable as a person responsible for a violation; and
O. A statement advising the person responsible for a code violation of his/her duty to notify the Difeet.er City of
any actions taken to achieve compliance with the notice and order.
P. A statement advising that a willful and knowing violation may be referred to the Office of the City Attorney for
prosecution
1.20.23. — Notice and order — recording.
A. When a notice and order is served on a person responsible for a code violation, the Director City shall file a
copy of the same with the Spokane County Auditor's Office.
13. When all violations specified in the notice and order have been corrected or abated to the satisfaction of the
Director City, the l eeteiv City shall file a certificate of compliance with the Spokane County Auditor's Office
within five days of receiving evidence of abatement. The certificate shall include a legal description of the
property where the violation occurred and shall state whether any unpaid civil penalties for which liens have
been filed are still outstanding and, if so, shall continue as liens on the property.
C. After all liens have been satisfied, the teeter City shall file a notice of satisfaction of lien with the Spokane
County Auditor's Office within five days of final payment to City.
1.20.24. — Notice and order — supplementation, revocation, modification.
A. The Direeter City may add to, revoke in whole or in part, or otherwise modify a notice and order by issuing a
written supplemental notice and order. The supplemental notice and order shall be governed by the same
procedures and time limits applicable to all notice and orders contained in this chapter.
The $ireetei' City may issue a supplemental notice and order, or revoke a notice and order issued under this
chapter:
1. If the original notice and order was issued in error;
2. Whenever there is new information or change of circumstances; or
3. If a party to an order was incorrectly named.
C. Such revocation or modification shall identify the reasons and underlying facts for modification or revocation,
and shall be filed with the Spokane County Auditor's Office.
1.20.25. — Notice and order - administrative conference. An informal administrative conference may be
conducted by the Direeter City at any time for the purpose of facilitating communication among concerned
persons and providing a forum for efficient resolution of any violation. Interested parties shall not unreasonably
be excluded from such conferences.
B.
DRAFT
1.20.26. — Notice and order — remedies — suspension, revocation or limitation of permit.
A. The Titeeter City may suspend, revoke or modify any permit issued by such 9ifeeetei the City whenever:
1. The permit holder has committed a violation in the course of performing activities subject to that permit;
2. The permit holder has interfered with the I3ii'eetei' authorized representatives of the City in the performance of
his or her duties related to that permit;
3. The permit was issued in error or on the basis of materially incorrect information supplied to the City;
4. Permit fees or costs were paid to the City by check and returned from a financial institution marked non -
sufficient funds (NSF) or canceled; or
5. For a permit or approval that is subject to sensitive area review, the applicant has failed to disclose a change
of circumstances on the development proposal site which materially affects an applicant's ability to meet the
permit or approval conditions, or which makes inaccurate the sensitive arca study that was the basis for
establishing permit or approval conditions.
Ordinance 04 -013 Article I Section 1.20 Enforcement/Penalties Page 11 of 17
DRAFT
B. Such suspension, revocation, or modification shall be carried out through the notice and order provisions of this
chapter and shall be effective upon the compliance date established by the notice and order. Such suspension,
revocation or modification may be appealed to the Hearing Examiner using the appeal provisions of this chapter.
C. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Difeeter' City may immediately suspend operations
under any permit by issuing a stop work order.
1.20.27. — Notice and order — remedies — denial of permit.
A. The City may deny a permit when, with regard to the site or project for which the permit is submitted:
1. Any person owning the property or submitting the development proposal has been found in violation of any
ordinance, resolution, regulation or public rule of the City that regulates or protects the public health, safety and
welfare, or the use and development of land and water; and/or
2. Any person owning the property or submitting the development proposal has been found in violation and
remains in violation of the conditions of any permit, notice and order or stop work order issued pursuant to any
such ordinance, resolution, regulation or public rule; and/or
13. In order to further the remedial purposes of this chapter, such denial may continue until the violation is cured by
restoration accepted as complete by the City and by payment of any civil penalty imposed for the violation,
except that permits or approvals shall be granted to the extent necessary to accomplish any required restoration
or cure.
1.20.28. — Notice and order — remedies — abatement. In addition, or as an alternative, to any other judicial or
administrative remedy, the 13i-reetor City may use the notice and order provisions of this chapter to order any
person responsible for a code violation to abate the violation and to complete the work at such time and under
such conditions as the Director City determines reasonable under the circumstances. If the required corrective
work is not commenced or completed within the time specified, the Di+eeter City may seek a judicial abatement
order pursuant, to this chapter.
1.20.29. — Stop work order — authorized. The teeter City is authorized to issue a stop work order to a
person responsible for a code violation. Issuance of a citation notice of violation or notice and order is not a
condition precedent to the issuance of the stop work order.
1.20.30. — Stop work order — effect.
A. A stop work order represents a determination that a civil code violation has occurred or is occurring, and that
any work or activity that caused, is causing or contributing to the violation on the property where the violation
has occurred, or is occurring, must cease.
B. A stop work order requires the immediate cessation of the specified work or activity on the named property.
Work activity may not resume unless specifically authorized in writing by the Difeeter• City.
C. A stop work order may be appealed according to the procedures prescribed in this chapter .0-
630.
D. Failure to appeal the stop work order within twenty (20) days renders the stop work order a final determination
that the civil code violation occurred and that work was properly ordered to cease.
E. A stop work order may be enforced by the City Police.
1.20.31. — Stop work order — remedy — civil penalties.
A. In addition to any other judicial or administrative remedy, the Difeeter City may assess civil penalties for the
violation of any stop work order according to the civil penalty schedule established in Section 1.20.33 of this
chapter .
13. Civil penalties for the violation of any stop work order shall begin to accrue on the first day the stop work order
is violated, and shall cease accruing on the day the work is actually stopped.
C. Violation of a stop work order shall be a separate violation from any other civil violation.
1.20.32. — Stop work order — remedy — criminal penalties. In addition to any other judicial or administrative
remedy, the Difeetef City may forward to the Office of City Attorney a detailed factual background of the
Ordinance 04 -013 Article I Section 1.20 Enforcement/Penaltles Page 12 of 17
1. Citations Notice of Violation
S250
2. Notice and orders and stop work orders
a. basic initial penalty
$500
b. additional initial penalties may be added where there is:
1. public health risk — amount depends on severity
$0 -2,500
2. environmental damage - amount depends on severity
$0 -2,500
3. damage to property - amount depends on severity
$0 -2,500
4. history of similar violations (less than three)
SO -1,000
5. history of similar violations (three or more)
S0 -5,000
6. economic benefit to person responsible for violation
SO -5,000
c. the above penalties may be offset by the following compliance
'ull compliance with a voluntary compliance agreement with prior history of 0 -1
violations
$0 -1,500
fil similar
ll compliance with a voluntary compliance agreement and a history of two or
more prior similar violations
$0 -250
DRAFT
alleged violation with a recommendation that a misdemeanor charge be filed against the person(s) responsible
for any willful violation of a stop work order.
1.20.33. — Civil penalties — assessment schedule.
A. Civil penalties for ei 41 code violations shall be imposed for remedial purposes and shall be assessed for each
violation identified in a eitatien notice of violation, notice and order or stop work order, pursuant to the
followi
0 13. The total initial penalties assessed for notice and orders and stop work orders pursuant to this chapter shall apply
for the first thirty day period following issuance of the order, unless another time period is specified in a
voluntary compliance agreement. If a voluntary compliance agreement is not entered into within that time
period, and no appeal is filed, the penalties for the next fifteen day period shall be one hundred fifty percent
(150 %) of the initial penalties, and the penalties for the next fifteen day period shall be two hundred percent
(200 %) the amount of the initial penalties. The intent of this subsection is to increase penalties beyond the
maximum penalties stated is . as an additional means to achieve timely compliance
C. Gitations Notice of violation shall be subject to a one -time penalty per violation. The Director City retains
authority to issue a subsequent notice and order or stop work order for continued non - compliance In that event,
additional penalties shall be imposed.
D. Civil penalties shall be paid within twenty (20) days of service of the eitatien notice of violation, notice and
order or stop work order if not appealed. Payment of the civil penalties assessed under this chapter does not
relieve a person found to be responsible for a code violation of his or her duty to correct the violation and/or to
pay any and all civil - penalties or other cost assessments issued pursuant to this article.
E. The Direeter City may suspend civil penalties pursuant to SVZC 14.406.500(A)(e) if the person responsible for
a code violation has entered into a voluntary compliance agreement. Penalties shall begin to accrue again
pursuant to the terms of the voluntary compliance agreement if any necessary permits applied for are denied,
canceled or not pursued, or if corrective action identified in the voluntary compliance agreement is not
completed as specified.
F. Civil penalties assessed create a joint and several personal obligation in all persons responsible for a code
violation.
G. In addition to, or in lieu of, any other state or local provision for the recovery of civil penalties, the City may file
for record with the Spokane County Auditor to claim a lien against the real property for the civil penalties
assessed under this chapter if the violation was reasonably related to the real property. Any such lien can be
filed under this chapter if, after the expiration of thirty (30) days from when a person responsible for a code
violation receives the citation notice of violation, notice and order or stop work order (excluding any appeal) any
civil penalties remain unpaid in whole or in part.
Ordinance 04 -013 Article 1 Section 1.20 Enforcernent/Penalties Page 13 of 17
DRAFT
1.20.34. - Civil penalties — duty to comply. Persons responsible for a code violation have a duty to notify the
Rifeeter City in writing of any actions taken to achieve compliance with the notice and order. For purposes of
assessing civil penalties, a violation shall be considered ongoing until the person responsible for a code violation
has come into compliance with the notice and order, voluntary compliance agreement, or stop work order, and
has provided sufficient evidence of such compliance.
1.20.35. - Civil penalties — community service. The 13ireefer City is authorized to allow a person responsible
for a code violation who accumulates civil penalties as a result of a citation notice of violation, notice and order,
or for failure to comply with the terms of a voluntary compliance agreement, to voluntarily participate in
community service projects in lieu of paying all or a portion of the assessed civil penalties. Community service
may include, but is not limited to, abatement, restoration or education programs designed to clean up the City.
The amount of community service will reasonably relate to the comparable value of penalties assessed against
the violator. The rate at which civil penalties are worked off under this subsection is $10.00 per hour. The
Rife-clot City shall take into consideration the severity of the violation, any history of previous violations and
practical and legal impediments in considering whether to allow community serviec in lieu of paying penalties.
1.20.36. - Civil penalties — waivers.
A. Civil penalties may be waived or reimbursed to the payor by the 13ifector City under the following
circumstances:
1. The eitation notice of violation, notice and order or stop work order was issued in error; or
2. The civil penalties were assessed in error; or
3. Notice failed to reach the property owner due to unusual circumstances; or
4. New, material information warranting waiver has been presented to the City since the citation notice of
violation, notice and order or stop work order was issued.
13. The Dix-eater City shall state in writing the basis for a decision to waive penalties, and such statement shall
become part of the public record unless privileged.
1.20.37. - Civil penalties — critical areas.
A. The cede compliance provisions for critical areas are intended to protect critical areas and the general public
from harm, to meet the requirements of RCW .36.70A (the Growth Management Act), and to further the
remedial purposes of this chapter. To achieve this, persons responsible for a code violation will not only be
required to restore damaged critical areas, insofar as that is possible and beneficial, but will also be required to
pay a civil penalty for the redress of ecological, recreation, and economic values lost or damaged due to their
unlawful action.
