Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2004, 03-16 Study Session
.I March 16, 2004 DISCUSSION LEADER Senior Center Bus [public comment] Weed and Seed Grant Edgeclif'f Community Weed & Seed Steering Committee Proposed Sewer Ordinance Aquifer Protection Area Program Reauthorization 5. Mike Jackson (15 minutes) Alcohol Use on Public Property 6. Ken 'I'botnpson (10 minutes) Draft Budget Calendar Review 1. Mike Jackson (15 minutes) 2. a. Cal Walker (10 minutes) b. Rick Scou (15 minutes) 3. Neil Kersten (20 minutes) 4. Neil Kers (10 minutes) 7. Cary I)riskell (10 minutes) Please Turn Off All Electronic Devices During the Meeting SUBJECT /ACTIVITY 8. Chris Bainbridge (5 minutes) Official Newspaper 10. Dave Mercier (5 minutes) 11. Dave Mercier (5 minutes) Study Seth= Ageadr. 03.14 -O4 AGENDA CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL WORKSHEET STUDY SESSION CITY HALL AT REDWOOD PLAZA 1 1707 East Sprague Mcnnc, First Floor Update on Liberty Lake Appeal of our 2003 Amendments to our Interim Comp Plan 9. Mayor DeVlcming (5 minutes) Advance Agenda Additions Council Check -in City Manager Comments GOAL 6:00 p.m. Motion Consideration Discussion/Information Presentation/Information Discussion/Information Discussion/Information Discussion/Information Discussion/Information Discussion/Information Discussion/Information Discussionll nformation Discussion/Information D isc u ss i on/I n format i o n Note; At Council Study Sessions, there will be no public comments„ except Council reserves the riglit to request information from the public and staff as appropriate. NOTICE: Individuals planning to attend the nesting who require special assistance to accommodate physical. heating. at other impairments, please ccxttact the City Clerk at ( 509) 921 -1000 u soon as possible so that arrangements may be made Page 1 at' 1 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: March 16, 2004 City Manager Sign -off: Item: Check all that apply: 0 consent ❑ old business ❑ new business 0 public hearing xx information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Senior Center Bus GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: In 1999, the Spokane Valley Senior Citizen's Association donated a Starcraft Al!star 17- passenger bus to Spokane County. In return, the County operated the bus for the Senior Center. The County is now transferring the bus back to the Association. The expected date of the transfer of March 1, 2004 has been extended by the County for 60 days to on or about May 1, 2004. OPTIONS: (1) Assist the Spokane Valley Senior Center in the cost of accepting responsibility for Senior Center transportation. Upon proper documentation, the cost of the driver (up to a maximum of $4,300) would be subtracted from the annual payment ($12,000) that the Association currently pays to the City. This amount is comparable to the funds the City would have expended on a driver for the bus for the remainder of 2004. (2) Don't provide financial assistance when the bus is transferred back to the Senior Center Association. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Direction to staff BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Maximum cost to City of $4,300. Additional impacts described in attachment. STAFF CONTACT: Mike Jackson, Parks and Recreation Director ATTACHMENTS Senior Center Bus Situation Memorandum of 2/11/04 Senior Center Bus Memorandum of 2/27/04 s Valley Memorandum To: Dave Mercier, City Manager From: Mike Jackson, Parks and Recreation Director Date: February 11, 2004 Re: Senior Center Bus Situation 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 • Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.921.1000 • Fax: 509.921.1008 • cityhatt@spokanevalley.org As you know, Spokane County is in the process of returning the 1999 Starcraft Allstar Bus to the Spokane Valley Senior Citizens Association. The county's intent is to transfer the title on March 1, 2004, Mr. Leon Horton, President of the Association has indicated to me that the Association will purchase insurance, and will operate and maintain the bus. However, Mr. Horton has also asked if it would be possible for the City of Spokane Valley to continue to supply the driver, I explained to Mr, Horton that Washington Cities Insurance Authority has strongly recommended against the City supplying a driver for a bus owned by the Association. A possibility to help smooth the transition for the Association would be for the City of Spokane Valley to provide the funding for the driver for 2004. The funds, up to a maximum of $4,300 for the year, are currently budgeted by the City for the bus driver. These funds are exclusively for the Tuesday and Thursday bus route, The Association is already responsible for all other driver costs associated with special events and field trips. Currently, the City has been providing the driver and billing the Association for all time outside of the Tuesday and Thursday routes, When the transfer takes effect, the City will also save the current cost of maintaining the bus which is estimated at $3,420 per year. If the allowance of $4,300 is approved, I recommend, upon proper documentation, that the funds be subtracted from the annual payments of $12,000 which are due from the Association to the City, in 2004. Also, upon approval, the City will need to provide formal notice to the bus driver, Mr. Charlie O'Neil that his position with the City will terminate on February 28, 2004. Please review and I will be happy to discuss further as needed. Spokane Valley Memorandum To: Dave Mercier, City Manager From: Mike Jackson, Parks and Recreation Director CC: Nina Regor Date: February 27, 2004 Re: Senior Center Bus Driver $ 5,625 Annual Replacement Cost $17,300 Annual Operating Cost $ 5,000 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 • Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.921.1000 • Fax: 509.921.1008 • cityhall®spokanevalley.org As requested, J 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 I 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 RS 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. $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 $15,000 (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 Annual 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. 1 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. lithe 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. s �� r Memorandum To: Dave Mercier, City Manager, and Councilmembers From: Cal Walker, Police Chief Date: March 4, 2004 Re: Central Valley Weed and Seed 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 • Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.921.1000 • Fax: 509.921.1008 • cityhall®spokanevalley.org In recent weeks, I briefed the City Council on the possibility of a grant- funded opportunity being worked on by the Spokane Valley Police Department in conjunction with the U. S. Attorney's Office, Central Valley School District and a number of businesses throughout our Valley community. In actively pursuing these types of federal grants, one of the partners is SCOPE (Sheriff's Community Oriented Policing Effort). In existing grants that are similar to this Weed and Seed that is being pursued, the fiscal partner who manages and allocates the funding through the grant process in the past has been the Spokane County Sheriff's Office, partnered with SCOPE to provide that fiscal management. In the very near future, 1 will be coming before the Council again to ask the Council's direction on the City of Spokane Valley and the Spokane Valley Police Department being the lead fiscal agent along with SCOPE as a non -profit organization. One of the things that is required as pout of any of these types of federal grants is a very stringent federal auditing requirement. Once the City of Spokane Valley has been the recipient of up to 5500,000 in federal monies, there is an audit process that must be undertaken on the part of the City. If we were to be awarded these future grants for the Central Valley Weed and Seed project, we would become part of that auditing process. This administrative report is to inform the Council that this would be the direction requested by the Spokane Valley Police Department, and in talking with the Financial Department, the City of Spokane Valley is at that 5500,000 benchmark, which would necessitate the audit being done as previously described. In the future, we will be coming before the Council to explain the actual monetary process that we would go through, should we be awarded this grant process. We are. in the continuing stages of developing the sub - committees that are directed by the Steering Committee, and in pursuing this grant will be conducting the public survey portions very soon. We will be identifying specific areas to focus on in this project. It is my intention to keep the Council fully informed of this project as we progress through the different phases of growing into utilizing federally - funded grants and the opportunities they provide for our community, along with the partnering between law enforcement, businesses and other organizations within our community to make this a safer and better place to live. CaII to Order — 6:00 Treasurers Report: New Business office. CENTRAL VALLEY SCOPE BOARD MEETING AGENDA 314104 Additions or corrections to the Agenda - None Adjourn Beginning Balance 1322.48 Receipts 891.30 Checks 288.00 Ending Balance 1925.78 Report on New Members and Vote on Acceptance - None Old Business Weed and Seed update Elections — Chair of elections portion of meeting. Gary Wheeldon . will chair. Authorized unanimously to provide a $50 petty cash fund for the Catching up on old minutes and Treasurers Reports Tuesday night at 7:00 at the SCOPE Station. Plan for distributing Neighborhood Watch Newsletters — Will distribute on Saturday, March 6. Call to Order: 7:08 Flag Salute Drawing Tickets Introduction of New Members — Bob Morehouse was introduced as a potential new member. His application will be faxed tonight. Board Meeting Report— Rick reported on business conducted in the board meeting. Projects: Neighborhood Watch Newsletter Distribution — We will meet Saturday morning at 9:00 to distribute to 140 Block Watch Captains. Training: March 20, will be Basic Training and COP Announcements: CV SCOPE was the only station that turned in money for the drug dogs as of last EAC. Springhill Game Night — Fundraiser — March 19, 2004 6:00 — 7:00 Spaghetti Feed 7:30 — 9:00 Games and Raffle Neighborhood Watch Org Training — Distributed with Agenda — no electronic copy available, so not attached to these minutes. Need SIRT Volunteers as "dispatchers" Block Watch Party on May 20, 6:30 — 8:00 at Valley Nazarene Church May 8 -15 volunteers needed for survey distribution. Recognition Tanya Walker attended our meeting and recognized our station as "the best" Old Business Elections Further Nominations — None Elections were held. New 2 year board members are Marilyn Cline and Deanna Hormann. 