B. The provisions of 1 G ' ".A°`. " this section are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any other penalty, sanction
or right of action provided by law for other related violations.
C. Where feasible, the owner of the land on which the violation occurred shall be named as a party to the notice
and order. In addition to any other persons who may be liable for a violation, and subject to the exceptions
provided in in this chanter, the owner shall be jointly and severally liable for the restoration
of a site and payment of any civil penalties imposed.
D. : .. - , :: : . • . • e .. : , violation of critical area provisions of this code means:
1. The violation of any provision of City Ordinance No. 49 (Interim Critical Areas Ordinance) or of the
administrative rules promulgated thereunder. Ordinance number 49 adopted Spokane County Code, chapter
11.20, as its interim critical areas regulations;
2. The failure to obtain a permit required for work in a critical area; or
3. The failure to comply with the conditions of any permit, approval, terms and conditions of any sensitive area
tract or setback area, easement, covenant, plat restriction or binding assurance, or any notice and order, stop
work order, mitigation plan, contract or agreement issued or concluded pursuant to the above - mentioned
provisions.
E. Any person in violation of the critical areas ordinance may be subject to civil penalties, costs and fees as
follows:
Ordinance 04 -013 Article I Section 1.20 Enforcement/Penalties Page 14 of 17
1.20.38. - Cost recovery.
A. In addition to the other remedies available under this chapter, upon issuance of a notice and order or stop work
order the Director City shall charge the costs of pursuing code compliance and abatement incurred to correct a
code violation to the person responsible for a code violation. These charges include:
1. Reasonable legal fees and costs. For purposes of ;WC-1-4406 this section, "reasonable legal fees and costs"
shall include, but is not limited to legal personnel costs, both direct and indirect, incurred to enforce the
provisions of this chapter; and
2. Administrative personnel costs. For purposes of SVZC 14.406 this section, "administrative personnel costs"
shall include, but are not limited to administrative employee costs, both direct and indirect, incurred to enforce
the provisions of this chapter; and
3. Abatement costs. The Director City shall keep an itemized account of costs incurred by the City in the
abatement of a violation under this chapter. Upon completion of any abatement work, the F3ireetef City shall
prepare a report specifying a legal description of the real property where the abatement work occurred, the work
done for each property, the itemized costs of the work, and interest accrued; and
4. Actual expenses and costs of the City in preparing notices, specifications and contracts; in accomplishing or
contracting and inspecting the work; and the costs of any required printing, mailing or court filing fees.
13. Such costs are due and payable thirty (30) days from mailing of the invoice.
C. All costs assessed by the City in pursuing code compliance and/or abatement create a joint and several personal
obligation in all persons responsible for a violation. The Office of the City Attorney, on behalf of the City, may
collect the costs of code compliance efforts by any appropriate legal means,
D. In addition to, or in lieu of, any other state or local provision for the recovery of costs, the City may, after
abating a violation pursuant to this article, file for record with the Spokane County Auditor to claim a lien
against the real property for the assessed costs identified in this chapter if the violation was reasonably related to
the real property, in accordance with the provision regarding mechanic's liens in RCW 60.04, and said lien shall
be foreclosed in the same manner as such liens.
E. Any lien filed shall be subordinate to all previously existing special assessment liens imposed on the same property
and shall be superior to all other liens, except for state and county taxes, with which it shall share priority. The City
of Spokane Valley may cause a claim for lien to be filed for record within ninety (90) days from the later of the date
that the monetary penalty is due or the date the work is completed or the nuisance abated. The claim of lien shall
contain sufficient information regarding the notice of violation, a description of the property to be charged with the
lien, the owner of record, and the total of the lien. Any such claim of lien may be amended from time to time to
reflect changed conditions. Any such lien shall bind the affected property for the period as provided for by state
law.
DRAFT
1. According to the civil penalty schedule under SVZC 14.400.500, Section 1.20.33 of this chapter, provided
that the exact amount of the penalty per violation shall be determined by the 14iteeter City based on the physical
extent and severity ofthe violation; or
2. The greater of:
a. an amount determined to be equivalent to the economic benefit that the person responsible for a code
violation derives from the violation, measured as the total of
1) the resulting increase in market value of the property;
2) the value received by the person responsible for a violation;
3) the savings of construction costs realized by the person responsible for a code violation as a result of
performing any act in violation of the critical area ordinance; or
b. Code compliance costs (such amount not to exceed S25,000.00) incurred by the City to enforce City
Ordinance number 49 (Interim Critical Areas Ordinance) as adopted or hereafter amended or replaced with
permanent Critical Areas ordinances or regulations against the person responsible for a code violation.
1.20.39. – Collection of civil penalties, fees and costs. The Direeter City may use the services of a collection
agency in order to collect any civil penalties, fees, costs and/or interest owing under this chapter.
Ordinance 04 -013 Article I Section 1.20 Enforcement/Penalties Page 15 of 17
DRAFT
1.20.40. - Abatement.
A. Emergency Abatement: Whenever a condition constitutes an immediate threat to the public health, safety or welfare
or to the environment, the City may summarily and without prior notice abate the condition. Notice of such
abatement, including the reason for it, shall be given to the person responsible for the violation as soon as reasonably
possible after the abatement.
B. Judicial Abatement: The City may seek a judicial abatement order from Spokane County Superior Court, to abate a
condition which continues to be a violation of this code where other methods of remedial action have failed to
produce compliance.
C. The City shall seek to recover the costs of abatement as authorized by this article.
1.20.41. - Code compliance abatement fund — authorized.
A. All monies collected from the assessment of civil penalties and for abatement costs and work shall be allocated
to support expenditures for abatement, and shall be accounted for through either creation of an account in the
fund for such abatement costs, or other appropriate accounting mechanism.
B. Funds needed to abate a violation by the City shall be obtained from the abatement fund.
1.20.42. - Administrative appeals — standing - filing requirements.
A. Any person issued a citation notice of violation or named in a notice and order or stop work order, and any
owner of the land where the violation for which a citation, notice of violation, notice and order or stop work
order is issued eeexi3 d, may file a notice of appeal of the following:
1. citation notice of violation;
2. notice and order;
3. top work order;
13. A complainant who requests to be kept advised (l) -may appeal a determination of
compliance by the Director City.
C. A person that does not meet the requirements of SVZC 14.406.600(A) or (13) above does not have
standing to appeal under this chapter.
D. Any person filing an appeal under this chapter who was issued a citation notice of violation or order, or is the
owner of the land where the violation occurred, shall do so by obtaining the appeal form from the Director -City
and filing the completed appeal form with `hc Di feetor within twenty (20) days of service of the eitstion notice
of violation, notice and order or stop work order. A complainant who appeals the determination of compliance
by the Direeter City must file any such appeal within twenty (20) days of service of the determination of
compliance.
E. Any administrative appeal considered under this chapter will be determined by the Hearing Examiner
pursuant to Spokane Valley Ordinance 57, unless in conflict with specific provisions of this chapter, in which
case the specific provisions of this chapter shall control.
1.20.43. — Administrative appeal — notice of hearing. Upon receipt of a notice of appeal, the City shall
provide a hearing notice stating the time, location and date of the hearing on the issues identified on the notice
of violation, notice and order or stop work order. The City shall mail this notice by certified mail, five -day
return receipt requested, to the person(s) responsible for a violation.
1.20.44. - Administrative appeal — procedures.
A. The appeal hearing shall be conducted as provided for in Spokane Valley Ordinance 57 as adopted or hereafter
amended.
13. Enforcement of any notice and order of the D rreeter City issued pursuant to this article shall be stayed during
the pendency of any administrative appeal except when the Dirceter City, determines that the violation poses a
significant threat of immediate and/or irreparable harm and so states in any notice and order issued.
C. Enforcement of any stop work order issued pursuant to this chapter shall not be stayed during the pendency of
any administrative appeal under this title chapter.
Ordinance 04 -013 Article I Section 1.20 Enforcement/Penalties Page 16 of 17
1.20.46. - Judicial enforcement — petition for enforcement.
A. In addition to any other judicial or administrative remedy, the Office of the City Attorney, on behalf of the City,
may seek enforcement of the Director's City's order by filing a petition for enforcement in Spokane County
Superior Court.
, B. The petition must name as respondent each person against whom the Difeetet -City seeks to obtain civil
enforcement.
C. A petition for civil enforcement may request monetary relief, declaratory relief, temporary or permanent
injunctive relief, and any other civil remedy provided by law, or any combination of the foregoing.
/
DRAFT
)D. When multiple ei ens notices of violation, notices and order or stop work orders have been issued,
simultaneously for any set of facts constituting a violation, only one appeal of all the enforcement actions shall
be allowed.
1.20.45. — Administrative appeal — final order.
A. Following review of the evidence, the Hearing Examiner shall issue a written order containing findings and
conclusions, and shall affirm or modify the eitatien notice of violation, notice and order or stop work order
previously issued if the Hearing Examiner finds that a violation has occurred. The Hearing Examiner shall
uphold the appeal and reverse the citation or order if the examiner finds that no violation occurred.
E. If an owner of property where the violation has occurred has affirmatively demonstrated that the violation was
caused by another person or entity not the agent of the property owner and without the owner's knowledge or
consent, such property owner shall be responsible only for abatement of the violation. Strict compliance with
permit requirements may be waived regarding the performance of such abatement in order to avoid doing
substantial injustice to a non - culpable property owner.
C. The Hearing Examiner's final order shall be final and conclusive unless proceedings for review of the decision
are properly commenced in Spokane County Superior Court within the time period specified by applicable state
law.
D. A final order by the Hearing Examiner affirming, revoking or modifying a eitntien notice of violation, notice
and order or stop work order is a final decision.
Ordinance 04 -013 Article I Section 1.20 Enforcement/Penalties Page 17 of 17
GOVERNING LEGISLATION:
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN:
BACKGROUND:
OPTIONS:
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION:
BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS:
STAFF CONTACT:
ATTACHMENTS
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: 03 - 02 - 04 City Manager Sign -off:
Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing
xxinformation ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE : Mayor Appointments /Council Confirmations
Mayor DeVleminR may propose making committee appointments
s
jUalley
Memorandum
To: Dave Mercier, City Manager
From: Mike Jackson, Parks and Recreation Director
CC: Nina Regor
Date: February 27, 2004
Re: Senior Center Bus
11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 • Spokane Valley WA 99206
509.921.1000 • Fax: 509.921.1008 • cityhall€f'spokanevalley.org
As requested, 1 am providing a cost comparison of contracting bus services versus operating the
Spokane Valley Senior Center Bus for Tuesday and Thursday routes.
In order to simplify this process, the Spokane Valley Senior Center Association (the Association)
Treasurer and 1 agreed to the following assumptions:
• The average number of passengers on Tuesdays and Thursdays is 13.
• The Tuesday/Thursday bus routes take about 5 hours each for a total of 10 hours
per week. The Bus runs a total of 500 hours/year on the Tuesday/Thursday
routes.
• A reasonable life -cycle of a 17 passenger bus is 7 years.
• The existing bus would be eligible for replacement in 2006.
• The estimated maintenance and operating cost of the bus is .50 /mile. This is
roughly based on current IRS vehicle reimbursement cost of $.365 with additions
for low gas mileage, etc.
• The bus runs approximately 40 miles per week for the Tuesday/Thursday route
and about 8,000 miles per year for field trips for a total of 10,000 miles per year.
In the following examples, the replacement cost and the maintenance and operation costs are
borne by the Tuesday and Thursday runs as that is what is actually occurring.
The first example assumes that a replacement bus is funded over the next 3 years (2004, 2005,
and 2006). Costs in the examples are static for ease of comparison. In reality, costs would be
expected to rise and passenger numbers would likely increase as well.
Driver $ 5,625
Annual Replacement Cost $17,300
Annual Operating Cost $ 5,000
$27,925
$27,925 divided by 500 hours annual operation = $55.85 per hour of current operation versus
$15,000 (contracted cost) divided by 500 hours = $30.00 per hour for contract busing.
$27,925 divided by 1300 riders/year = $21.48 per rider per round trip versus
$1.5,000 (contracted cost) divided by 1300 riders/year = $11.54 per rider per round trip for
contracted busing.
The second example reflects the cost of a new bus being funded over 7 years. This would more
closely represent ongoing costs.
Driver $ 5,625
Annual Replacement Cost $ 7,429
A.nnual Operating Cost $ 5,000
$18,054
$18,054 divided by 500 hours annual operation = $36.10 per hour of operation versus
$30.00 per hour for contract busing
$18,054 divided by 1300 riders/year = $13.89 per rider per round trip versus
$11.54 per rider per round trip for contracted busing.
Based on the cost, and the limited capacity of the 17 passenger bus, it is my recommendation that
the City of Spokane Valley not accept the transfer of the bus from the Association.
I would restate my suggestion that the City contribute $4,300 in 2004 toward senior center
transportation. This is approximately the cost the City has already funded for a driver for the
remainder of 2004. If the Association were to choose contracted busing, they would incur
approximately $6,950 in expense in 2004 for the Tuesday and Thursday routes. The Association
is currently charging $1.50 per person for the Tuesday/Thursday routes. This generates an
estimated $1,950 per year which could possibly be used to help offset their costs.
The Association would have the option of selling the bus to help fund contract services or they
can continue to utilize it. However, the limited capacity will be a factor in the number of people
they are able to serve.
With regard to other use, the Association is currently charging about $15 per person in
transportation costs for field trips. This same amount would cover the cost of contracted busing,
i.e. field trips are usually 8 hours @ $30 /hr = $240. If 17 people attend a field trip and pay $15
each for transportation, the Association collects $255 which would pay for the contracted busing.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Meeting Date: 03 -02 -04 City Manager Sign -off:
Item: Check all that apply: 0 consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing
x information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Adult Entertainment Hours of Operation Discussion
GOVERNING LEGISLATION:
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN:
BACKGROUND:
Staff will be presenting to Council, information on legal issues involved with cities limiting the
hours of operation for adult retail facilities. Previously, Council indicated they would like some
information on whether it can be done, and if so, what the process would be.
OPTIONS:
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION:
BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None
STAFF CONTACT: Cary Driskell
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
ATTACHMENTS Will be provided prior to the meeting.
Meeting Date: March 2, 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 Interlocal Agreement Discussion
GOVERNING LEGISLATION:
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: December 16, 2003 Study Session — Wastewater
Interlocal Agreement Draft Discussion, January 13, 2004 — Design Build Operate Discussion,
February 3, 2004 — Wastewater Policies Discussion
BACKGROUND:
Attached is an updated draft Interlocal Agreement between the City of Spokane Valley and
Spokane County Regarding Wastewater Management. We have made the highlighted changes
as a result of discussions at the above previous meetings. The agreement covers the following
major issues:
• Ownership, operations, maintenance and administration of the sewer system.
• The planning, design, and construction of sewers including the Step Program.
• Wastewater treatment plant capacity including construction of a new regional
wastewater facility and the evaluation of the Playfair site as possible site for the new
facility.
• Administration and enforcement of the industrial pretreatment program as required by
the Department of Ecology.
OPTIONS:
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION:
BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS:
STAFF CONTACT: Neil Kersten
ATTACHMENTS
Draft Interlocal Agreement
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
DRAFT
Return to:
Board of County Commissioners
Clerk of the Board
1116 W. Broadway
Spokane, Washington 99206
Interlocal Agreement Between the City of Spokane Valley and Spokane County Regarding
Wastewater Management
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this day of 2004,
by and between the CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, Washington, a municipal corporation of the State
of Washington, having offices for the transaction of business at 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 106,
Spokane Valley Washington, 99206 hereinafter referred to as the "CITY ", and SPOKANE COUNTY, a
political subdivision of the State of Washington, having offices for the transaction of business at 1116
West Broadway, Spokane Washington, Washington 99260, hereinafter referred to as the "COUNTY,"
jointly referred to, along with the CITY, as the "PARTIES."
W1TNESSETH:
WHEREAS, the CITY is located in the Aquifer Protection Area established by the COUNTY by
Ordinance 85 -061 dated July 30, 1985; and
WHEREAS, prior to the incorporation of the CITY, the COUNTY had, with the direction and
approval of the State of Washington Department of Ecology (DOE), begun the extension of sanitary
sewers within the Aquifer Protection Area, which area includes that area now incorporated as the City of
Spokane Valley, following a program to be completed in accordance with the plan developed by the
COUNTY; and
WHEREAS, the COUNTY has created a Utilities Division within the Public Works Department
capable of implementing the completion of the sanitary sewer program to standards acceptable to the
CITY; and
WHEREAS, the COUNTY has prepared and adopted the Spokane County 2001 Comprehensive
Wastewater Management Plan (Plan) for implementation of a sewer program for the Urban Growth Areas
within the Aquifer Protection Area; and
WHEREAS, the CITY wishes to see the completion of the sanitary sewer system to protect and
serve the CITY's residents, businesses, and the aquifer,; and
WtistewaterVaileyAgrecrncnt -Draft 3 -2-04 Page 1 of 13
DRAFT
WHEREAS, the COUNTY has received an Extended Grant from the State of Washington
Centennial Clean Water Fund to be used to reduce the cost impacts of sewer construction in the Aquifer
Protection Area (APA); and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of chapter 36.36 RCW, the citizens of the COUNTY
voted to implement an APA Fee to provide a financing method to preserve, protect, and rehabilitate the
Spokane Rathdrum Aquifer, which Fee will sunset in year 2005 unless it is reauthorized by the voters;
and
WHEREAS, the COUNTY, prior to November 4, 2003, bad historically allocated one -eighth of
1% local option sales tax revenues collected pursuant to chapter 82.14.030(2) RCW to the sewer utility to
subsidize the cost of sewers; and
WHEREAS, the COUNTY has accumulated substantial fund balances in the sewer utility
fund(s) from connection fees, wastewater treatment charges, sales tax allocations and APA Fees; and
WHEREAS, a substantial portion of the APA Fees,_sales tax revenues, connection fees, and
wastewater treatment charges were contributed from within the area of the CITY; and
WHEREAS, the COUNTY has had a policy of assisting property owners in the unincorporated
areas, which included City of Spokane Valley, by reducing the net cost of the Capital Facilities Charge
Rate (CFR) paid by each property within the sewer program; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of chapter 36.94.180 RCW, in the event of an
incorporation of an area in which a county is operating a sewerage system, the property, facilities, and
equipment of such sewerage system lying within the incorporated area may be transferred to the city if
such transfer will not materially affect the operation of any of the remaining county system, subject to the
assumption by the city of the county's obligation relating to such property, facilities, and equipment,
• under the procedures specified in and pursuant to the authority contained in chapter 35.13.A RCW; and
WHEREAS, the COUNTY and CITY are obligated to complete the elimination of septic tanks in
the Urban Growth Area by extending sewer service to all properties within the CITY to the extent
practicable; and
WHEREAS, the COUNTY owns, operates, and maintains all of the existing public sewer system
within the CITY; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to chapter 36.94.170 RCW the CITY has the primary authority for
constructing, operating and maintaining a sewage system within the CITY unless the CITY desires
through written consent that the COUNTY continue to own, operate, and maintain the public sewer
system within the CITY.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual promises set forth herein, the
PARTIES hereto do mutually agree as follows:
SECTION'1: OWNERSHIP, OPERATION, MAINTENANCE AND ADMINISTRATION
1 -1
The CITY authorizes the COUNTY to own, operate and maintain the sanitary sewer system
(System) within the CITY as a public utility, as provided for in chapter 36.94.170 RCW. For
the purpose of this Agreement the terminology "System" shall mean all publicly owned sewers,
manholes, appurtenances, and pumping stations within public rights of way or within public
WastcwaterVai]eyAg Bement -Draft 3 -2 -04 Page 2 of 13
DRAFT
easements within the CITY. If the COUNTY implements a new regional wastewater treatment
plant, as referenced in Section 3 of this Agreement, the new regional wastewater treatment
plant shall become a part of the "System ".
1 -2 The CITY shall grant a franchise to the COUNTY for use of CITY public right of way for the
purpose of providing said sanitary sewer service. The CITY may charge a franchise fee to the
COUNTY for said franchise. If the CITY chooses to charge, or adjust, a franchise fee, the
CITY shall notify the COUNTY in writing not later than September 1 of the preceding year, of
the intent to charge, or adjust, the franchise fee. The purpose of the franchise fee would be to
compensate the CITY for its reasonable costs, expenses, and obligations actually incurred or
contracted which are directly related to and which benefit the System in CITY areas that the
COUNTY serves. An CITY franchise fee ma be recovered from the CITY rate.a ers throe
the process set forth in Sections 1 -8 and 1 -9.
1 -3 The COUNTY shall not enact or impose any tax on gross revenues generated by the System
within the CITY pursuant to chapter 36.94.160 RCW, unless expressly authorized by the
Spokane Valley City Council.
1-4 The CITY initially shall adopt the provisions of Spokane County Code Chapter 8.03 ( "Sewer
Code ") in its entirety. The CITY may adopt future revisions made by the COUNTY to
Spokane County Code Chapter 8.03 within 90 calendar days of the date of adoption by the
COUNTY. Nothing contained herein shall prevent the City Council from exercising its
legislative discretion to amend, modify or repeal. the Sewer Code as deemed reasonably
necessary to serve the best interests of the CITY, provided the City shall not enact legislation
that detrimentally impacts or unreasonably interferes with state or federal permits issued to
operate the System. The CITY shall notify the COUNTY if it chooses not to adopt subsequent
revisions requested by the COUNTY, or if the CITY elects to amend, modify or repeal the
Sewer Code.
1 -5 The CITY delegates authority to the COUNTY to enforce the provisions of Speitafre-Geutity
Cetle-Ghapter 8.03 -Sewer Code within the CITY. COUNTY shall administer, bill, collect and
account for all charges and service fees related to the System. The COUNTY shall be the
primary party responsible for initiating any civil and/or criminal litigation for enforcement
through its own legal counsel. The COUNTY shall be the primary party responsible for
inspection activities, engineering services, legal or other actions necessary to enforce
compliance with the Sewer Code. In the event the COUNTY requests assistance from the
CITY, and the CITY takes action to benefit the System, including but not limited to civil and/or
criminal litigation for enforcement, surveys, studies or property acquisition, the COUNTY shall
compensate the CITY for its reasonable costs, expenses and obligations actually incurred. See
chapter 36.94.170 RCW.
1 -6 All permits issued by the COUNTY for connection to the System shall be reported to the CITY.