1 year board members are Janet Nead, James Durham and Rick Vermeers New Business - None CENTRAL VALLEY SCOPE GENERAL MEETING AGENDA 3/4/04 COP — Next Group COP will be coordinated with input from Tanya. Drawing — Marilyn Cline won the gift - Again Adjourn 7:50 Minutes of C.V. WEED AND SEED MEETING #2 February 3, 2004 Valley Precinct The meeting was called to order at approximately 1:30 p.m. by Lt. Steve Jones of the Spokane Sheriff's Office. Steve welcomed the attendees and asked that everyone introduce themselves. A list of persons in attendance is attached. A Grant Overview handout was distributed, and Steve touched briefly on the goals of Weed and Seed, its fundamental principles, key elements of the strategy, key players, the five basic planning stages in developing the strategy, and steps involved in achieving official recognition. He noted that we are currently in Stage 2, "Select or confirm the designated neighborhood ", to be completed at today's meeting, with the next step being Stage 3, "Conduct a community assess- ment of the designated neighborhood." U. S. Attorney Jim Shively was asked to address some of the concerns that had been mentioned. He noted that Weed and Seed is more than just a grant, that what the Department of Justice is looking for is "community building " - -a strategy to bring the community together to focus on community problems and community solutions. He also noted that one of the first things the Steering Committee needs to do is get more non - institutional representatives involved, to include more "ordinary" citizens —those who live in the targeted area, who will hopefully benefit from the services that develop from the program. He stated that the community assessment, or survey, should ask what are the problems, and are you interested in participating in solving those problems. He explained that two subcommittees (Weed Committee and Seed Committee) would need to be fomied, and he would really like to see folks from the community involved in these two committees. He stated that once a community is officially recognized as a Weed and Seed site, this does not mean it is funded, but funding can then be applied for. Most sites are designed to be a five -year program but are designed to continue on without federal funding. He also noted that inclusion of a "Safe Haven" for kids is almost a requirement for recognition. Bonnie Abernethy of S.C.O.P.E. and Laurie Sheffler of the Central Valley School District reported on some of the preliminary work they had done in assessing the boundaries of the area to be included, in preparation for a community survey. Bonnie further described some of the situations experienced by Edgecliff S.C.O.P.E. in its successful pursuit of Official Recognition and federal funding. Cal Walker of the Spokane Valley Police Department / Sheriff's Department stated that whether or not the program received federal funding, the Sheriff's Office is determined to go forward with the strategies under discussion. "The Sheriff's Office is going to get right out in front and push this, but the funding would help us go out and do bigger and better things," said Walker. Rick Scott, coordinator of Edgecliff Weed and Seed, spoke a few minutes on the Edgecliff experience. He too stressed the importance of the involvement of community members, especially in the beginning stages of the process. He stated that both Pratt School and the S.C.O.P.E. station were listed as Safe Havens in the Edgecliff application. After some discussion, U. S. Attorney Shively and Police Chief Walker were named as co- chairs of the Steering Committee. Steve Jones noted that he has spoken with Mike Erp at Washington State University. WSU will could be used to work in partnership with the Central Valley Weed and Seed in ongoing evaluations of the program, as well as possibly providing assistance with the community survey and other areas. Cal Walker mentioned that Chuck Potter would be using the Valley Precinct to put on "Employment" seminars for the community. Steve said he would get the curriculum, and agreed that programs such as this would be helpful in providing the "sustainability" needed. A map of the Spokane Valley was on display, indicating areas of criminal activity, along with maps of the Proposed Greenacres Weed and Seed. A general discussion followed, and the boundaries agreed upon are shown on an attached map. Chris Berg of the Spokane Valley City Code Enforcement stated that once the boundaries are established, he can furnish a map showing code violations in the area. A general discussion was held on various aspects of the program. Glenn Bishop of the Boys and Girls Club discussed some of the long -range plans of the Club and how these plans might fit with the project. In making a decision of when to hold the next meeting, Jim Shively noted that it would be a good idea to move forward as rapidly as possible because of the time lines involved. He stated that the Letter of Intent to apply for Official Recognition is due by August 31, and the application for Official Recognition must be submitted to the U. S. Attorney's Office for review by October 31. The next meeting will be held on Thursday, February 12 at 1:30 p.m. at the Valley Precinct. Jones, Steve Dalpae, Mollie Abernethy, Bonnie Sheffler, Laurie Bishop, Glenn Vermeers, Rick Walker, Cal Shively, Jim Berg, Chris Jackson, Mike Larsen, Esther Goss, Shelley Scholtens, Tom Cline, Marilyn Scott, Rick Attendees, 02/03/04 meeting, Valley Precinct Spokane Sheriffs Office Spokane Valley City Community Cntr S.C.O.P.E. Central Valley School Dist. Boys and Girls Club Central Valley S.C.O.P.E. Spokane Valley City P.D. U. S. Attorney Spokane Valley City Code Enforcement Spokane Valley City Parks Spokane Co. Sheriffs Office - GRANTS Spokane Valley Parks City of SV Building Off. C.V. S.C.O.P.E. Edgecliff Weed & Seed 477 -3217 927 -1153 477 -4717 228 -5400 489 -0741 495 -8057 477 -3310 353 -2767 921 -1000 921 -1000 477 -5709 921 -1000 688 -0024 928 -4771 220 -6365 spjones(a7spokanesheriff.orq mdalpae(a�aoI,com babernethye,spokanesherifora Isheffler(a�cvsd.orq gbishop(0 becspokanecounty.org Rick.vermeerseavistacorp.com calwalker(a spokanesheriff.orq james.shivelyusdoi.00v cberq(a spokanevalley.orq mjackson(a)spokanevallev.orq elarsen(a�spokanesheriff.orq sgoss@sookanevallev.org tscholtensespokanevalley.orq dualsi a(�netzero.net grscott951emsn.com G.V. WEED AND SEED MEETING #3 February 12, 2004 Valley Precinct Roll Call Room Steve Jones called the meeting to order at approximately 1:30 p.m. IIe welcomed the attendees and asked that everyone give their name and who they represent. A list of persons in attendance is attached. Chief Walker introduced Chuck Potter as a new member of the Steering Committee. He stated that Chuck plans a series of free seminars / classes to address problems of unemployment and underemployment, with the first to be held in the courtroom facility at the Valley Precinct on Friday, February 27, from 9:00 a.m. to 12 noon. Cal stated that the first class would be for adults, with future plans for a youth / college age class. Chuck explained that the purpose of the classes is to "help people rediscover their own unique abilities and take responsibility for creating their own value in the workplace ". He asked that if those present know someone who is either unemployed or underemployed who might benefit from these classes, to please refer names of those people. Cal asked that the names be given to Sharon Jones, his staff assistant, telephone 477 -3331. Cal further stated that classes such as this can provide measurable results that will be helpful in an evaluation of Weed and Seed successes in the future. Steve said he is still anticipating participation in the Weed and Seed project from WSU, perhaps with the assignment of a graduate student to attend meetings and assist with ongoing evaluation. He also welcomed Doug Cooper of Sports USA to the committee. There was discussion of the types of representatives the Steering Committee may still need, and suggestions included a senior high school student, someone from HUD or other low -cost housing group, a landlord who is involved in rental property, and another minister from inside the boundary area. Bonnie will be calling someone from low -cost housing. Cal thinks there may be a local Landlord Association who might provide a representative, and Chris Berg said he would check on this prior to the next meeting. Laurie Sheffler will try to have a student attend. Ian Robertson will get in touch with a minister suggested by Cal. A large map showing site boundaries was placed on the wall for review, as well as a Household Income map for the same area, furnished by Chris Berg of Spokane Valley Code Enforcement. The average annual household income as shown on the map for the area was predominantly in the $30,000 to $40,000, and $40,000 to $50,000, range, however it was emphasized that these figures should not be taken as absolute, that it would be best to acquire this information from the upcoming survey. A suggestion was made that if information could be acquired from the Adult Protection and Child Protection Services, it could be very helpful. Chris said that he would check about this. Cal noted that grocery stores in the area might also be a resource for useful information, as he had found in the past that the stores gather considerable data regarding their customer base. Steve noted that the first two planning stages of the project (organization of the Steering Committee and the selection of the designated neighborhood), were almost complete and it was Page 2 time for the third stage, "Conduct Community Assessment of the designated neighborhood." From previous discussions and from the experience of the Edgecliff Weed and Seed, it is felt that the best way to complete this stage is by door -to -door survey. It was noted that Edgewood Weed and Seed had an extremely high rate of return on their own survey, and that the design of the survey is very relevant to the percentage of return. Eastern Washington University was mentioned as a resource for design, and Cal stated that in the past he has received numerous calls from Eastern from interns wishing to assist law enforcement with projects. A sub- committee to conduct this Community Assessment survey was chosen. Ian Robertson will chair the committee with members Bonnie Abernethy, Laurie Sheffler, Marilyn Cline and Rick Vermeers. Available resources to assist with this project were discussed briefly. Chris suggested that since the demographics of the area involved are slightly different than that of Edgecliff, more time might be necessary to allow people to complete and return the surveys. The sub - committee set a meeting date of Thursday, Feb. 19 at 8:30 a.m. at the Central Valley School District office at Barker and 190. Jim Shively stated that the U. S. Attorney's office is able to furnish funds for two people to attend a training workshop, and the next one will be held in Indianapolis July 12 through 14. He asked that he be notified as soon as possible who might attend, as time is of the essence in requesting the funds. A number of issues were discussed as follows: ♦ Steering Committee to work on development of Goals and Objectives; ♦ Memorandum of Understanding, with signatures of numerous concerned entities, necessary to be attached to application for official recognition; (Bonnie will bring the Edgewood MOU to the next meeting) ♦ Timeline showing when different stages must be completed, also what needs to be included in paperwork; ♦ Steve to bring the award document from Edgewood Weed and Seed to the next meeting for review; • "Central Valley Weed and Seed" to continue as name for project; ♦ Role and level of involvement of the City of Spokane Valley; Cal will discuss this with the City Manager. Steve stated he will bring 3 -ring binders for all Steering Committee members to have for paperwork for the project. He requested that anyone who wishes to have a logo included on printouts to please send it to him. The Steering Committee's next meeting will be Thursday, February 26 at 1:30 p.m. at the Valley Precinct. The following items will be included on the. agenda: • Report from sub - committee; ♦ Who will travel to Indiana? ♦ Past grant documents (Edgecliff.' Weed and Seed) to be available; • Timeline to be prepared by Esther Larsen; • Chairpersons for Weed sub - committee and Seed sub - committee to be chosen. Minutes submitted by Sharon Jones, 477 -3331 C. V. Weed and Seed minutes Feb. 12, 2004 Jones, Steve Potter, Chuck Abernethy, Bonnie Sheffler, Laurie Bishop, Glenn Walker, Cal Shively, Jim Berg, Chris Larsen, Esther Goss, Shelley Cline, Marilyn Cooper, Doug Jones, Sharon Robertson, Ian Attendees, 02/12/04 meeting, Valley Precinct Spokane Sheriffs Office Investment Dynamics S.C.O. P.E. Central Valley School Dist. Boys and Girls Club Spokane Valley City P.D. U. S. Attorney Spokane Valley City Code Enforcement Spokane Co. Sheriffs Office - GRANTS Spokane Valley Parks C.V. S.C.O.P.E. Sports USA Staff Assistant to Chief Walker Spokane Valley Nazarene 477 -3217 370 -0346 477 -4717 228 -5400 489 -0741 477 -3310 353 -2767 921 -1000 477 -5709 921 -1000 928 -4771 370 -2880 477 -3331 926 -1545 spjones(aspokanesheriff.orq Chuck(a�fpa.net babernethv(a�spokanesheriff.orq Isheffler(u�cvsd.orq obishop(a�becspokanecountv.orq calwalker(a.spokanesheriff.orq james.shivelv(usdoi.00v cbero at spokanevallev.orq elarsen a(�spokanesheriff.orq sgoss(a�spokanevallev.orq dualsi(ainetzero.net stadiumsports(c stadiums orts.org siones aOsookanesheriff.orq pastorian @aol.com C. V. Weed and Seed minutes Feb. 12, 2004 Page 3 Well airview- VaIre� Missi' ark Indiana Mission oon S view Element. r , ducational Service Ce World a1dh n � .3COPE t t� rt)• 'e for re taffy 0 as CV Weed and Seed 1hp @foAnett QS Petewy 203' Meeting Date: March 16, 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: Proposed Sewer Ordinance Discussion GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: In the proposed Wastewater Interlocal Agreement between the City and the County we would be required to adopt the Spokane County Sewer Code in its entirety. This is the first review of the proposed ordinance that would adopt the County's Sanitary Sewer Code. When the interlocal is complete, we propose to bring this ordinance forward for adoption. OPTIONS: RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: STAFF CONTACT: Neil Kersten ATTACHMENT: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 04 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING BY REFERENCE THE SPOKANE COUNTY SANITARY CODE (CHAPTER 8.03) AS THE SANITARY SEWER CODE OF THE CITY. WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley incorporated on March 31, 2003; WHEREAS, RCW 36.94.170 authorizes Spokane County to construct, operate and maintain a sewage system within the boundaries of the City of Spokane Valley and allows the City of Spokane Valley to contract with Spokane County for such services; WHEREAS, Spokane County operates a sanitary sewer system in the City providing for the collection and treatment of effluent; WHEREAS, Spokane County has enacted the Spokane County Sanitary Sewer Code (Chapter 8.03), which includes rules and regulations relating to the construction, use and maintenance of the Spokane County Sewer System; and WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley desires to adopt the Spokane County Sanitary Sewer Code (Chapter 8.03), in part, as the rules and regulations for using, connecting to and maintaining the Spokane County sewer system located within the boundaries of the City of Spokane Valley. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington, do ordain as follows: Section 1. Authority to Adopt the Spokane Sanitary Code. Pursuant to RCW 35A.13.1$0 and RCW 35A.12.140 (as referenced in RCW 35A.13.180), the City of Spokane Valley hereby adopts by reference the Spokane County Sanitary Sewer Code, in part, which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by this reference, as presently enacted or hereinafter amended, as the Sanitary Sewer Code of the City of Spokane Valley. The following Articles are hereby adopted by reference under Chapter 8.03 of the Spokane County Sanitary Code, to wit: 1. Articles 1000 2. Article 3000 - 3. Article 4000 4. Article 5000 - 5. Article 6000 6. Article 7000 - 7. Article 8000 - 8. Article 9000 - and 2000 — Definitions General Requirements — Parts One, Two, Four and Five Grease Interceptors, OilAVater Separators, Sand Traps — Sewer Construction Special Connections Rates, Fees and Charges Administration Provisions. The above adopted provisions are recognized as the Sanitary Sewer Code of the City as if fully set forth herein. Section 2. Adoption of Administrative Rules. The City of Spokane Valley further adopts by reference any and all implementing and administrative rules and enforcement remedies, which are now in effect or are later amended or adopted as part of the Spokane County Sanitary Sewer Code as part of the Sanitary Sewer Code of the City of Spokane Valley. Section 3. Adoption of Other Laws. To the extent that any provision of the Spokane County Code, or any other law, rule or regulation referenced in the attached Sanitary Sewer Code is necessary or convenient to establish the validity, enforceability or interpretation of the Sanitary Sewer Code, then such provision of the Spokane County Code, or other law, rule or regulation is hereby adopted by this reference. \\ SV- FS11Userslcbainbridge \cbainbridgelOrdinanoes \Ordinance re Sewer2 3- 16- 04.doc Page 1 of 2 DRAFT Section 4. References to Spokane County. Unless the context requires otherwise or there is a delegation of responsibilities through Interlocal Agreement, all references in the Spokane County Sanitary Sewer Code to Spokane County shall be construed to mean the City of Spokane Valley and all references to County staff, including the Health Officer, shall refer to the City Manager or designee. A. The City and Spokane County have entered into an "Interlocal Agreement Between the City of Spokane Valley and Spokane County Regarding Wastewater Management" that provides for the development, collection, treatment and operation of the sanitary sewer system in the City by Spokane County. Through the Interlocal Agreement primary responsibilities for development, construction and enforcement activities have . been delegated to the County. Section 5. Reference to Hearing Bodies. When the attached Sanitary Sewer Code refers to the Board of County Commissioners or any other similar body, the Spokane Valley City Council shall serve in all such roles, but retains the right to establish any one or more of such bodies, at any time and without regard to whether any quasi-judicial or other matter is then pending. Section 6. Modification and Intent of Standards. Nothing contained herein shall modify or waive the legislative and administrative responsibilities and authority for developing recommendations for modifying and monitoring the effectiveness or activities performed under the Sanitary Sewer Code of the City of Spokane Valley. The Sanitary Sewer Code is intended to provide for sewer use, connection and maintenance that promotes the orderly development of the City of Spokane Valley and serves the best interest of the residents. Section 7 Uniform Code - Copies on File. The City Clerk is to maintain one copy on file of the Sanitary Sewer Code adopted by this Ordinance. Section 8. Liability. The express intent of the City of Spokane Valley is that the responsibility for compliance with the provisions of this Ordinance shall rest with the identified person or their agents, successors and assigns. This Ordinance and its provisions are adopted with the express intent to protect the health, safety, and welfare of the general public and are not intended to protect any particular class of individuals or organizations. Section 9. 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 10. 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 of Spokane Valley as provided by law. ATTEST: PASSED by the City Council this day of March, 2004. City Clerk, Christine Bainbridge Approved As To Form: Interim City Attorney, Stanley M. Schwartz Date of Publication: Effective Date: Mayor, Michael DeVleming MV- FS11Users' cbainbridgelcbainhridgelOrdinances \Ordinance rc Scwer2 3- 16- 04.dac Page 2 oft EXHIBIT "A" Chapter 8.03 SANITARY SEWER CODE 8.03,0000 Chapter. ARTICLES 1000 and 2000 -- DEFINITIONS 8.03.1000 Definitions. 8.03.1010 Abbreviations. 8.03.1030 Act. 8.03.1040 Annual sewer construction program. 8.03.1050 A Iicable pretreatment standard. 8.03.1070 Approval authority, 8.03.1090 Authorized representative of the user. 8.03.1094 Board. 8.03.1110 BOD, 8.03.1130 Building drain. 8.03.1135 Capital facilities rate. 8.03.1150 Categorical pretreatment standard or categorical standard, 8.03.1160 Categorical useF, 8,03,1170 Combined sewer. 8.03,1171 Commercial unit. 8.03.1172 Commercial user. 8.03.1174 Commercial user charge. 8.03.1180 Comprehensive wastewater management plan implementation procedures. 8.03.1190 Composite sample, 8.03.1192 Day(s). 8,03,1210 Director or POTW director. 8.03.1215 Discharge. 8.03.1230 Discharge— Direct. indirect. 8.03.1240 Domestic wastewater. 8.03.1242 Double plumbing dry side sewer. 8.03,1244 Dryline sewer. 8,03.1246 Duplex unit. 8.03.1247 Equivalent residential unit, 8.03.1248 General facilities. 8,03.1249 General facilities charge. 8.03.1250 Grab sample. 8.03.1260 Health officer, 8.03.1270 Industrial process wastewater or process wastewater. 8.03.1272 Industrial user. 8.03,1274 Industrial user charge. 8.03.1290 Interference. 8,03.1310 Lateral or lateral sewer. 8.03.1320 Local limits, 8.03.1330 Lower explosive limit. 8.03.1352 Manufactured home park. 8.03.1355 Multi family dwelling unit. 8.03.1370 National pretreatment standard. 8.03.1390 Natural outlet. 8.03.1410 New source— Existing source, 8.03.1420 New user, existing user. 8.03.143Q Non- contact cooling water, 8.03.1450 Non - standard strength sewage. 8.03.1470 NPDES. 8.03.1490 On -site sewage disposal system. 8.03.1510 Pass - through. 8.03.1520 Person. 8,03.1530 pH. 8,03.1550 Pollutant. 8.03.1570 POTW. 8.03.1590 Pretreatment. 8.03.1595 Pretreatment of wastes. 8.03.1610 Pretreatment program. 8,03,1630 Pretreatment requirements, 8,03.1650 Pretreatment standard or standard. 8.03.1670 Private pump station, 8,03,1690 Private sewer, 8.03.1710 Private storm sewer. 8.03.1715 Process wastewater loading. 8.03.1730 Prohibited discharge standards or prohibited discharges. 8.03.1750 Public sewer. 8.03.1770 Sanitary sewage. 8.03.1790 Sanitary sewer, 8.03.1810 Sewage. 8.03.1830 Sewer. 8.03.1832 Sewer project. 8,03.1833 Sewer service bQ4ndary. 8.03.1834 Sewer service fee, 8.03.1835 Sewer standards handbook. 8,03.1850 Reserved. 8.03.1870 Side sewer. 8.03.1890 Side sewer stub. 8.03.1910 Significant industrial user. 8,03,1915 Single,_family dwelling unit. 8.011930 Slugload. 8.03.1945 Special connection charge. 8.03.1950 Special side sewer. 8.03.1970 Standard strength sewage. 8.03.1990 Stormwater, 8.03.2010 Storm sewer or storm drain. 8.03.2030 Suspended solids. 8.03.2050 System of sewerage. 8.03.2055 Temporary sewer connections. 8.03.2070 Total solids. 8.03.2090 Twenty -four hour flow proportional composite sample. 8.03.2110 Upset. 8.03.2112 Urban growth area. 8.03.2115 User charge. 8.03.2130 User or industrial user. 8.03.2150 Wastewater. 8.03.2152 Wastewater loading, 8.03.2153 Wastewater treatment plant charge. 8.03.2154 Wastewater treatment system. 8.03.2156 Water purveyor. ARTICLE 3000 -- GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 8.03,3020 Mandatory sewer service - -No rights created. 8.03.3040 On -site sewage disposal systems -- Policy to limit. 8.03.3060 Proper connection of all premises. 8.03.3080 Private sewer to serve only one parcel -- Easements. 8.03.3100 Multiple dwelling units— Owner - occupant duties. 8.03.3120 Disorders on private premises— Prompt repair. 8.03.3140 Non- standard strength sewage — Special arrangements. 8.03.3160 Duty imposed - -Who is responsible, 8.03.3180 Unlawful disposal of sewaae. 8.03.3200 Prohibited uses of sanitary sewer. 8,03.3220 Use of storrn sewers -- Combined sewers— Natural outlets, 8.03.3240 Prohibited uses — Public sewers. 8.03.3260 Obstructing sewer prohibited. 8,03.3280 Breaking structures, appurtenances prohibited. 8.03.3300 Unauthorized connection to public sewers. ARTICLE 4000 -- PRETREATMENT Part One: General Pretreatment Provisions 8.03.4020 Obiectives-- A.plication. 8,03.4040 Prohibited discharge standards — General prohibitions. 8 03.4060 Prohibited discharge standards -- Specific prohibitions. 8.03.4080 Prohibited discharge standards—Prevention--To whom a 1 8.03.4100 Prohibited discharge standards— Affirmative defenses. 8.03.4120 Categorical pretreatment standards. 