The COUNTY will direct sewer installers to the CITY for permits to work in the CITY rights
of way. CITY shall retain all fees for right of way permits.
1 -7 Each year in January, the COUNTY will report to the CITY (i) System extensions completed
for the previous calendar year, (ii) the number of actual connections (ERU) completed the
previous year, and (iii) the total ERU count for the System within the CITY.
1 -8 The COUNTY shall be delegated the authority to administer and enforce connection
requirements to the sewer system, in accordance with the Sewer Code. COUNTY shall submit
WastcwatcrValleyAgreement -Draft 3 -2 -04 Page 3 of 13
DRAFT
an annual report in January of each year listing the number and address of all properties where
sewer service is available but which have not completed the connections to the System.
The COUNTY, through its Board of County Commissioners, will establish, set, and adopt all
fees, rates, and charges thereinafter "rates and charm" for the sanitary sewer system pursuant
to chapters 36.94.140 and 35.67.020 RCW. To the maximum extent possible, rates and charges
will be based on cost of service. Prior to setting rates and charges for the following year, the
COUNTY shall: (1) present its proposal to the CITY for review and comment and (2) consider
the comments of the CITY prior to setting rates. The COUNTY will endeavor to maintain the
cost of sewer construction and treatment plant capacity to serve both C1TY and COUNTY
customers at the lowest practicable cost. To further increase ratepayer confidence in the
COUNTY'S pursuit of the lowest practicable costs. the COUNTY will submit its proposed
rates and charges for an external analysis (second opinion) by a qualified private - sector firm
which was not a party to the preparation of the COUNTY'S proposal for rates and charges.
The analytical report. will he provided to the CITY for consideration. The cost of such analysis
is a reasonable ex s ense of doi.n 7 business and maybe recovered throw ill rates and charges.
1 -10 The fees, rates and charges for customers inside the CITY will be equal to those outside the
CITY, provided that the cost of service is equal. If a franchise fee is charged by the CITY, or if
the cost of service varies substantially for a class of customers .inside the CITY compared to
outside, or if new subsidy revenues are provided to the sewer program by either the CITY or
COUNTY, differential fees, rates, or charges may be adopted. The COUNTY will meet with
the City before adopting differential fees, rates, or charges. In the event that the parties do not
agree on a proposed differential in fees, rates, or charges, they agree to submit the issues to
mediation. The form of the mediation shall be as agreed between the parties.
CITY and COUNTY agree that the future revenues for new treatment plant capacity, upgrades
of the City of Spokane Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant (SAWTP), interceptors and
pumping stations will be generated through a combination of General Facilities Charges
(GFC's) and Wastewater Treatment Plant Charges. CITY agrees that subsidies for GFC's for
new development should be eliminated, and that GFC's and Wastewater Treatment Plant
Charges should be set at a level to generate adequate revenues to pay for new treatment plant
capacity. COUNTY agrees that surplus revenues (above the amount necessary to subsidize
Capital Facilities Rates (CPR's)) in the reserve funds will be used to offset the cost of new
wastewater treatment plant capacity.
1 -12 Annually, prior to submission to the Board of County Commissioners for adoption, the
COUNTY will provide the CITY with the proposed Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and
proposed CPR's for extension and operation of the System within the CITY.
1 -13 For work performed by the Cf fY that relate to the planning and development of additional
treatment facility capacity for the C,iTY as set forth in Section 1 the CITY shall be reimbursed
from the Sewer Reserve Fund.
SECTION 2: PLANNING, DESIGN, AND CONSTRUCTION OF SEWERS
2 -1 To the extent legally permissible, the COUNTY will update the Spokane County
Comprehensive Wastewater_Management Plan (Plan) as necessary to conform to the City of
Spokane Valley Comprehensive (land use) Plan.
Wastew aterValleyAgrecmcnt -Draft 3 -2 -04 Page 4 of 13
DRAFT
2 -2 The COUNTY shall be responsible for diligently pursuing the completion of the sanitary sewer
system and septic tank elimination program (STEP) in accordance with the Plan and the Six
Year Sewer Construction Capital Improvement Program, ( "Program ") as amended annually.
This responsibility shall include the planning, design, and construction of new sewers, as
identified in the Plan, within the System through the life of this Agreement. At least sixty days
prior to adoption of the STEP Plan and the Program the same shall be submitted to the CITY
for review and comment. Prior to the COUNTY commencing any construction under the STEP
Plan or Program. the COUNTY and the CITY shall mutually agree on the STEP Plan or
Program.
2 -3 The COUNTY may extend the System to areas outside of the CITY, provided that adequate
capacity is maintained in the trunk and interceptor sewers to serve properties within the CITY.
Extension of sewer service outside of the CITY shall not cause additional costs to accrue to
CITY sewer users.
2-4 The COUNTY shall restore all CITY streets, in which sewer construction takes place, with full
width reconstruction of the street base, surface and drainage to standards approved by the
CITY, which standards shall not be less than the standards adopted and applied by the
COUNTY prior to incorporation. The CITY shall pay for all additional costs to provide full
width pavement, beyond the normal trench width pavement replacement. The methods used to
establish the scope and budget for full width paving shall be generally consistent with the
methods established m Attachment "A ". At the beginning of each construction season,
COUNTY staff in collaboration with CITY staff will evaluate the condition of streets and roads
within the CITY, and determine the scope and cost for full width pavement in that year's
projects. Full width pavement will not be included in the construction projects until the CITY
and COUNTY staffs' agree in writing to the scope and budget for full width paving. During
the construction period, COUNTY will provide monthly invoices to the CITY for the full width
paving completed, and CITY shall provide payment to the COUNTY within 30 calendar days.
Any late payment will be subject to a penalty based upon lost interest earnings had the payment
been timely paid and invested in the Spokane County Treasurer's Investment Pool.
2 -5 The COUNTY shall continue to actively pursue grants and low interest loans to offset costs of
the sewer construction program. Grants and loans shall be applied proportionally to COUNTY
sewer customers outside and inside of the CITY. CITY agrees to cooperate with and support
the COUNTY in pursuing grants and loans.
2 -6 The COUNTY will pursue the reauthorization of the Aquifer Protection Area Fees as provided
for in chapter 36.36 RC\V to reduce the cost of sewers to users of the Systcm. The CITY,
through the City Council shall consider a resolution to support this effort to obtain additional
funds to reduce the cost of sewers to CITY residents and properties. To the extent required by
agreeing that its boundaries be included within the Aquifer
Protection Area.
2 -7 The COUNTY shall continue to provide a subsidy to the cost of CFR's using the
computational method currently in effect, within the limits of sewer reserve funds available for
the subsidy. A copy of that method is attached hereto as Attachment `B" and incorporated
herein by reference. For the purpose of this Agreement the terminology "Sewer Reserve Fund"
shall mean those monies reflected in Budget Funds 403 and 436, indicated as Beginning and
End Fund Balances. Sewer Reserve Funds are for authorized sewer uses and APA program
uses, and are not solely for the subsidy of Capital Facilities Rates. Neither the COUNTY nor
CITY will —be obligated to contribute any additional funds to support this subsidy. The
WastewatcrValleyAg Bement -Draft 3 -2 -04
Page 5 of 13
DRAFT
COUNTY shall commit a fair and equitable amount of the Sewer Reserve Fund to the capital
facility rates charged the CITY ratepayers_ Prior to allocating the fair and equitable amount
committed to the CITY from the Sewer Reserve Fund to the capital facility rates, the COUNTY
shall receive the consent of the CTTY.
SECTION 3: WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT CAPACITY
3 -1 Currently, wastewater treatment is provided at the SAWTP, for which the COUNTY has a
contract with the City of Spokane for up to 10 million gallons per day of capacity.
The COUNTY acknowledges that a portion of the above referenced wastewater treatment
capacity has been acquired by the CITY properties connected to the System. The COUNTY
shall provide sufficient wastewater treatment capacity to comply with the Comprehensive Plan
of the CTTY.
3 -2 The CITY agrees that the COUNTY will be the lead agency for implementation of a new
regional wastewater treatment plant in the western edge of the Spokane Valley geographic area.
The new regional wastewater treatment plant will be capable of providing wastewater treatment .
capacity to customers in the CITY, the COUNTY, and the City of Spokane. The COUNTY
agrees to evaluate the Playfair Race Track as an alternate preferred site for the new regional
plant, and will prepare amendments to the previously finalized Supplemental Environmental
Impact Statement (SETS) and Wastewater Facilities Plan Amendment report, provided that the
City of Spokane agrees to provide a proportional share of the cost of engineering. The project
will be designed, constructed and operated using the Design - Build- Operate (DBO) delivery
method pursuant to RCW Chapter 70.150. The COUNTY will endeavor to complete the
evaluation of Playfair Race Track on a schedule to facilitate execution of the SRF Loan Offer
that bas been extended to the COUNTY by the Washington Department of Ecology. The
COUNTY will make the final decision on the location and size of the new regional wastewater
treatment plant. The COUNTY will present the draft Facilities Plan Amendment and draft
amendment to the S1?1S to the CITY for review and comment prior to finalizing the documents.
As the lead agency for implementation of the new regional wastewater treatment plant, the
COUNTY will coordinate closely with the CITY. For purposes of this paragraph, the
terminology "coordinate" shall mean formulation of a technical review group, including
representatives from the public works departments of the COUNTY, the CITY, and the City of
Spokane, which will meet on a regular basis to review the progress of work, and to discuss
issues related to the technical aspects of the new regional wastewater treatment plant and to the
project implementation process. A--r-epfesentat±i-ve -f rn . • : - . • r artiei pate-on
the-seleet-ien-eo
wre -
3 -3 Prior to entering, into an agreement with a service provider under RCW 70.150.030 the
COUNTY shall form a DBO Procurement Committee under .RCW 70.150.040Q). The DBO
Procurement Committee utilized by the COUNTY shall include at least one representative
appointed by the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley who shall participate in the DBO
procurement process. The COUNTY shall make the final DBO selection based upon the
Committee recommendation. To insure that the DBO delivery method is the most cost efficient
to the System and the City ratepayers. the COUNTY shall obtain from the Department of
Ecology a determination concluding that the DBO delivery method results in a cost saving to
Wa_StewatcrValleyAgreement -Draft 3 -2 -04 Page 6 of 13
DRAFT
the system, its ratepayers and the desiim, construction and operation of the new Wastewater
Treatment Plant.
SECTION NO. 4: INDUSTRIAL PRETREATMENT PROGRAM
4 -1 The CITY delegates authority to the COUNTY to implement and administer the County's
Approved .Industrial Pretreatment Program ( "AIPP ") in accordance with County, State, and
Federal laws, regulations and requirements. For the purpose of this Agreement the
COUNTY'S AIPP shall mean the Industrial Pretreatment Program dated June 5, 1998 and any
revisions thereto approved by the Washington State Department of Ecology. This authority
shall apply to all properties that utilize the COUNTY'S wastewater collection system located
within the CITY'S incorporated boundaries. The AIPP includes the COUNTY'S Pretreatment
Ordinance as adopted in Chapter 8 .03, Article 4000 "Pretreatment," (in its entirety), and
Sections 8.03.9080, 8.03.9100, 8.03.9160, 8.03.9180, and 8.03.9185 of the Spokane County
Code.