8.03.4140 Categorical Violations —Upset affirmative defense. 8.03,4160 Local limits. 8.03.4180 Level of compliance effort— Unreasonable burden. 8.03.4200 Construction of pretreatment facilities, 8.03.4220 Side sewer manhole. 8.03.4240 Self monitoring— County inspections. 8.03.4260 Sampling and analysis. Part Two: Wastewater Discharge Permit 8.03.4280 Wastewater discharge permit required. IP 8.03.4300 Times to apply —New permits, renewals, 8.03.4310 Compliance deadlines. 8,03.4320 Contents of application. 8.03,4340 Confidentiality. 8,03,4360 Signing the permit application -- Reports, other. 8,03.4380 Decision on permit application. 8.03.4400 Permit terms required. 8.03.4420 Perrniltee obligations. 8.03.4440 Slugtoad— Accidental discharge control plan. 8,03.4460 Permit performance security, 8.03.4480 Permit transfer. 8.03.4500 Permit modification, 8.03.4520 Permit revocation. 8.03.4540 Appeals. Part Three: Wastewater from Other Jurisdictions 8.03.4560 Wastewater from other jurisdictions— Interlocal agreements, Part Four: Reporting Requirements 8.03.4580 Baseline monitorin rq epor 8.03.4600 Compliance schedules — Progress reoprts. 8. 03.4620 Ninety day compliance report — Applicable pretreatment standards 8.03.4640 Semiannual continuing reports, 8.03.4660 Changed conditions report. 8.03.4680 Slugload, upset, prohibited discharge reports and notices, 8.03.4700 Sample violation report. 8.03.4720 Dangerous waste notification. 8.03.4740 Reserved. 8.03.4760 Bypass notification. Part Five: Administrative Provisions 8.03.4780 Retention of records. 8.03.4800 Director's authority. 8.03.4820 Enforcement remedies. 8.03 4840 Enforcement by county and other governmental agencies --No rights or duties created. 8.03,4860 Publication of violators list. ARTICLE 5000—GREASE INTERCEPTORS, OIL/WATER SEPARATORS, SAND TRAPS 8.03.5020 Grease interceptors. 8.03.5040 Oil/water separators. sand traps. 8.03.5060 Reserved. 8.03.5080 Grease interceptors, oil /water separators. sand traps-- Maintenance. ARTICLE 6000 - -SEWER CONSTRUCTION 8,03.6005 Sewer installers. 8, 03.6020 Inspections, 8.03.6040 Sewer connection permit required. 8,03.6060 Reserved. 8.03.6080 Reserved. 8.03,6100 Costs of installation and connection -- Indemnity 8.03.6140 Extensions —Risk. 8.03.6160 Eligibility for sewer connection permit, 8.03.6180 Permit required for each private sewer connection, 8.03.6200 Reserved. 8.03.6220 Sewer construction regulations. 8.03.6240 Reserved. 8.03.6260 Reserved. 8.03,6280 Enforcement inspections. 8,03.6300 Excavation and cleaning. 803.6320 Construction plans. 8,03,6340 Reserved. ARTICLE 7000 -- SPECIAL CONNECTIONS 8.03.7020 Temporary sewer connections, 8.03.7040 Interim sewer connections, 8.03.7045 Connection of properties outside county sewer project boundaries. 8.03.7080 Reserved. 8.03.7100 Reserved. 8.03.7140 Reimbursement or credit for construction of public sewer. 8.03.7150 Sewer extension agreements -- Execution. ARTICLE 8000 — RATES, FEES AND CHARGES 8.03.8020 Pretreatment. 8.03.8040 Sewer facility plan check. 8.03.8060 Plan actions within S•okane Count 's ewer service area -- Review .rocedures. 8.03.8100 Capital facilities rates (CFR). 8.03.8120 CFRs assigned to each annual sewer construction program. 8.03.8140 Billing of CFRs, 8.03.8160 Prepayment of the CFR during the 30-day prepayment period. 8.03.8170 CFR credit when a pump is required for main floor sewer service. 8.03.8180 Prepayment of the CFR after expiration of the 30-day prepayment period. 8.03.8200 Increase in ERUs allocated to a parcel after CFR billing commences. 8,00,8220 Decrease in ERUs allocated to a parcel after CFR billing commences. 8.03.8240 Pre - existing sewers. 8.03.8250 Parcels inside a future sewer project connecting to existing public sewer. 8.03.8260 Unbuildable parcels. 8.03.8280 Special connection charges. 8.03,8290 Trunk charge. 8.03.8300 General facility charge (GFC). 8.03,8320 Intent and purpose. 8.03.8340 GFC established. 8.03.8360 Privilege to connect conditional. 8,03.8380 Disposition of GFC revenues. 8.03.8400 GFC based on project costs. 8.03.8420 GFC rates. 8.03.8440 Adjustment of GFCs. 8,03.8460 GFC payment procedures. 8,03.8480 Additional and/or oversized sewer stubs. 8.03.8500 Sewer connection permit fees. 8.03.8520 Sewer service fees. 8,03.8530 Sewer service fee credit for residences with documented vacancies. 8.03.8540 Advance payments of sewer bills, 8.03.8560 Administrative fees for sewer extension agreements with reimbursement provisions, 8.03.8580 Authority to fix schedule of charges. ARTICLE 9000 — ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS 8.03.9040 Payment Delinquency- -Lien. 8.03.9050 Sewer charges and service fees -- Adjustments and appeals. 8.03.9060 Persons and property subject to charges, 8.03.9080 Abatement of public nuisance. 8.03.9100 Suspension of service, 8.03.9120 Equipment -- Proiects —Minor expenditures. 8.03.9140 Responsibility for sewers - -No duty 8.03,9160 Penalty. 8,03.9180 Search warrants -- Administrative, criminal. 8.03.9185 Appeals. 8.03.9187 Statute of limitations. 8.03.9190 Repeal and savings. 8,03,9200 Severability. Meeting Date: March 16, 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: Discussion Aquifer Protection Area Program Reauthorization GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.36 Aquifer Protection Areas PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: The Spokane County Board of Commissioner sent a letter dated January 27, 2004 to the City of Spokane Valley requesting consideration for inclusion of the City in the reauthorization of the Aquifer Protection Area. We will provide a brief presentation of the program and reauthorization process. OPTIONS: RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: STAFF CONTACT: Neil Kersten CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action ATTACHMENT: Letter from Spokane County date January 27, 2004 OFFICE OF COUNTY COD4M?SS!ONERS JOHN RDSKELLEY, 1ST DISTRICT • KATE MCCASUN, 2ND DISTRICT • PHILLIP D. HARRIS, 3RD DISTRICT January 27, 2004 Mayor Mike DeVleming City of Spokane Valley 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 rtlem 4,1 "1•3 116121111112,1,„ 1 ji >r , ai � !1 : I _ -' RECEIVED JAN 2 9 2004 City of Spokane Valley SUBJECT: REAUTHORIZATION OF AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA AND AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA FEES Dear Mayor DeVleming. In 1985, Spokane County, with approval from the City of Spokane and the Town of Millwood, placed a ballot measure before our voters to create the Spokane Aquifer Protection Area (APA), and to establish APA fees for a 20 -year period. Our citizens overwhelmingly supported the measure with a 74.7 percent approval vote. The APA. and corresponding APA fees will sunset at the end of year 2005. A]?A fees have provided financial resources allowing us to make substantial progress toward the elimination of septic tanks in the urban areas. Since 1985, more than 20,000 septic tanks have been eliminated or avoided, and over 7 million gallons per day of wastewater is now being treated at the City of Spokane Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant rather than being discharged into the Spokane Aquifer. The existence of sewers on the urban area has allowed new development to avoid the installation of a new septic tank system. Our region will continue to face significant issues with regard to the protection of the water quality in the Spokane Aquifer even after the sunset of the current APA and APA fees. Some of these issues include continued elimination of septic tanks, monitoring of existing septic tanks, and continued monitoring of the aquifer. It is estimated that over the next 20- years an additional 100 million dollars will be spent to complete the sewers in the urban area and nearly 500 million dollars will be spent to improve treatment of sewage and stormwater. The Board of County Commissioners believes that it is in the best interest of the region to reauthorize the Spokane Aquifer Protection Area and APA fees. Accordingly, we have directed our public works staff to initiate discussions with your staff with respect to the reauthorization of the APA and APA fees in anticipation of submitting a ballot proposition to the voters within the APA at the November 2004 General Election. Prior to placing the ballot proposition before the voters, the County will need to have approval from your governing body for the inclusion of your corporate area in the proposed reauthorized APA. Accordingly, the Board requests that you consider the inclusion of your corporate area in the reauthorized APA. We have enclosed a map depicting the present boundaries of the APA and a document outlining the present APA fees. So that the County has sufficient time to hold the required public hearing on the reauthorization and the electors can be fully informed on this very important ballot measure before the November 2004 General Election, the Board would appreciate receiving confirmation from you on or before June 1, 2004 as to your agreement to include your corporate area in the reauthorized APA. If you have any questions or concerns regarding our proposal and request, please let us blow We would be happy to meet with you individually, or to discuss it at a meeting of the Regional Cities and Towns. Sincerely Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County CC: Francine Boxer, CEO Bruce Rawls, Utilities Director BoCC-APA Letter —2— January 27, 2004 SPOKANE COUNTY AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA FEES SEEPAGE AND WATER USE ANNUAL METER RATE TABLE RATE TABLE ACCRUAL ERU DESCRIPTION SIZE SEEPAGE /MO. WATER/MO. RATE EQUIV. Residential 3/4" 1.25 1.25 $15 / $30 1 Non - Residential 1" 2.50 2.50 $30 / $60 2 Non - Residential 1.5' 5.00 5.00 $60 / $120 4 Non - Residential 7 10.00 10.00 $120 / $240 8 Non - Residential 3" 20.00 20.00 $240 / $480 16 Non - Residential 4" 37.50 37.50 $450/$900 30 Non - Residential 5" 56.25 56.25 $675 / $1350 45 Non - Residential 6" 80.00 80.00 $960 / $1920 64 Notes: All developed parcels inside the APA pay the water rate. Developed parcels inside the APA that are not connected to the sewer also pay the seepage rate. APA Fees are billed on Property Tax Statements with "Other Charges" n • p H • 11 11 11 11 14 • 11 11 ' tt • 11 d p • - 11 II • n 2)12 _. ....__. _..�.... -• ; 274!' -- .. _ 2314• — _._... _ . _ 2745 a B .a . - n 11 u — ... U N .._ ... _ ^._ ..... • • n u I L n a u .� 4, u n a n n • • n TTI I -vt n a .• 1 _ I` .! n IS .. ._•_ v . _ . _ a I _•__ » .. a --• u • ......— .�. • • . • ' ..a �. - - • � n _. - � . P ▪ II I a • n $ rlN']ti 1■ lI n • a n f J. 41 12 . —.. ll.>_ . - �. _� ._. , �� i� II — I � a ■ 'Yp 5', . • • d • a r • •e I -' n ` ..� n u nx,�r"»N �w•p • n I a 1 u p • � • a b l/�Y Y u i n • I p p ■ u I ff • • \ • n u • p • • • 11 • b1 -_d' u n o u i n u 1 1 u q n v , u `zMeo TCtby.13.3 • 1` -- -2641 u a n al n • p II • • 11 n ! n ••I u n 1 n n u • _ a a n tl n ; a d •- n- - n i a p n ■ . n i n II • I a I a ' a ' t l n n a i ■ n i•' u ,1I • • 11 1 of �'ii p J' �I . n N \ I \• \i \ \� 1 \\ �� \\ 2542 ; • ' \ \C $ITY U �P KANE V LAN\ it 11 ta n it )'• ` ` n 0 n 1 n u •{ ■ a 11 h a h • p I q M d II a I, _ d 1 d I II • n . a � t hlyb••••. X• u n • flt04/ • / •• • • n t1 • II 11 - ■ n 11 It 1 7 t n � ,� p, p 4 11 ' n q d • II II 11 11 • • if • If • a i f •■ ••■■ pm. not .' • n • • n It n a r..• • ¢ ¢ V tr a • • • p t, q .