4 -2 The CITY shall adopt the provisions of Spokane County Code Chapter 8.03 Article 4000,
"Pretreatment," (in its entirety), and Sections 8.03.9080, 8.03.9100, 8.03.9160, 8.03.9180, and
8.03.9185 prior to the COUNTY implementing or administering its AIPP within the CITY'S
boundaries. A copy of said Article and Sections are attached hereto in Appendix "A." The
CITY agrees to review, consider and adopt future revisions made by the COUNTY to Spokane
County Code Chapter 8.03, Article 4000 "Pretreatment," (in its entirety), and Sections
8.03.9080, 8.03.9100, 8.03.9160, 8.03.9180, and 8.03.9185 of the Spokane County Code within
90 calendar days of the date of adoption by the COUNTY.
4-3 The CITY delegates authority to the COUNTY to enforce all the provisions of Spokane County
Code Chapter 8.03, Article 4000 "Pretreatment," (in its entirety), and Sections 8.03.9080,
8.03.9100, 8.03.9160, 8.03.9180, and 8.03.9185 of the Spokane County Code within the CITY
as those provisions presently exist or as they may be hereafter revised. The CITY agrees, upon
request of the COUNTY, to make available any of its staff, to include law enforcement, which
may be necessary in conjunction with COUNTY enforcement actions.
SECTION 5: NOTICE
All notices or other communications given hereunder shall be deemed given on: (1) the day such notices or
other communications are received when sent by personal delivery; or (ii) the third day following the day on
which the same have been mailed by first class delivery, postage prepaid addressed to COUNTY at the
address set forth below for such Party, or at such other address as COUNTY shall from time -to -time
designate by notice in writing to the other PARTIES:
COUNTY: Spokane County Chief Executive Officer or his/her authorized representative
1116 West Broadway Avenue
Spokane, Washington 99260
CITY:
City of Spokane Valley City Manager or his/her authorized representative
Redwood Plaza
11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 106
Spokane Valley, Washington 99206
WastewaterValleyAgreement -Draft 3 -2 -04 Page 7 of 13
DRAFT
SECTION 6: COUNTERPARTS
This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which, when so executed and
delivered, shall be an original, but such counterparts shall together constitute but one and the satne.
SECTION 7: ASSIGNMENT
No party may assign in whole or part its interest in this Agreement without the written approval of all other
PARTIES.
SECTION 8: LIABILITY
(a) COUNTY shall indemnify and hold harmless CITY and its officers, agents, and employees, or any of
them from any and all claims, actions, suits, liability, loss, costs, expenses, and damages of any nature
whatsoever, by any reason of or arising out of any negligent act or omission of COUNTY, its officers,
agents and employees, or any of them relating to or arising out of performing services pursuant to this
Agreement. In the event that any suit based upon such claim, action, loss or damages is brought against
CITY, COUNTY shall defend the same at its sole cost and expense; provided that CITY reserves the right
to participate in said suit if any principle of governmental or public law is involved; and if final judgment
in said suit be rendered against CITY, and its officers, agents, and employees, or any of them, or jointly
against CITY and COUNTY and their respective officers, agents, and employees, COUNTY shall satisfy
the same.
(b) CITY shall indemnify and hold harmless COUNTY and its officers, agents, and employees, or any of
them from any and all claims, actions, suits, liability, loss, costs, expenses, and damages of any nature
whatsoever, by any reason of or arising out of any negligent act or omission of CITY, its officers, agents
and employees, or any of them relating to or arising out of performing services pursuant to this
Agreement. In the event that any suit based upon such claim, action, loss, or damages is brought against
COUNTY, CITY shall defend the same at its sole cost and expense; provided that COUNTY reserves the
right to participate in said suit if any principle of governmental or public law is involved; and if final
judgment in said suit be rendered against COUNTY, and its officers, agents, and employees, or any of
them, or jointly against COUNTY and CITY and their respective officers agents, and employees, CITY
shall satisfy the same.
(c) The foregoing indemnity is specifically intended to constitute a waiver of each party's immunity under
Washington's Industrial Insurance Act, chapter 51 RCW, respecting the other party only, and only to the
extent necessary to provide the indemnified party with a full and complete indemnity of claims made by
the indernnitor's employees. The PARTIES acknowledge that these provisions were specifically
negotiated and agreed upon by them.
(d) COUNTY and CITY agree to either self insure or purchase polices of insurance covering the matters
contained in this Agreement with coverages of not less than $5,000,000 per occurrence with $5,000,000
aggregate limits including for ENGINEERS professional liability and auto liability coverages.
SECTION 9: RELATIONSIiIIP OF HE PARTIES
The PARTIES intend that an independent contractor relationship will be created by this Agreement. No
agent, employee, servant or representative of COUNTY shall be deemed to be an employee, agent, servant or
representative of CITY for any purpose. Likewise, no agent, employee, servant or representative of CITY
shall be deemed to be an employee, agent, servant or representative of COUNTY for any purpose.
WnstewaterValleyAgreemeat -Draft 3 -2 -04 Page 8 of 13
DRAFT
SECTION 10: MODIFICATION
This Agreement may be modified in writing by mutual written agreement of the PARTIES.
SECTION 11: DURATION
This Agreement shall be effective as of the date set forth herein above and shall continue until terminated
1 pursuant to Section 1+2.
SECTION 12:. TERMINATION
• • ce-ten-tiet4ec, sent by Pied- mtail, tThe CITY or COUNTY may terminate
this Agreement upon 12 months written notice. sent by certified mail, provided that. termination of this
Agreement shall not occur durinct the period of time between the date of execution by the COUNTY of a
contract with a DLO firm and the completion date of acceptance testing for the new regional wastewater
treatment plant_-
Within fifteen (15) calendar days after receipt of the written notice of termination. and at least once every
two weeks thereafter, the parties shall meet to negotiate the terms and conditions of a Termination
Agreement. The negotiation of the Termination Agreement shall address transfer of assets, transfer of
employees, transfer of fund balance reserves, transfer of contractual obligations, transfer of indebtedness
obligations, establishment of system value, transfer of the new regional wastewater treatment_plant.
determination whether there is a material affect to the operation of any of the remaining COUNTY
system, payments to the COUNTY, and all other aspects of an equitable termination of this Agreement,
and pursuant to chapter 36.94.180 RCW. - - b • - • . • "' " ` - - -
..: s : n- H-met:er-iellly- effeet he
operation of the rcuiuining COUNTY system,
If the parties are unable to reach final agreement on the terms and conditions of a Termination Agreement
within six (6) months from the date of receipt of the notice, non - binding mediation shall occur. The
1 parties shall mutually decide the mediation procedures, dates, and person(s) to conduct the mediation.
Mediation shall be concluded within twelve (12) months from the date of receipt of the notice, unless
mutually agreed otherwise by the parties.
SECTION 13: PROPERTY AND EQUIPMENT
The ownership of all property and equipment utilized by the COUNTY under the terms of this Agreement
shall remain with the COUNTY.
SECTION 14: ALL WRITINGS CONTAINED HEREIN/BINDING EFFECT
This Agreement contains terms and conditions agreed upon by the PARTIES. The PARTIES agree that there
are no other understandings, oral or otherwise, regarding the subject matter of this Agreement.
This Agreement shall be binding upon the PARTIES hereto, their successors and assigns.
SECTION 15: VENUE STIPULATION
This Agreement has been and shall be construed as having been made and delivered within the State of
Washington and it is mutually understood and agreed by each party that this Agreement shall be governed
wastewaterValleyAgreenent -Draft 3 -2 -04 Page 9 of 13
DRAFT
by the laws of the State of Washington both as to interpretation and performance. Any action at law, suit
in equity or judicial proceeding for the enforcement of this Agreement, or any provision hereto, shall be
instituted only in courts of competent jurisdiction within Spokane County, Washington.
SECTION 16: SEVERABILITY
It is understood and agreed among the PARTIES that if any parts, tenns or provisions of this Agreement
are held by the courts to be illegal, the validity of the remaining portions or provisions shall not be
affected and the rights and obligations of the PARTIES shall not be affected in regard to the remainder of
the Agreement. If it should appear that any part, term or provision of this Agreement is in conflict with
any statutory provision of the State of Washington, then the part, term or provision thereof that may be in
conflict shall be deemed inoperative and null and void insofar as it may be in conflict therewith and this
Agreement shall he deemed to modify to conform to such statutory provision.
SECTION 17: RECORDS
All public records prepared, owned, used or retained by COUNTY in conjunction with this Agreement shall
be deemed CITY property and shall be made available to CITY upon request by the CITY Manager.
COUNTY will notify CITY of any public disclosure request under chapter 42.17 RCW for copies or viewing
of such records as well as the PROSECUTOR'S response thereto.
SECTION 18• HEADINGS
The section headings appearing in this Agreement have been inserted solely for the purpose of
convenience and ready reference. In no way do they purport to, and shall not be deemed to define, limit
or extend the scope or intent of the sections to which they pertain.
SECTION 19: STATIONARY
CITY agrees COUNTY will use COUNTY'S stationary in conjunction with meeting its responsibilities
under the terms of this Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date and
year opposite their respective signatures.
DATED: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF SPOKANE, COUNTY, WASHINGTON
ATTEST:
VICKY M. DALTON
CLERK OF THE BOARD
BY:
PHILLIP D. HARRIS, Chair
M. KATE MCCASLIN, Vice-Chair
Daniela Erickson, Deputy JOHN ROSKELLEY, Commissioner
NaetewaterValleyAgreement -Draft 3 -2-04 Page 10 of 13
DRAFT
DATED: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY:
Attest: By:
Its:
City Clerk (Title)
Approved as to form only:
1 City Attorney
WastewnterValleyAgrccmcnt -Drift 3 -2 -04 Page 11 of 13
DRAFT
Al FACANIENT A
TO THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
BETWEEN TEE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY AND SPOKANE COUNTY
REGARDING WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT
.Pavement Removal and Replacement Limits Jor Server Construction
Spokane County will include in its annual sewer construction budget the costs to restore the paving that is
required to be removed for sewer construction, including mainline sewer, manholes, and side sewers.
The City of Spokane Valley may elect to add to the scope of the paving work associated with County
sewer projects. For example, the City may request additional pavement replacement to accomplish full -
width paving, additional road pavement width, and /or extended paving beyond the termination of the
sewer main. The following guidelines shall be used as the underlying basis for determining the County's
share of the asphalt concrete pavement (ACP) removal and replacement costs:
1. The quantity of ACP removed and replaced to construct a section of sewer main between two
manholes shall be determined using the following dimensions:
a) Width: The lesser of 1.8 times the average depth of the sewer along the section of sewer
main, or the existing road width.
b) Length: Manhole center to manhole center, plus an additional fifteen feet beyond each
terminal manhole.
2. The quantity of ACP removed and replaced to excavate the trench for a sewer service stub shall
be determined using the following dimensions:
a) Width: 15 feet
b) Length: Distance from edge of existing pavement to calculated limit of sewer main trench
as determined in 1.a) above.
3. In those locations where ACP removal for the sewer main to the width described in 1.a) above
would leave a strip of existing ACP less than six (6) feet in width, removal and replacement of
that strip of existing ACP will be included in the cost of the sewer project, and shall become part
of the County's share of the cost.
4. In those locations where ACP removal for the sewer main and service stubs, as described in
paragraphs 1 and 2, would leave an area of existing ACP less than 50 square yards in size,
removal and replacement of that area of existing ACP will be included in the cost of the sewer
project, and shall become part of the County's share of the cost.
WastcwaterValleyAgrecmcnt -Draft 3 -2 -04 Page 12 of 13
1
Total Cost of Projects
$12,000,000
+
2
Interim Financing Costs
Estimated at 2%
$240,000
3
Subtotal
=
$12,240,000
4
Grant Funding From WDOE
$3,750,000
5
Subtotal
=
$8.490,000
+
6
General Facilities Charges (GFC)
$4,294,610
7
Subtotal
=
812,784,610
8
Subsidy Funding
@ 25 %
$3,196,152
9
Subtotal
=
$9,588,458
/
10
Estimated Number of ERU's
1711
. 11
Capital Facilities Rate (CFR) per ERU
=
$5,604
CALCULATION OF MONTHLY CFR
1
Estimated Bond Interest Rate
6 %
2
CFR per ERU
$5,604.00
3
Bond Issuance Costs
@ 1.3 %
$72.85
4
Total Amount Financed
=
$5,676.85
5
Resulting Monthly CFR Payment
=
$40.67
DRAFT
ATTACHMENT B
TO THI INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY AND SPOKANE COUNTY
REGARDING WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT
This Attachment illustrates the historical methodology used to calculate and establish the Capital
Facilities Rates (CFR) to be applied for projects within the COUNTY's Septic Tank Elimination Program
(STEP). The numbers used in this illustration are hypothetical and do not relate to any specific data or
year of construction. This illustration does not imply what. CFR amount will be established in future
years.
NOTES:
1. ERU denotes Equivalent Residential Unit
2. The General Facilities Charge, at the unsubsidized rate, is $2,510 per ERU in this illustration
3. Monthly CFR Payment amounts are computed based on 240 payments
4. For Line 8. the subsidy funding is provided from Reserves in Fund 403 and Fund 436
WostewaterVallcyAgrecment -Draft 3 -2 -04 Page 13 of 13
DRAFT
ADVANCE AGENDA
For Planning Discussion Purposes Only
as of February 27, 2004 12:00 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
March 5 — 9, 2004, Congressional City Conference, Washington, D.C.
March 9, 2004 No Meeting
March 16, 2004, Study Session 6:00 p.m. [due date March 5]
1. Proposed Sewer Ordinance Discussion —Neil Kersten (20 minutes)
2. Alcohol Use on Public Property Discussion — Mike Jackson (15 minutes)
3. Discussion Aquifer Protection Area Program Reauthorization —Neil Kersten (10 minutes)
4. Administrative Report Proposed Sidewalk Ordinance —Neil Kersten /Stanley Schwartz (15 minutes)
5. Council Check in — Dave Mercier
6. Advance Agenda Additions — Mayor DeVleming
7. City Manager Comments — Dave Mercier
March 23, 2004 Regular Meeting 6:00 p.m. [due date March 12]
1. CONSENT AGENDA [5 minutes]
2. Second Reading Proposed Towing Ordinance 04 -001 — Cary .Driskell [10 minutes]
3. Second Reading Proposed Amendment Sign Code Ordinance, Institutional Uses — Scott Kuhta [5 minutes]
4. Second Reading Proposed Stormwater Ordinance — Stanley Schwartz [10 minutes]
5. Second Reading Proposed Uniform Development Code re Enforcement & Penalties — Marina Sukup [5 mins]
6. Second Reading Proposed Hearing Examiner Ordinance — Stanley Schwartz [ 10 minutes]
7. First Reading Proposed Sewer Ordinance —Neil Kersten [20 minutes]
8. First Reading Proposed Ordinance Amending Ordinance 40 & 41 (Bldg Code, Fire Code) -
Tom Scholtens [10 minutes]
9. First Reading Proposed Ordinance Adopting Municipal Code — Chris Bainbridge [5 minutes]
10. Motion Consideration: Set Public Hearing for 4t27/04 to Adopt Municipal Code — Chris Bainbridge [5 mins]
11. Spokane Housing Authority Report [15 minutes]
12. Convention Visitor's Bureau Report [15 minutes]
13. Administrative Reports: [no public comment]
a. Formation of Student Advisory Council — Mayor DeVleming [ 15 minutes]
b. Review of Draft Budget Calendar — Ken Thompson [10 minutes]
14. Information Only: [no public comment]
a. Status of Previous Public Comments /Concerns
b. Minutes of Planning Commission
c. Departmental Monthly Reports [estimated meeting time: 140 minutes* ]
J Saturday, March 27, 2004 — Mayor's Ball — Mirabeau Hotel
(10 minutes)
(5 minutes)
(10 minutes)
TOTAL MINUTES: 85
Max mtg time: 150 minutes
Advan.c Agenda — Draft Page 1 of 3
Revised: 227/2004 12:00 PM
:March 30. 2004, Study Session 6:00 p.m. [due date March 191
1. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance Amending Ordinance 40 & 41 (Bldg Code, Fire
(5 minutes)
2. Proposed resolution: Formation of Student Advisory Council - Mayor DeVleming
3. Signage Presentation - Marina Sukup
4. Governance Manual Review Committee Report
5. Precinct Lease Agreement Discussion - Cal Walker
6. Council Check in - Dave Mercier
7. Advance Agenda Additions - Mayor DeVleming
8. City Manager Comments - Dave Mercier
April 6, 2004, Study Session 6:00 p.m. [due date March 261
1. Capital Facilities Funding 2004 & 2005 -Neil Kersten
2. Grading Code Discussion - Tom Scholtens
3. Development Related Policy Issues - Marina SukupfNeil Kersten
4. Council Check in - Dave Mercier
5. Advance Agcnda Additions - Mayor DeVleming
6. City Manager Comments - Dave Mercier
April 13, 2994 Regular Meeting 6:00 p.m.
1. CONSENT AGENDA
2. Second Reading Proposed Sidewalk Ordinance - Stanley Schwartz
3. First Reading Proposed Grading Ordinance - Tom Scholtens
4. Public Comment Signage
5. Second Reading Proposed Sewer Ordinance - Neil Kersten
6. Proposed Resolution Student Advisory Council
April 20, 2004, Study Session 6:00 p.m.
1. Review of Contracts Inventory - Nina Regor
2. Council Check in - Dave Mercier
3. Advance Agenda Additions - Mayor DeVleming
4. City Manager Comments - Dave Mercier
[due date April 21
Code) Tom Scholtens
(10 minutes)
(30 minutes)
(30 minutes)
(15 minutes)
(10 minutes)
(5 minutes)
(10 minutes)
TOTAL MINUTES: 110
Max mtg time: 150 minutes
(30 minutes)
[15 minutes]
(45 minutes)
(10 minutes)
(5 minutes)
(10 minutes)
TOTAL MINUTES: 115
Max mtg time: 150 minutes
[5 minutes]
[10 minutes]
[15 minutes]
[30 minutes]
[10 minutes]
[5 minutes]
[estimated meeting time: 75 minutes* ]
[due date April 91
(20 minutes)
(10 minutes)
(5 minutes)
(10 minutes)
TOTAL MINUTES: 45
Max mtg time: 150 minutes
April 27, 2004 Regular Meeting 6:00 p.m. [due date April 16]
1. PUBLIC HEARING: Adoption of Municipal Code
2. CONSENT AGENDA
3. Second Reading Proposed Grading Ordinance - Tom Scholtens
4. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance Adopting Municipal Code - Chris Bainbridge
5. Administrative Reports: [no public comment]
6. Infomlation Only: [no public comment]
a. Status of Previous Public Comments/Concerns
b. Minutes of Planning Commission
c. Departmental Monthly Reports
[10 minutes]
[5 minutes]
(10 minutes)
[5 minutes]
[estimated meeting time: 30 minutes* ]
Advance Agenda - Draft Page 2 of 3
Revised: 2127!2004 12:00 PM
May 4, 2004, Study Session 6:00 p.m. [due date April 23]
1. Consultant Presentation of Community Survey Results — Greg McCormick (15 minutes)
2. Business License Program Discussion — Ken Thompson (20 minutes)
3. CenterPlace Construction Status — Mike Jackson (10 minutes)
4. Council Check in — Dave Mercier (10 minutes)
5. Advance Agenda Additions — Mayor DeVleming (5 minutes)
6. City Manager Comments — Dave Mercier (10 minutes)
TOTAL MINUTES: 70
Max mtg time: 150 minutes
June 15 —1 2004 AWC Conference Ocean Shores (No Council Meeting .Tune 15, 2004)
Saturday, June 26, 2004 —Half Day Council Retreat
[* estimated meeting time does not include time for public comments]
Advance Agenda— Draft Page 3 of 3
Revisrdi: 7/27/2004 12:00 PM
Attendance:
Couneilmembcrs
Michael DcVleming, Mayor
Diana Wilhite, Deputy Mayor
Dick Denenny, Councilmember
Mike Flanigan, Councilmember
Rich Munson, Councilmember
Gary Schimmels, Councilmember
Steve Taylor, Councilmember
NOTES
SPECLAL MEETING WORKSHOP/RETREAT
SPOKANE. VALLEY CITY COUNCIL
February 7, 2004
9:00 a.rn. — 4:00 p.m.
Staff
Dave Mercier, City Manager
Nina Regar, Deputy City Mgr
Marina Sukup, Comm. Dev. Dir.
Ken Thompson, Finance Director.
Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney
Neil Kersten, Public Works Director
Mike Jackson, Parks & Recreation Director
Cal Walker, Police Chief
Tom Scholtens, Building Official
Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk
City Manager Mercier gave a brief overview of the purpose of this retreat/planning session, that it is a
time for "big picture viewing," and a time to discuss what Council wants, and how and when they want it
as council and staff discuss the trends that will affect operations for the next several years. In summary,
City Manager Mercier said this will be a brainstorming session in a relaxed atmosphere as council and
staff review the draft materials presented.
1. Review of Departmental Work Plans and Submittal Timetables:
a. Legislative and Executive Support (goals and objectives chart)
City Manager Mercier went over the 2004 Organizational Goals and City Manager Objectives, and stated
that the objectives include some tasks identified to begin to satisfy the goals of the Council; and as
indicated by the YIN, the question to consider is, is that the right objective to achieve the goal? Mr.
Mercier said we want to make sure we know the definition of Managed Competition Program and that we
can do this by checking with other entities to see how they have addressed this issue; that in connection
with the Comprehensive Plan, we need a 20 -year plan to make certain we are well acquainted with and
are meeting the requirements of the Growth Management Plan. Mr. Mercier then discussed the other
goals listed on the handout.
I). Public Works: Work Plan, Capital Projects, Key Decisions and Policy Issues
Wastewater Services
Public Works Director Kersten discussed the issue of wastewater management. and spoke of Spokane
County's October 14, 2003 letter regarding the development interlocal agreement; adding that it is his
hope that the draft agreement will be ready for council review by early March. Mr. Kersten also stated
that the 170E has committed for a five year NPDES permit, but that not all negotiations with the EPA
have been finalized as the EPA is not comfortable with that direction. Mr. Kersten said the EPA
considers the river a stressed body of water and has concerns with discharging into the river. Director
Kersten said that staff is attempting to schedule a meeting with the EPA to discuss their concerns, one of
which is use and attainability (UAA) concerning the TM.DL analysis. Mayor DeVleming mentioned that
we also want to project when we will run out of capacity so that deadlines can be set prior to that point;
and for staff to alert council as specific issues arise which could cause major problems. Councilmember
Munson suggested gathering more information from other jurisdictions, and obtaining alternate plans in
case what we have won't meet EPA or other mandated requirements.