• -_ --2445'- II p ••• • 2716 • • • • If n D a 11 114 Nifir IA p ■ e. 1P 11 • 11 ItI • 11 u a u a •p� 254 d 11 - • 2146 n a u a II • PM III= Aquifer Protection Area (APA) W. 1026 Broadway Spokane. WA. 99260 7Th Aquifer Sensitive Area IASA) Urban Growth Area (UGA) Spokane County Aquifer Protection Area 1 January 9, 2004 (509) 477 - 3604 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: March 16, 2004 City Manager Sign -off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing xx information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending Legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE : Alcohol Consumption at Parks and Recreation Facilities GOVERNING LEGISLATION: City Ordinance No. 65, Rules for Use of Park Facilities Requirements of State Liquor Control Board PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: This is the first time this specific information has come before Council. BACKGROUND: The City has adopted Ordinance No. 65 requiring a permit for alcoholic consumption at Parks and Recreation facilities. A requirement of the ordinance is a resolution designating locations and setting a fee for the permit. OPTIONS: RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Discussion BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: May increase use of facilities STAFF CONTACT: Mike Jackson, Parks and Recreation Director ATTACHMENTS Memorandum 3/1/01 re Alcohol Consumption in City Parks and Recreation Facilities and attachments. Valley Memorandum To: Dave Mercier, City Manager From: Mike Jackson, Parks and Recreation Director CC: Nina Regor, Deputy City Manager Date: 3/01/04 Re: Alcohol Consumption in Parks and Recreation Facilities 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 • Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.921.1000 • Fax: 509.921.1008 • cityhall@spokanevalley.org Requirements for the consumption of alcohol in City parks and facilities are addressed in City Ordinance No. 65 Rules for the Use of Park Facilities: • An Alcoholic Beverage Permit must be issued by the Department of Parks and Recreation (see attached). • By Resolution, City Council shall designate specific areas in City Parks and Facilities where alcohol may be consumed • By Resolution, City Council shall set the fee for the Alcoholic Beverage Permit The requesting party must also obtain a Washington State Banquet Permit or Special Occasion License, depending on the circumstances. The Special Occasion License is available only to not -for- profit organizations. Washington Cities Insurance Authority requests that the applicant obtain liability insurance. Staff also recommends that all requirements of the Banquet Permit and Special Occasion License also become requirements of the City. However the City should retain the right to be more restrictive than either permit. For example, it may be determined that security should be required for certain events. Future Action Council Action Necessary: • Council Resolution designating the areas where alcohol may be consumed. o Staff `s recommendation is to designate the following specific areas for alcohol consumption by permit in City parks and facilities: • CenterPlace Great Room and the adjacent kitchen and dining facilities. • Mirabeau Springs picnic shelter and immediate vicinity. • Council Resolution setting the fees for the permit. o Usually, the applicant will also be paying a deposit and a rental fee for CenterPlace or Mirabeau Springs. Therefore, any fee for the Alcoholic Beverage Permit will be an additional fee. There will be some direct administrative cost estimated at 15 minutes to explain the process, review and approve the application and possibly assist with insurance contact information to WCIA. Staff recommends a fee of 510 -515 to cover these costs. Attachments: Draft Application for Alcohol Beverage Permit CenterPlace and Mirabeau Springs diagrams Banquet and Special Occasion Permit information Excerpt from Ordinance No. 65. Insurance Schedule (Tenant User Event. Rates) WCIA 2 APPLICATION F Approval: Signature of Applicant Date Parks and Recreation Director Date Fee Receipt # Proper Liability Insurance ►07 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 • Spokane Valley WA 99206 9.921.1000 • Fax: 509.921.1008 • cityhall ®spokanevalley.org COHOLIC BEVERAGE PERMIT Name of Applicant or Organization< Date Name of Responsible Party Filing Application (Must be 21 years of age or older) (If different from above) Title (If applicable) Public place where permit is to be used CenterPlace Mirabeau Springs Date of Activity Type of Activity Expected Attendance Describe measures to control the consumption of alcohol Describe Security Measures Washington State Banquet Permit or Special Occasion License Must be submitted with application INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS: The City of Spokane Valley does not maintain insurance that will respond to claims against the applicant arising out of the use of facilities by the applicant, its members, or those attending the event. For events involving alcohol you will be required to obtain bodily injury and property damages liability insurance in accordance with city policy, name the City of Spokane Valley as an additional insured on the policy, and be responsible for obtaining said insurance. You will be notified of this requirement when your initial application is reviewed. AGREEMENT: Lessee shall indemnify, defend and hold City of Spokane Valley harmless from any loss, cost or expense claimed by third parties for property damage and bodily injury, including death caused solely by the negligence or willful misconduct of Lessee, its employees, or agents in connection with the use of said premises under the terms of this Agreement. To the extent permitted by applicable law, the Lessee further agrees to indemnify, defend and hold the City of Spokane Valley harmless from and against all claims, actions or liabilities for injuries, death, damages or benefits, arising out of or which may be awarded pursuant to Workers Compensation and/or Employer Liability laws, including but not limited to any claims asserted on behalf of an employee of the Lessee. GENERAL NOTES • • KEY NOILY 0 0 ° LEC9.20, WAITIIIG SPACE sya CLASSROOM 13n f11 SLAIN FLOOR PLAN - NORTH 'MHO J - . P-er • CERAMICS — NATC ►1 -kINF fV� MAIN I°LOOR mamtns• 114111..2.1 omn•6 Inorarcs RMM1In. RvlUO )Ob.an nw•Jgnv ♦1G SK«.w�. to mIDI CENTERPLACE AT MINABEAU POINT TAN s1nnR1; ..nr.IrCcl D O @SIGN LrVELOPL LIT DOCUMENTS !OS 011.11:1 MAIN FLOOR PLAN NORTH WING A2 .1 b -1 11•' • Ca. MI Ana LEG a • - - • ltd•Cos Ce•Imat - briArg 1.4.. Carers •■ • • Py•par7 llooadu7 LEGEND fit Wite CAsszKaassuily Complas U2 lonapross•ea• a IN•iaog• 0.111Gbq tmeml•I) rikt, of Intvrwat /I Mown fl Ocseh P Dtvoror 7 nefis. 0••■••,Is P.m= fl reereglyFti CUU PI, Dow LE• la/ I•7 •11. Ltrumairyg ri kthaboa Istsrothyr • raft ru, Or= 0..21••■ PtI Tb. Gs* ru Unt•vmal red, 1.13 Tb• 1111ing r. Climms Trans tsr47 123 CHOC...4 Pcia, Byrtsgrks 1.45. rs Owallnk T••• $.1••• Looks. Plf Ces64.0•Msegt. MI The Pk= loafs 1..«1•••01, Wan Pri 1.• Soyel,Wed•aelo • Ltumrroai.. DAVID WADS AND ASSOMATLI, MM. U• WW2./ POUR ...11.010 0 mol Banquet Permits A banquet permit is required to allow the service and consumption of liquor at a private, invitation only banquet or gathering in a public place or club. Liquor must be provided free of charge by a sponsor, or brought by individuals attending the event How To Apply You can apply for a banquet permit at any local liquor store or agency. There is a $10 fee. For a store or agency near you, please consult the yellow pages of your local telephone book, or call the customer service desk in Olympia at (360) 664 -1600. During the event, the banquet permit must be posted in a conspicuous place at the premises where the event is held. Guidelines and Restrictions • Attendance must be, by invitation only, and cannot be open or advertised to the general public. • • Liquor may not be served to anyone who appears intoxicated or who is under 21 years of age. You also cannot allow someone who appears intoxicated or is under 21 to drink or possess liquor during your event. • All liquor must be purchased at retail, and must be consumed between the hours of 6 a.m. and 2 a.m. • The sale of liquor by the individual drink is prohibited under a banquet permit. "Package deals" are allowed that may include, for example, the cost of dinner, liquor, and entertainment. To assure participants receive an equal share, tickets exchangeable for drinks may be issued a part of the package price. No separate or additional charge may be made for liquor. • Be sure to obtain required permits of local authorities when hosting an event in a public place. When is a Banquet Permit Not Needed? There are instances when functions are held outside the home that do not require a banquet permit. A banquet permit is not required when all the following apply: 1. The event is hosted by an individual, not an organization or business entity. 2. There is no charge for admission or for anything provided at the function (Le., mixer, setup, Ice, food, hors d'oeuvres, . etc.,). «Charge" includes admission charge, donation, dues, fees, or otherwise: . 3. The function would normally be held in the individual's private home, but for space considerations, is held in a facility that is : 1) closed off to the general public during the function, and 2) does not have a liquor license. C I B •2 4 1 9 9 Special Occasion Licenses and Banquet Permits What is A Special Occasion License? A Special Occasion license is issued to a not for profit society or organization, to sell spirits, beer, and wine by the individual serving for on- premises consumption at a specified date and place.. The fee is $60 per day, per location. The Special Occasion licensee may sell beer and /or wine in original, unopened containers for off- premises consumption, if permission is obtained from the Board prior to the event. Special Occasion licensees are limited to 12 single day events per calendar year. Definition of Not for Profit Society or Organization A not for profit society or organization refers to a group organized and operated for charitable, religious, social, political, educational, civic, fratemal, athletic, or benevolent purposes. All proceeds from the sale of liquor at a special occasion event must go directly back into the not for profit organization. No portion of the proceeds may be paid directly or indirectly to members, officers, or trustees. However, members, officers, or trustees may be compensated for actual services performed, at levels comparable to the prevailing market rate. Please call the customer service desk if you have any questions at (360) 664 -1600. How To Apply Applications are available at any local liquor store or agency. You may also call the Board's customer service desk at (360) 6641600 to have an application mailed to you. . Mail completed application and fee to: Processing Time Special Occasion License applications must be filed at least 30 days before the event. You must have the license in hand before liquor can be purchased for resale or sold. Liquor Control Board PO Box 43098 • Olympia WA 98504-3098 By law, the Board must send a notice of your application to the city or county authority where the event will be held. The city or county authority has 20 days to respond with an approval or objection to the application. Guidelines and Restrictions • You must purchase spirits from a state liquor store or agency. Beer or wine may be purchased from a state liquor store or agency, a retailer, or a distributor. • .You may not advertise or sell beer, wine, or spirits below cost. • Manufacturers or distributors may not provide goods or services to special occasion licensees, except as follows: — draft beer dispensing equipment — advertising services — wine pouring or dispensing services at tasting exhibitions or judging events. • You may not make awards or gifts of liquor. • Liquor may not be sold or served to anyone who appears intoxicated or who is under 21 years of age. You also cannot allow someone who appears intoxicated or is under 21 to drink or possess liquor during your event. • If the event is being held at a premises that has a liquor license, the premises may not sell or serve its • liquor in the room where the special occasion event is being held. This document is published by the Washington State Liquor Control Board. Persons with a disability who need this document in an alternate format, or other accornrnodation to participate, may call (360) 664 -1646 or TTY (360) 586 -4727 P. Tents and shelters in parks. Unless authorized by the Department, no person shall erect, maintain, use or occupy a temporary tent or shelter in any City Park or Facility unless there is an unobstructed view through such tent or shelter from at least two sides; provided however, that nothing in this section shall be construed to authorize overnight camping. Q. Trail use. 1. For the purposes of this section "Trail Use" shall be construed to include all forms of movement or transportation on a trail, including but not limited to foot, bicycle, horse, skateboard, roller skates and roller blades. 2. • Trail use is open to all non - motorized users unless otherwise designated and posted. Trail use restrictions may be posted at park entrances, trailheads or, in some cases, on individual trails. 3. Every person traveling on a trail shall obey the instructions of any official traffic control device or trail sign unless otherwise directed. 4. No motorized vehicles shall be allowed on City trails. For the purposes of this section "motorized vehicles," means any form of transportation powered by an internal combustion or electric motor. This includes but is not limited to motor vehicles, golf carts, mopeds and all terrain vehicles. This section shall not apply to wheelchairs powered by electric motors, or authorized maintenance, police or emergency vehicles. R. Trespassing. No person except an authorized City employee, or other person duly authorized shall enter or go upon any area or Facility which has been designated and posted as a "No Admittance" or "No Trespassing" area or during any time when the park is closed to the public. S. Washing of Vehicles. No person shall clean or wash any motor vehicle in any City Park or Facility except in areas specifically designated for that use. Section S. Violation. Any person violating any provision of Sections 3,4,5,6 or 7 of this Ordinance hall have committed a Class I Civil Infraction. Section 9. Rules Governing Use of City Parks and Facilities — (Park M. A. Alcohol Consumption. No person shall knowingly allow, conduct, hold, maintain, or consurne alcohol in City Parks or Facilities without first obtaining a.permit from the Department. S!1Ordinancesl.Ordinance No. 65 Part; Rules red]ine.doc Page 5 B. Designated Areas. The City Council shall, through, Resolution designate specific areas in City Parks and Facilities where alcohol may be consumed after obtaining a Alcoholic Beverage Permit. C. Application for Alcoholic Beverage Permit. Application for permits shall be in writing and filed with the Department. The application shall be filed no less than ten (10) days prior to the gathering at which alcoholic beverages will be consumed. Fees for such permits shall be established by Council Resolution. The Department shall prescribe the form of the application which shall include, name and age of applicant, public place where permit is to be used, type of activity, date of activity, measures to control the consumption of alcoholic beverages and such other matters as deemed appropriate by the Department. The Director shall review and either approve or deny the application within five (5) days from receipt. The Director may impose reasonable conditions upon the permit. A denial by the Director may be appealed to the City Council within ten (10) days from the date of the denial. B. Damage to property. No person shall remove, damage, or destroy any area in a City Park or Facility. C. Damage to wildlife. Except for fishing and shell fishing in authorized areas and subject to rules promulgated by Washington State Fish and Wildlife Commission, it is unlawful in any park to capture, attempt to capture, tease, annoy, disturb, or strike any bird or animal, or to throw or otherwise propel any object at or in the vicinity of any bird or animal. D. Dumping in water prohibited. No person shall deposit any waste or refuse of any nature, including human or animal waste, into any river, stream, lake or other body of water running in, through, or adjacent to any City Park. E. Firearms, weapons. No person except duly authorized law enforcement personnel shall possess a firearm, bow and arrow, crossbow, or air or gas weapon in a City Park or Facility. No person shall discharge across, in, or onto any facility a firearm, bow and arrow, crossbow, air or gas weapon, or any device capable of injuring or killing any person or animal, or damaging or destroying any public or private property. This section shall not apply where the Department issued a special event permit for such activity. F. Fireworks. No person shall possess, discharge, or cause to be discharged, in any City Park or Facility, any firecracker, torpedo, rocket, firework, explosive, or similar devise unless so authorized by the Department. S:1Ordinanre0.Ordinanee No. 65 Park Rules redline doe Page 6 PREMIUMS: CLASS I ATTENDANCE PREMIUM 1 -100 $ 89.00 101 -500 8 122.00 501 -1500 $ 180.00 1501 -3000 $ 230.00 3001 -5000 $ 347.00 5000 + To Be Determined ONE DAY EVENT RATING EXAMPLE: TENANT USER EVENT RATES January 1, 2004 to January 1, 2006 CLASS II ATTENDANCE PREMIUM 1 -100 $ 128.00 101 -500 $ 218.00 501 -1500 $ 258.00 1501 -3000 $ 425.00 3001 -5000 $ 542.00 5000 + To Be Determined RATES INCLUDE TAXES & FEES. RATES ARE APPLICABLE PER DAY. MULTIPLE DAY EVENT RATLNG EXAMPLE: Events of two or more consecutive days: 9 Al ENDANCE PREMIUM 1 -100 $ 200.00 101 -500 8 347.00 501 -1500 8 547.00 1501 -3000 $ 716.00 3001 -5000 S 878.00 5000 + To Be Determined CLASS III RATES ARE SUBJECT TO UNDERWRITER REVIEW ON JANUARY 1, 2005 FOR MULTIPLE DAYS: • Total the attendance for all days of the event. Refer to rates and charge the premium corresponding to the total attendance. Events over five days require underwriting approval. Please submit information to Driver Al Insurance Services Associates • Alcoholic Beverage premiums are to be separately calculated for each day. Liquor Legal Liability is- included in the policy by separate endorsement. Additional premium of $65.65 per day applies to Class 1 events only. Prior underwriter approval and additional charges necessary for Class II and Class III events. • Multiple Day Event: Days used exclusively to "set up" or "take down" are to be included as insured days on the coverage certificate. Wedding with 250 people: Refer to Hazard Schedule I "Weddings" Attendance Category: 101 -500 Total Premium: 8122.00 5 Day Antique Show with 100 people each day: Refer to Hazard Schedule I "Antique Shows" Total Attendance 500. Attendance Category: 101 -500 Total Premium: $122.00 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: March 16, 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 : Review of Proposed Budget Calendar GOVERNING LEGISLATION: State law requires a 2005 budget. The attached proposed budget calendar highlights key dates for preparation of the 2005 budget. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: The City prepared the 2004 budget during 2003. The attached proposed calendar covers the same tasks handled in 2003 but on a slightly different (earlier) timeline. The attached calendar was briefly discussed at the council work session held on Saturday, February 7. BACKGROUND: Key dates of the attached proposed 2005 budget calendar include: April 19 — Departments begin preparation of 2005 Budget June 26 - Mid -year retreat (half -day) September 14 - City Manager files preliminary budget with Clerk/Council September 14 - Public hearing on 2005 Revenues September 14 - Council sets public hearings for Oct 12 and Oct 26 October 12 - First public hearing on 2005 Budget October 26 - Second public hearing on 2005 Budget November 9 - 2005 Budget adopted OPTIONS: Use the 2005 Budget schedule above or modify it. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Direct staff to move ahead with preparation of the 2005 Budget with this schedule or a modified schedule BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None STAFF CONTACT: Ken Thompson, Finance Director CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY 2005 BUDGET CALENDAR Prepared Dec. 29, 2003 February 7, 2004 Council Annual Planning Session (Full-Day) April 19 Request to departments for detailed revenue and expense estimates June 7 Departments submit estimates to Finance June 26 Council Mid -Year Retreat (Half -Day) July 12 Preliminary Budget to City Manager August 25 City Manager submits estimates on 2004 revenues and preliminary 2005 revenues and expenditures to Council September 6 City Clerk publishes notice of hearing on 2005 revenues September 14 Council holds public hearing on revenues for 2005 September 14 City Manager files preliminary budget and message with City Clerk and Council Council sets preliminary budget hearing for Oct. 12 and final public hearing for Oct. 26 September 17 City Clerk publishes notice of budget filing September 17 City Clerk publishes notice of hearings on budget (Oct 12, 26) September 28 First reading of property tax ordinance October 4 City Clerk publishes second notice of hearings (October 12, 26) October 12 Second reading of property tax ordinance Public hearing on budget October 19 Copies of preliminary budget available October 26 Final Budget Hearing First reading of ordinance to adopt budget Fee R.esolution adopted November 9 Second reading of ordinance to adopt budget Budget adopted Stiorkai Memorandum To: Dave Mercier, City Manager; City Council From: Cary P. Driskell, Deputy City Attorney CC: Nina Regor, Deputy City Manager Date: March 11, 2004 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 • Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.921.1000 • Fax: 509.921.1008 • cityhall ®spokanevalley.org Re: Update on Liberty Lake appeal of our 2003 amendments to our Interim Comp Plan This very brief memorandum is primarily to advise you that I will be providing the Council with an oral summary of the issues that were recently discussed with the Hearings Board. I am also attaching several documents for your review. Two documents are statutes found in the Growth Management Act. A third document is a copy of a case from the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board from the Seattle area. A fourth document is a copy of a letter sent to Community, Trade and Economic Development in Olympia several weeks ago related to this issue. Cary P. Driskell Deputy City Attorney Chapter 36.70A.106 RCW - The Washington State Legislature Page 1 of 1 Inside the Legislature * Find Your Legislator . Working with the Legislature *- Legislative Calendars .'x Bill Information F* Laws and Agency Rules *-Legislative Agencies ,* Legislative E -mail Lists * Kids Page Outside the Legislature * Washington State History and Culture * Congress -The other Washington TV Washington * Washington Courts * Access WA 36.70A103 « 36.70A.106 » 36.70A.110 [1991 sp.s. c 32 § 8.] About Us I Contact Us I E -mail Lists I Search I Hel Legislature Home I Senate I House of Representatives RCW TITLES » TITLE 36 » CHAPTER 36.70A » SECTION 36.70A_106 RCW 36.70A.106 Comprehensive plans -- Development regulations -- Transmittal to state. (1) Each county and city proposing adoption of a comprehensive plan or development regulations_ under this chapter shall notify the department of its intent to adopt such plan or regulations at least sixty days prior to final adoption. State agencies including the department may provide comments to the county or city on the proposed comprehensive plan, or proposed development regulations, during the public review process prior to adoption. (2) Each county and city planning under this chapter shall transmit a complete and accurate copy of its comprehensive plan or development regulations to the department within ten days after final adoption. (3);Ar4i amendments for permanent changes to a comprehensive plan or development regulation that are proposed by a county or city to its adopted plan or regulations shall be- submitted to the ■department in the same manner as initialplans and development • regulations under this section. Any amendments to a comprehensive plan or development regulations that are adopted by a county or city shall be transmitted to the department in the same manner as the initial plans and regulations under this section. hrt., // wi. .j IPo wa onv/12 CW/intip v ( "fttl7fi1ce.sr.ttMl= cpc.rii nR'cPrtinn= 6 70A .1 06 1/1 1/20(14 Chapter 36.70A.040 RCW - The Washington State Legislature Page 1 of 4 Inside the Legislature * Find Your Legislator * Working with the Legislature Legislative Calendars * Bill Information Laws and Agency Rules Legislative Agencies *- Legislative E -mail Lists '* Kids Page Outside the Legislature -* Washington State History and Culture ' * Congress -The other Washington * TV Washington .