Notes, February 7 2004 Council Retreat Page 1 of 4
County Engineering Contract
Discussion turned to the County Engineering Contract, and Director Kersten said the County provides
additional engineering services to the City of Spokane Valley, and that any changes to this document
should be accomplished by June 1, adding that he does not anticipate any further changes at this point.
Develop Six -Year Street Fundinu Plan
Director Kersten said that staff will be gathering data to project total costs and are working on getting the
historical numbers in order to fully understand the maintenance cost including preservation projects for
maintaining neighborhood streets. A goal is to determine cost in order to fully fund the streets, including
maintenance and capital projects, and that pavement management is also a part of that six -year plan.
Update Six Year Transportation Plan
Staff is working to bring a draft plan to council for approval consideration, which plan will include a
three -year list of projects to be funded. Director Kersten also reviewed the list of projects and activities to
be working on this year.
A question arose concerning the corridor right -of -way and Director Kerstcn said that staff is drafting a
letter for Council to send to the County Commissioners that address the right -of -way issue. Council then
turned their attention to the vision statement and upcoming meeting(s) with the Planning Commission. It
was determined that two groups will meet: one group will focus on the vision process for the couplet, and
the other group on the vision of the entire City. Mayor DeVleming suggested forming questions for the
survey and to get Council and the Planning Commission together perhaps on the 23r to discuss the
responses. After Director Kersten went over his remaining work plan, the group took a break at 10:45
a.m., and reconvened at 11:00 a.m.
c. Planning and Community Development.
Develop First Comprehensive Plan
Community Development Director Sukup reported that the development regulations will probably not be
quite as "on- target" as other tasks, adding that upcoming issues such as sidewalks are complex.
Councilmember Denenny said he would like to look at other communities' processes used to identify
areas of problems/challenges in an effort to help avoid those legal challenges, and to determine best
practices. City Manager Mercier added that Deputy Attorney Driskell has been looking at what
procedural problems arise as a result of the processes applied, and Director Sukup said that the Comp plan
involves various other City departments as well as outside agencies, and the concern is to make sure the
implementation regulations follow the comp plan; she also stated we need a draft of the plan before we
can decide the direction to proceed.
Improve Overall Communication
Director Sukup mentioned staff will be continuously working to improve established ordinances.
Councilmember Flanigan mentioned he would like to see in print, what we can do as a city and as a
region, to identify the tools available to accomplish what we want to accomplish, and to do that he feels
we need more specific definition of "economic development." Mayor DeVleming added that he would
like to see what other communities in the state are doing in this regard, and then asked about the schedule
to implement public participation. Director Sukup said we will start meeting with identifiable
neighborhoods and the business community and if changes are made to the sign regulations, there will be
additional public input. Director Sukup mentioned that staff will start going out to meet some of these
civil/social groups beginning the end of the month in an attempt to get invited to their meetings also.
Mayor DeVleming added that he wants to expand council information by seeking input from fellow
councilmembers, City Manager, and Department Heads. Ms. Sukup mentioned staff will also be
conducting a citizen survey to help determine what information we need from the community. She also
asked council to send topics to her concerning areas where they want the community to give us answers,
Notes February 7, 2004 Council Retreat
Page 2 of 4
perhaps via a 10 -12 minute telephone survey. Councilmember Munson said that he will contact the Valley
Rotary Clubs to see if they are amenable to having Director Sukup and/or other staff discuss issues with
them.
Cross Training: Director Sukup said staff will engage in cross training to ensure code enforcement
officers can assist in residential family code compliance. Building Official Scholtens said he spoke with
the electrical division of Labor and Industries and told them the amount of work is more than one person
could adequately handle but not enough work for two to handle; and that he feels it would be inefficient
for the City to take over the electrical program. Mr. Scholtens speculated about the possibilities of
issuing permits at our center by stationing one L&1 employee in our office as we currently do with the fire
inspector, to service our customers by selling permits and to have someone in the office at a particular
time to answer questions. In response to a question about sewer permits, Mr. Scholtens said the County
handles sewer permits and there is no evidence of cooperation from the County; that the County does the
inspection up to the house, and we take the backflow valve and sewer reversal inspections, and that the
public is not happy having to go to both places. City Manager Mercier said if Council wants staff to
explore the possibility of handling sewer permits, perhaps we can extend an offer to the County that we
can extend office space and perhaps use the fire marshal space when not in use.
d. Parks and Recreation
Parks and Recreation Director Jackson said that staff hopes to have an RFQ to submit in a few weeks
regarding the Masterplan. Additionally, Director Jackson said that he hopes to get council direction on
summer programming as staff needs to start reserving space in some of the schools; that his proposal is
similar to last year but hopes to increase participation to make it economically feasible to contract with a
private bus rather than use a van; and that day camps will likely increase from 17 to about 40 participants.
In reference to sport events, Director Jackson said staff has started inventory, and it could be argued that
entities in town could cover privately what we have offered; that he could try to direct interested patrons
to others who have the service, or we could offer it ourselves, like summer camps. He said all programs
for camps are contracted, and that there is no difficulty in cost recovery for direct costs. City Manager
Mercier said that last year's direction was to expand pool use/hours and that was implemented; there were
ancillary programs started last summer and as we move forward, we seek to identify the core functions in
terms of overall recreation programs in the community; that he's noticed a large amount of adult and
youth programs available; and if those services are being offered in the community there is not
necessarily a gap to fill; so the question remains how do we engage in this process without running afoul
of the private sector. Director Jackson said he needs to try to inventory all the extra circulator activities in
the community so we can give council information to make decisions about creating programs to meet
community needs and wants. Council agreed that Jackson should continue to gather information and
work on the master plan. Director Jackson said he feels that over 90% of the program direct costs were
recovered last year, except for the playground program which had no fee; and the pools did not fully
recover all costs, which was expected. Concerning cost of programs, scholarships were mentioned and an
idea was presented concerning giving social service organizations scholarships. Director Jackson also
• said he seeks one or two councilmembers to be on the Senior Center Committee and Mayor DeVleming
asked councilmembers to let Director Jackson know of their interest. Councilmember Schimmcls
indicated his interest as did Councilmember Munson, and Councilmember Munson added that if only one
councilmember is needed, that he need not participate.
e. Police Department
Police Chief Walker explained his department's work plan and discussed cost effectiveness and cost
allocation in relation to the contract, and stated he expects approximately S20,000 to be credited back to
the Police Department. Chief Walker said that the police department is getting a better handle on the
defined partnership with the county, that we identified some things that needed to happen but did not, and
that the County finalizes their budget very late in the process and he's working on how to f some of
Notes, February 7, 2004 Council Retreat Page 3 of 4
those things to get better at projecting budget for future years. Chief Walker said he wants to continue
looking at how other agencies develop their contracts and wants to spend more time putting man hours
into viable public safety issues instead of so much time into the actual contracts. City Manager Mercier
added that the City will maintain service levels equal to that in the unincorporated territory, but there is no
baseline data of service level, so the overall challenge is to define the service level in this and other areas.
Chief Walker said the number of officers per thousand population is not the driving force into bringing a
number recognized as an acceptable level; that staff did an analysis of how many people it would take to
bring us up to that acceptable level and that there is no way to measure that. Chief Walker explained that
the department tracks business on reports generated. He stated he is working on those statistics to report
type of call, area of call, and how long it took officers to arrive on the scene, and then to compile all those
pieces of data into some reasonable way to measure the level of service. City Manager Mercier said we
continue to operate in a data vacuum, making it difficult to accurately measure level of service.
A break was taken at 2:15 p.m.; the meeting reconvened at 2:30 p.m.
f Operations and Administrative Services
Deputy City Manager Regor discussed the work plan and said staff is experimenting with a managed
competition program and hopes to present a draft program to Council in April. Program areas mentioned
to consider included the library, animal control, roads, parks, municipal court, and the jail.
Councilmember Munson said he feels we have not done well in getting the word out about who we are
and what our philosophy is, and that he hopes to be able to develop a community outreach program to
give media news releases. Ms. Regor said staff is using more of a reactive approach to media public
relations. City Manager Mercier said the media is adept at discerning issues of greater concern, and it
might be more effective to continue to have good notice of items that will be discussed by council; that
council does speak with the public as in the "conversations with the community," but that perhaps we
should look at having a regular featured article where council can address certain issues; or have council
volunteer spots in film media or other ways for council to reach out to media to inform them of upcoming
issues. Mr. Mercier added that newsletters are generally more expensive and have little impact; but that
perhaps Council could consider a column letter in the newspapers; and that all can spend some time
thinking about venues where council can go out and offer to be the noontime speaker. Mr. Mercier said
that part of the reason for the advance agenda is to inform the media of upcoming issues. The paperless
agenda option was mentioned but greeted with little enthusiasm, as many councilmembers prefer to have
paper copies upon which to make comments.
g. Finance/Budget Related Issues
Finance Director Thompson discussed the draft five -year financial forecast as shown on his outline, and
said staff keeps track of all programs and how they interrelate to help determine if there is need for other
programs. Director Thompson then discussed the actual sales tax versus the estimated sales tax, the street
funds, general funds, smaller funds and projections, bonding limitations, and the five -year projected
shortfall summary. City Manager Mercier added that there is a vast amount of expense associated with
contract services, and perhaps alternate providers and/or other options could be explored. Finance
Director Thompson then briefly discussed the 2005 budget calendar.
As it was nearing 4:00 p.m., it was decided that items not covered in today's discussion (Facilities and
Contracts, and Community Involvement & Outreach) could be discussed either in study sessions or at
another retreat.
The meeting adjourned at 4:00 p.m.
Respectfully submitted
Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk
Notes, February 7, 2004 Council Retreat Page 4 of 4
Attendance:
Councilmernbers
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 AND
SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION
February 23, 2004, 6:00 p.m.
Staff Planning Commissioners
Dave Mercier, City Manager Bill Gothmann, Chair
Nina Regor, Deputy City Mgr Ian Robertson, Vice -Chair
Marina Sukup, Comm. Dev. Dir. Fred Beaulac
Greg McCormick, Long Range Planning Mgr. Bob Blum
Scott Kuhta, Long Range Planner
Neil Kersten, Public Works Director
Steve Worley, Senior Engineer
Ken Thompson, Finance Director
Don Ramsey, Traffic. Engineer
Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk
David Crosby
Gail K.ogle
John Carroll
WELCOME, INTRODUCTION, AND COUPLET SURVEY RESULTS:
Deputy City Manager Regor welcomed everyone to the meeting, and gave a brief summary of the five
alternatives for the Valley Couplet. She stated that the purpose of tonight's meeting is to review the results of
the survey and to review and discuss the corridor alternatives. In her PowerPoint presentation, Ms. Regor
explained the survey results, and as an aside, mentioned that there was no survey question asking about
reverting the couplet as staff was looking for greater dimension of the issue. She stated that concerning the
results shown on page 9, several respondents asked for more consideration of the east/west traffic pattern along
the corridor. Planning Commission Chair Gothmann said that the question addressed the entire couplet length,
but that there may be different solutions for different parts of the city as it all does not need be pedestrian
friendly. Regarding the question shown on page 12, Ms. Regor stated that most respondents felt other criteria to
be used should include public input, future transportation needs and growth, and future populations. Ms. Regor
said that the "no" responses shown on page 13 were because others felt general road maintenance, the
wastewater treatment plan, and single projects like Barker Road and Bridging the Valley should be taken into
consideration. Concerning responses on page 14, Councilmember Taylor said he feels we should not limit this
issue to just one area for a city center, as there are other possibilities such as Mirabeau Point. Ms. Regor stated
that plans are to study various options for a city site.
Ms. Regor reminded everyone that these are preliminary results and the topic deserves and will receive much
more in -depth conversation. Other suggestions of topics for further research, review and discussion included the
impact of the east/south corridor on the Sprague Corridor; gateways into the City; pedestrian friendly areas;
sidewalks; doing the project in stages with specific stage goals; traffic patterns, traffic counts, traffic modeling,
and projected population growth.
Couplet Alternatives Presentation
Public Works Director Kersten gave his PowerPoint presentation on couplet options, stating the tonight's ideal
is to narrow the options down to two or three, and then have further study done on those options. Mr. Kersten
said two prominent issues tonight are what to do with the existing couplet, and whether to extend the couplet .
east of University. The pros and cons of each of the five options were discussed at length. Highlights of issues
discussed for those options included:
Option 1: leave as is with transition back to have a smooth return; improve and upgrade major intersections such
as Pines and Sprague, and Sullivan and Sprague; curbs from University on to the east; limited rear access;
round - abouts or other traffic calming devices; an access lane east on Sprague; and temporary or immediate
changes.
Joint Planning Council /Planning Commission 2 -23 -04 Page 1 of 2
Option 2: this is the proposed project as the county envisioned it; even traffic use west and eastbound; traffic
calming on both sides; links to other communities such as Liberty Lake; positive and negative business impacts;
fast thoroughfare; and how this option fits in with wherever the City Center would be.
Option 3: little enthusiasm for this option.
Option 4: medium speed, limited access; expense in changing signaling; difficulty in predicting traffic on this
option.
Option 5: discussed not wanting to do option 1 now and 15 years later, do this option; businesses want to know
what to expect long -term; use of commuter traffic lanes in the morning with scheduled shifting throughout the
day somewhat like a frontage or boulevard; and the wideness of Sprague and what can be done to meet the
needs of travelers.
Voting results of Council and Planning Commissioners on the options:
Option 2: 16 votes
Option 2A (includes a frontage lane): 11 votes
Option 5: 12 votes
Option 4: 3 votes
Director Kersten said staff will conduct further study on the top three options including cost analysis, and hopes
to have this information for the next joint meeting. He added that the SRTC committee met a week ago and they
will be working on traffic modeling for a public presentation.
ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
Deputy City Manager Regor then turned discussion to page 16, economic analysis, and how to make Sprague
Corridor as economically viable as possible. Ms. Regor explained that for discussion purposes, the most
economically viable means for City expense; that there are several options to consider such as cost of upgrades
to specific streets which are not included in the TIB funding, and that the pros and cons for the various
alternatives should all be weighed from an economic standpoint. The discussion moved to zoning and
transportation issues, including light industrial and high - density housing. City Manager Mercier said that
general recognition is that land use planning should precede transportation decisions, and we should start
addressing some land use issues and pair that with the transportation issues and then move on to have more
concrete information and more valuable data with which to work. He added that staff suggests to have higher
quality economic analysis of decisions along the corridor, we look at a wider circle of events, but not to
confused that with performing an economic analysis along all borders of the community. Ms. Regor said that an
economic analysis could be completed by a local firm, someone from one of the Universities, or from a firm
outside the area. Mr. Mercier said we need to define the parameters of the study do ascertain what we want
answered, or what we want to learn from the study, and that perhaps Council should consider having the study
conducted by one of the Universities in order to prevent any undue bias.
SCHEDULE
Ms. Regor went over the proposed timeline of meetings, and said that staff is attempting to schedule another
joint meeting perhaps in March.
HOUSEKEEPING:
Ms. Regor distributed copies of a memo containing three draft vision statements and stated the next meeting
should discuss refinement of these statements. Mr. McCormick distributed copies of a memo itemizing general
topics for a community survey, and asked that any feedback be directed to him, Ms. Regor, or Ms. Sukup.
There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Christine Bainbridge, CMC
City Clerk
Joint Planning Council/Planning Commission 2 -23 -04 Page 2 of 2
Spokane Valley Planning Commission
Approved Minutes
Council Chambers — City Hall 11707 E. Sprague Ave.
February 12, 2004
I. CALL TO ORDER
Bill Gothmann, Planning Commission Chair, called the meeting to order at
6:30 p.m.
II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Commission, audience, and staff recited the Pledge of Allegiance.
(111. ROLL CALL
Fred Beaulac — Present
Bob Blum — Present
David Crosby — Present
Gail Kogle — Present
VI. PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no public comment.
Bill Gothmann — Present
Ian Robertson — Present
John G. Carroll — Present
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Commissioner Carroll moved that the February 12, 2004 agenda be approved
as presented Commissioner Robertson seconded the motion. Motion passed
unanimously.
V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
It was moved by Commissioner Robertson and seconded by Commissioner
Beaulac that the minutes of the January 22, 2004 Planning Commission
meeting be approved as presented. Motion passed unanimously.
VII. COMMISSION REPORTS
Commissioner Robertson is a member of the Central Valley Weed and Seed
Project Steering Committee. The Greenacres area has been targeted for a
potential $240,000 annual grant extending over five years. Weed and Seed
Projects strive to weed out cringe and seed positive community programs in order
to provide a safe haven for area children. Central Valley SCOPE will be the
official non -profit agency to handle the grant funds.
Commissioner K_ogle attended the Light Rail Citizens Advisory Committee. She
received some handouts at that meeting that she wants to share with
Commissioners, and will bet then to Ms. Alley for duplication and distribution.
Commissioner Beaulac noted a recent newspaper comparison between the City of
Spokane Valley and the City of Lakewood on the Washington Coast. One of the
techniques the City of Lakewood used to develop their Comp Plan was taking
pictures of what they liked and disliked about their city. He has a copy of the
Lakewood Comp Plan on CD. Copies of the Lakewood Plan will be made
available to all interested Commissioners.
Commissioner Gothmann attended the Mayor's recent community meeting in the
Greenacres area. The discussion centered around the Appleway /Sprague Couplet.
He complimented the Mayor for arranging these types of meetings. He also noted
that the City of Spokane Valley's sign has finally been installed on the signboard
outside City Hall.
VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS
Director Sukup reported that the City Council approved the recommended
changes to the Planning Commission Rules of Order.
Two minor changes to pages 11 and 12 were made to the proposed Floodplain
Ordinance. City Council advanced it to its second reading.
Director Sukup asked for one or more Commissioners to work with our Planning
staff., along with Planning staff and Commissioners from the City of Spokane and
Spokane County, to develop some plans for the Moran Prairie area. This task is
estimated to take 3 -4 weeks of their time.
Commission involvement was sought in setting up Citizen Participation meetings
throughout the community for assistance with the Comp Plan process. Director
Sukup encouraged Commission members who belong to social groups, churches,
neighborhood associations or other community -based service organizations to
help set up meetings for staff to give a presentation on the Comp Plan process.
Commissioner Robertson volunteered to work with Director Sukup on this
project. Commissioner Crosby volunteered to set up some meetings with groups
of Realtors. The Lakewood Comp Plan idea of gathering pictures from citizens of
what they like and dislike about the City of Spokane Valley might be a good
resource for preparing the presentations and, ultimately, the Comp Plan.
The Commission was asked to submit survey topics relevant to the Comp Plan.
There will be a third Joint Meeting with the City Council and the Planning
Commission on February 23, 2004, at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers.
Commissioners were encouraged to answer the survey sent to them by the Deputy
City Manager in preparation for this meeting. Mr. McCormick has received
confirmation of attendance from all Commissioners except Mr. Robertson and
Mr. Carroll. There will be Visioning Task Force meetings on February 1 8 and
19 review earlier Couplet discussions.
2
0
CJ
The Countywide Planning Policies are under review by the Planning Directors
within Spokane County. This review was requested by the Steering Committee of
Elected Officials. The review process is expected to take about six weeks.
A second Code I�nforcement officer is scheduled to be hired within the next
month. Over 100 applications for the position were received.
A full -time Administrative Assistant will be hired for the Public Worlcs
Department, which will free Ms. Alley to become the full -time Community
Development Administrative Assistant.
IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS
A. OLD BUSINESS: Continuation of International Building Code
Public Hearing Conclusion
Commissioner Gothmann opened the continuation of Commission
deliberation regarding the proposal to adopt the International Building
Code.
Building Official, Tom Scholtens, explained to the Commission that one
minor revision regarding the base flood elevation "plus one foot" was
made to the Code since it was presented on January 22 "
Commissioners were satisfied that their questions from the last meeting
were answered. Commissioner Beaulac asked if the adjoining Western
States had adopted the International Building Code, and Mr. Scholtens
assured them that many had already done so or were in the process of
doing so.
Commissioner Kogle moved that the Planning Commission recommend
adoption of the International Building Code as presented, effective July
1, 2004, to the City Council Commissioner Robertson seconded the
motion. Motion passed unanimously.
The Planning Commission thanked Mr. Scholtens for his good work on
this matter.
B. NEW BUSINESS:
Public Hearing — Ordinance to Amend Spokane Valley Ordinance #40
and Spokane Valley Ordinance #41
Building Official, Tom Scholtens gave the Planning Commission a brief
overview of this proposal to delete current language and adopt the
language found in the 2003 International Building Code with regard to
sprinkler systems and fire safety. The present Ordinances #40 and #41
mandate fire sprinklers in all buildings containing over 8000 square feet of
floor area. They also mandate retrofitting sprinklers in any building that
has an addition put on which increases floor area above or beyond 8000
square feet. This is an overzealous approach to fire suppression, and there
are alternative ways to provide for fire safety in larger buildings.
Amending the present code will provide contractors a gentler
transformation to the new code taking effect on July 1, 2004. This
amendment will apply to new construction as well as alterations to
existing buildings.
The Hearing was opened to Public Testimony at 7:10 p.m. There was no
public testimony on this proposed amendment.
Commissioner Carroll wanted to make certain that the new Building Code
contains adequate fire suppression regulations. Director Sukup and
Building Official, Scholtens, assured him that it does.
It was moved by Commissioner Crosby that the Planning Commission
recommend approval of the amendments to Ordinances #40 and #41, as
presented, to the City Council. Commission Blum seconded the notion.
Motion passed unanimously.
X. FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER
The next Planning Commission meeting will be held on Thursday,
February 26, 2004 at 6:30 p.m. Commissioner Robertson will not be in
attendance.
Commissioner Crosby initiated a discussion regarding Planning
Commissioners' discretion when speaking to the public regarding their
personal thoughts and agendas. He and several other Commissioners fear
that the voice of one Commissioner is often construed as the voice of the
entire Commission, when in fact this is seldom the case. Copying emails
to a large distribution list exacerbates this type of situation. Several
Commissioners disagreed with this perception and voiced their thoughts
on the subject. A lively debate followed. The Commission agreed that
neutrality in soliciting and sharing information from the public is key to its
mission.
XI. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:35 p.m.
SUBMITTED: APPROVED:
Debi Alley, Administrative Assistant William H. Gothmann, Chairman
4