* Washington Courts ;* Access WA 36.70A.035 « 36.70A.040 » 36.70A.045 About Us I Contact Us I E -mail Lists I Search I Hel Legislature Horne I Sonate I House of Representatives RCW TITLES » TITLE 36 » CHAPTER 36.70A » SECTION 36.70A.040 RCW 36.70A.040 Who must plan -- Summary of requirements -- Development regulations must implement comprehensive plans. (1) Each county that has both a population of fifty thousand or more and, until May 16, 1995, has had its population increase by more than ten percent in the previous ten years or, on or after May 16, 1995, has had its population increase by more than seventeen percent in the previous ten years, and the cities located within such county, and any other county regardless of its population that has had its population increase by more than twenty percent in the previous ten years, and the cities located within such county, shall conform with all of the requirements of this chapter. However, the county legislative authority of such a county with a population of less than fifty thousand population may adopt a resolution removing the county, and the cities located within the county, from the requirements of adopting comprehensive land use plans and development regulations under this chapter if this resolution is adopted and filed with the department by December 31, 1990, for counties initially meeting this set of criteria, or within sixty days of the date the office of financial management certifies that a county meets this set of criteria under subsection (5) of this section. For the purposes of this subsection, a county not currently planning under this chapter is not required to include in its population count those persons confined in a correctional facility under the jurisdiction of the department of corrections that is located in the county. Once a county meets either of these sets of criteria, the requirement to conform with all of the requirements of this chapter remains in effect, even if the county no longer meets one of these sets of criteria. (2) The county legislative authority of any county that does not meet either of the sets of criteria established under subsection (1) of this section may adopt a resolution indicating its intention to have subsection (1) of this section apply to the county. Each city, located in a county that chooses to plan under this subsection, shall conform with all of the requirements of this chapter. Once such a resolution has been adopted, the county and the cities located within the county bttr,• /lw wrur 1Fc Rrnr /RC V /inrie. c.fm9fircPart inn= cer.1innRr.er.tinn= 16.70A.040 3/11/2004 Chapter 36.70A.040 RCW - The Washington State Legislature Page 2 of 4 remain subject to all of the requirements of this chapter. (3) Any county or city that is initially required to conform with all of the requirements of this chapter under subsection (1) of this section shall take actions under this chapter as follows: (a) The county legislative authority shall adopt a county -wide planning policy under RCW 36.70A.210; (b) the county and each city located within the county shall designate critical areas, agricultural lands, forest lands, and mineral resource lands, and adopt development regulations conserving these designated agricultural lands, forest lands, and mineral resource lands and protecting these designated critical areas, under RCW 36.70A.170 and 36.70A.060; (c) the county shall designate and take other actions related to urban growth areas under RCW 36.70A_110; (d) if the county has a population of fifty thousand or more, the county and(each:,citytlocated within the county(shalb adoptacomprehensive plan,under,this chapter and:developrnent fegulations•that are consistent with and implement the, , comprehensive,plan.on or-before July_1, 1994.dand if the county has a population of less than fifty thousand, the county and each city located within the county shall adopt a comprehensive plan under this chapter and development regulations that are consistent with and implement the comprehensive plan by January 1, 1995, but if the governor makes written findings that a county with a population of less than fifty thousand or a city located within such a county is not making reasonable progress toward adopting a comprehensive plan and development regulations the governor may reduce this deadline for such actions to be taken by no more than one hundred eighty days. Any county or city subject to this subsection may obtain an additional six months before it is required to have adopted its development regulations by submitting a letter notifying the department of community, trade, and economic development of its need prior to the deadline for adopting both a comprehensive plan and development regulations. (4) Any county or city that is required to conform with all the requirements of this chapter, as a result of the county legislative authority adopting its resolution of intention under subsection (2) of this section, shall take actions under this chapter as follows: (a) The county legislative authority shall adopt a county -wide planning policy under RCW 36.70A.210; (b) the county and each city that is located within the county shall adopt development regulations conserving agricultural lands, forest lands, and mineral resource lands it designated under RCW 36.70A.060 within one year of the date the county legislative authority adopts its resolution of intention; (c) the county shall designate and take other actions related to urban growth areas under RCW 36.70A.110; and (d) the county and each city that is located within the county shall adopt a comprehensive plan and development regulations that are consistent with and implement the comprehensive planet tl:ian four yearsjfrom the date the county legislative authority adopts its resolution of intention, but a county or 11 tin / /www.Iea_wa. /R CW /index.cfn ?Fiiceacti :tectinn &Rectinn= 6.7O A.040 3/11/2004 Chapter 36.70A.040 RCW - The Washington State Legislature Page 3 of 4 city may obtain an additional six months before it is required to have adopted its development regulations by submitting a letter notifying the department of community, trade, and economic development of its need prior to the deadline for adopting both a comprehensive plan and development regulations. (5) If the office of financial management certifies that the population of a county that previously had not been required to plan under subsection (1) or (2) of this section has changed sufficiently to meet either of the sets of criteria specified under subsection (1) of this section, and where applicable, the county legislative authority has not adopted a resolution removing the county from these requirements as provided in subsection (1) of this section, the county and each city within such county shall take actions under this chapter as follows: (a) The county legislative authority shall adopt a county -wide planning policy under RCW 36.70A.210; (b) the county and each city located within the county shall adopt development regulations under RCW 36.70A.060 conserving agricultural lands, forest lands, and mineral resource lands it designated within one year of the certification by the office of financial management; (c) the county shall designate and take other actions related to urban growth areas under RCW 36.70A.110; and (d) the county and each city located within the county shall adopt a comprehensive land use plan and development regulations that are consistent with and implement the comprehensive plan within four years of the certification by the office of financial management, but a county or city may obtain an additional six months before it is required to have adopted its development regulations by submitting a letter notifying the department of community, trade, and economic development of its need prior to the deadline for adopting both a comprehensive plan and development regulations. (6) A copy of each document that is required under this section shall be submitted to the department at the time of its adoption. (7) Cities and counties planning under this chapter must amend the transportation element of the comprehensive plan to be in compliance with this chapter and chapter 47.80 RCW no later than December 31, 2000. [2000 c 36 § 1; 1998 c 171 § 1; 1995 c 400 § 1; 1993 sp.s. c 6 § 1; 1990 1st ex.s. c 17 §4.] NOTES: Effective date -- 1995 c 400: "This act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and shall take effect immediately [May 16, 19951." [1995 c 400 § 6.] httn.11wwiw Ir.v.wa.nnv/ RCW /inc1ex.cfm ?(reaction= section §ion= 36.70A.040 3/11/2004 Chapter 36.70A.040 RCW - The Washington State Legislature Page 4 of 4 Effective date -- 1993 sp.s. c 6: "This act is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions, and shall take effect June 1, 1993." [1993 sp.s. c 6 § 7.] httn•// www. v. leo. wa ,vnv /RCWlinclex.efrn ?Pi'seact i nn= sectinn section- 36.70A.040 3/1 1 /20(4 CENTRAL PUGET SOUND Page 1 of 8 CENTRAL PUGET SOUND GROWTH MANAGEMENT HEARINGS BOARD STATE OF WASHINGTON ) WILDLIFE HABITAT INJUSTICE ) Case No. 00 -3 -0012 PREVENTION, BRUCE DIET-IL, ED ) NICHOLAS, PAMELA YAGER, JOEL and ) (WHIP, et aL) GINA GUDDAT, B.W.ABBOTT, TERRI R ) SAPP , JON OWENS, PATTI MELTON, ) ORDER ON MOTIONS MARK. LANZA and SUSAN FENDERSON, ) ) Petitioner(s), ) ) v. ) ) CITY OF COVINGTON, ) ) Respondent, ) ) and ) ) LEE J MOYER, JACK D. CLARK AND ) ALAYAR DABESTANI, ) ) Intervenors. ) ) J. BACKGROUND On July 31, 2000, the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board (the Board) received a Petition for Review (PFR) from Wildlife Habitat Injustice Prevention, (WHIP) Bruce Diehl, Ed Nichols, Pamela Yager, Joel and Gina Guddat, B.W. Abbott, Teri R. Sapp, Jon Owens, Patti Melton, Mark Lanza and Susan Fenderson (Petitioners or. WHTI). The matter was assigned Case No. 00 -3- 0012, and is hereafter referred to as WHIP, et aL, v. City of Covington. Petitioners challenge the City of Covington's (Respondent or the City) adoption of Ordinance Nos. 05 -00, 06 -00, 07 -00, 08 -00, 09 -00, 10 -00, 11 -00, 12 -00, 13 -00, 14 -00 (collectively, the challenged ordinances) and the accompanying State Environmental Policy Act determinations. The basis for the challenge is noncompliance with various provisions of the Growth Management Act (GMA or Act). On August 10, 2000, the Board issued a `Notice of Hearing" (the Notice) in this case. The Notice established September 1, 2000 as the date for the prebearing conference and included a Tentative Schedule for the filing of pleadings and motions. On August 1.8, 2000, the Board issued "Notice of Amended Date for Prehearing Conference and Amended Tentative Schedule" (the Notice of Amended Schedule). On August 25, 2000, the Board received "Lee J. Moyer's Motion to Intervene" (the Moyer Motion to t ) Intervene) together with `Memorandum in Support of [the Moyer] Motion to Intervene." On September 5, 2000, the Board received "WHIP Dispositive Motion on Public Participation and Request to be Heard at Prehearing Conference" (WBJI"s Dispositive Motion on Public httn- /Ax.rww arnhh onv /rentral/rlPnicinnet) ono in; 19 whin nrrlPrnmmntinnc 1 -F, -nn him )J1 ')l7nna urANIxALrukuuny �. WHIP'S MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT rage 2 or 6 Participation). On September 7, 2000, the Board received "Jack D. Clark and Alayar Dabestani's Motion to intervene" (the Clark Motion to Intervene) together with a "Memorandum in Support of [the Clark] Motion to Intervene." On September 11, 2000, the Board received the "City of. Covington's Response to WHIP Dispositive Motion on Public Participation and Request to be Heard at Prehearing Conference," together with "Respondent City of Covington's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction" (Covington's Motion to Dismiss) and "Respondent City of Covington's Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction" (Covington's Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss). On September 13, 2000, the Board conducted the prehearing conference in this matter in Room 1022 of the Financial Center, 1215 Fourth Avenue, Seattle. Present for the Board was presiding officer Joseph Tovar. Representing the Petitioner was Jennifer Dold, representing the City was Duncan Wilson and representing proposed intervenors Moyer and Clark were Dennis Reynolds and Charles Maduell, respectively. The presiding officer indicated that no dispositive motion would be ruled upon before the dates shown in the tentative schedule. In response to concerns about the record and the timing for the disposition of motions, the presiding officer adjusted the proposed final schedule. After a discussion of the proposed legal issues, the presiding officer ordered the Petitioner to file a Restatement of Legal Issues by September 18, 2000 and ordered each proposed Intervenor to subsequently file a notice of which of the legal issues it intends to brief and argue. On September 18, 2000, the Board received from WHIP a "Revision of Petitioners' Issues." On September 22, 2000, the Board issued "Preheating Order and Order on Motions to Intervene" (the PHO) which established a schedule for the filing of briefs and motions, set forth the legal issues in this case, and granted intervention to Lee J. Moyer, Jack D. Clark and Alayar Dabestani. On October 2, 2000, the Board received "Intervenors Jack D. Clark and Alayar Dabestani's Motion to Dismiss" (Intervenor Clark's Motion to Dismiss). On October 6, 2000, in response to a request from WHIP, the Board issued an "Order Amending Schedule for Motions to Supplement the Record." On October 9, 2000, the Board received "Petitioners' Motion to Supplement the Record," (WH.IP's Motion to Supplement) and "Petitioner's Response to City of Covington's Motion. to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and Intervenors Clark and Dabestani's Motion to Dismiss" (WHIl"s Response to Motions to Dismiss) together with a "Declaration of Jennifer A. Dold" which has eight attached exhibits. On October 12, 2000, the Board received the following pleadings: "Respondent City of Covington's Amended index;" "City of Covington's Reply to Petitioners' Response to Motions to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction;" and "Petitioner's Reply in Support of Dispositive Motion on Public Participation" (WEIIPIP's Reply on Dispositive Motion on Public Participation) together with a "Declaration of Jennifer A. Dold" which has three attached exhibits. On October 25, 2000, the Board issued an "Order Amending Schedule for Board to Issue Order on Motions." http: / /www.gmhb.wa.gov /central /decisions/ 2000 /0312,whi p,orderonmotions,11- 6- 00.him 2/12/2004 0 CENTRAL. PIJGET SOUND WHIP has moved to supplement the record before the Board with four items, noted below. Neither the City nor intervenors filed a pleading in response to WI-111 Motion to Supplement. ITT. DISPOSIT'1` E MOTIONS A. Prefatory Note Page 3 of 8 The two dispositive motions filed in this case ( Covington's and Clark's Motions to Dismiss and WHIP's Motion on Public Participation) deal with different but inter- related matters. The arguments for and against each motion illuminate both the questions of the Board's jurisdiction and the City's compliance. The Board will first address Covington's Motion to Dismiss and Clark's Motion to Dismiss. If the Board were to agree that it lacks jurisdiction in this matter, the appropriate action would be to dismiss the PFR immediately and strike the briefing and hearing schedule. In such a circumstance, the Board would not rule on either WHIP's Dispositive Motion on Public Participation or its Motion to Supplement. Conversely, if the Board were to reject the City's jurisdictional argument, it would then be appropriate to take up WHIP's Dispositive Motion on Public Participation and Motion to Supplement. If the Board were to grant WHtP's dispositive motion, it would immediately remand the City's actions for compliance with the provisions of the GMA, and strike the briefing and hearing schedule. If the Board were to deny WI-11P's dispositive motion, the case would proceed according to the briefing and hearing schedule set forth in the PHO. • B. Covington's Motion to Dismiss and Clark's Motion to Dismiss 1. Covin don' s and Clark's Arguments Covington points out that RCW 36.70A.280 limits matters subject to board review. The City argues that, because the challenged ordinances were adopted under the authority of a Chapter 35A RCW rather than the GMA or the Shoreline Management Act, the Board lacks jurisdiction. The City maintains that its adoption in 1997 of its comprehensive plan was a non -GMA action, quoting the first section .of Ordinance 16 -97 as follows: Section 1. Authority t0 Adopt Interim Comprehensive Plan. Pursuant to RCW 35A.63, the City adopts King County's 1994 Comprehensive Plan (...) as the Interim Comprehensive Plan, and King County's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map delineating the City of Covington as the http: / /www.gmhb wa.gov /central/decisions/ 2000 / 0312, whip,orderonmotions,11- 6- 00.htm 2/12/2004 Proposed Exhibit: Documents Ruling . City of Covington's Ordinance No. 17 -97 "adopting by reference Title 21A of the King County Code as interim zoning regulations of the City " 9Jul. 15, 1997) and City of Covington Ordinance NO. 18 -97 "adopting by reference Title 20, Planning, of the King County Code as an interim re_ulation of the City" Ju. 16 1997). Board takes official notice 2. City of Covington Ordinance 28 -97 (Aug. 5, 1997) creating the City of Covington Planning Commission and setting forth its duties. Board takes official notice «i June 1, 2000 memorandum from Planning Director William C. Kennedy to Mayor and City Council entitled "Use of State Environmental Policy Act." Admitted 4. June 22, 2000 memorandum from Kelli O'Donnell, City Clerk, to City of Covington Ordinance Distribution List with a revised Ordinance No. 11 -00 attached. Admitted 0 CENTRAL. PIJGET SOUND WHIP has moved to supplement the record before the Board with four items, noted below. Neither the City nor intervenors filed a pleading in response to WI-111 Motion to Supplement. ITT. DISPOSIT'1` E MOTIONS A. Prefatory Note Page 3 of 8 The two dispositive motions filed in this case ( Covington's and Clark's Motions to Dismiss and WHIP's Motion on Public Participation) deal with different but inter- related matters. The arguments for and against each motion illuminate both the questions of the Board's jurisdiction and the City's compliance. The Board will first address Covington's Motion to Dismiss and Clark's Motion to Dismiss. If the Board were to agree that it lacks jurisdiction in this matter, the appropriate action would be to dismiss the PFR immediately and strike the briefing and hearing schedule. In such a circumstance, the Board would not rule on either WHIP's Dispositive Motion on Public Participation or its Motion to Supplement. Conversely, if the Board were to reject the City's jurisdictional argument, it would then be appropriate to take up WHIP's Dispositive Motion on Public Participation and Motion to Supplement. If the Board were to grant WHtP's dispositive motion, it would immediately remand the City's actions for compliance with the provisions of the GMA, and strike the briefing and hearing schedule. If the Board were to deny WI-11P's dispositive motion, the case would proceed according to the briefing and hearing schedule set forth in the PHO. • B. Covington's Motion to Dismiss and Clark's Motion to Dismiss 1. Covin don' s and Clark's Arguments Covington points out that RCW 36.70A.280 limits matters subject to board review. The City argues that, because the challenged ordinances were adopted under the authority of a Chapter 35A RCW rather than the GMA or the Shoreline Management Act, the Board lacks jurisdiction. The City maintains that its adoption in 1997 of its comprehensive plan was a non -GMA action, quoting the first section .of Ordinance 16 -97 as follows: Section 1. Authority t0 Adopt Interim Comprehensive Plan. Pursuant to RCW 35A.63, the City adopts King County's 1994 Comprehensive Plan (...) as the Interim Comprehensive Plan, and King County's Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map delineating the City of Covington as the http: / /www.gmhb wa.gov /central/decisions/ 2000 / 0312, whip,orderonmotions,11- 6- 00.htm 2/12/2004 ULN 1 KAL tU(J.C;1 NUUNU rage 4 or t; Interim Land Use Map (...) [emphasis added] Covington's Brief in. Support of Motion t� Dismiss, at 2. Similarly. the City maintains that its 1997 adoption of its development regulations, was also a non -GMA action, quoting the first section of Ordinance 17 -97 as follows: Section 1. Authozi to Adopt Interim Zoninn Code Pursuant to W 35A 63, the City adopts Title 21A (...) as the Interim Zoning Code, and the Interim Zoning Map (...) [emphasis added] Id Likewise, the City states that when it adopted the challenged ordinances in May of 2000, the Covington City Council amended the Interim Comprehensive Plan, the Interim Zoning Code, the Interim Zoning Map and the Interim Land Use Map. Id The City points to language in each of the ordinances that reference the authority of Chapter 35A RCW and points out that they contain absolutely no reference to the Growth Management Act or Chapter 36.70A RCW. Covington's Brief in Support of Motion. to Dismiss, at 13. In addition, the City cites to the Board's Happy Valle and Northgate " cases arguing that the Board has already concluded that it has no jurisdiction over plans adopted under non -GMA statutes. In Happy Valley the Board stated, "the Board's jurisdiction is limited to planning documents, such as comprehensive plans and development regulations, that were adopted in an effort to comply with the requirements of the GMA, [emphasis added]." Covington's Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss, at 6. Also, Northgaie added, "if a local jurisdiction adopts a land use planning document (be it a policy docunment or a regulation) under authority other than the GMA, this Board has repeatedly indicated that it lacks the requisite subject matter jurisdiction to review the matter for compliance with the Act." Covington's Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss, at 8. Covington contends that until a municipality formally adopts a comprehensive plan that is "intended to comply with the requirements of the GMA" no such document exists. Covington's Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss, at 8. The City notes that in Happy Valley the Board was persuaded by the text of the Ordinance itself, which indicated that a Comprehensive Plan had been adopted pursuant to authority subsequent to GMA.. Id, citing Happy Valley, at 12. Similarly, the City cites Lakehaven Utilities Districts where the Board emphasized the significance of language used in an ordinance's title, recitals, or sections in determining whether it was adopted in an effort to comply with GMA. Id, citing Lakehaven, at 2. Like the County in Happy Valley, the City reasons that since it has not yet adopted its own Comprehensive Plan, the Ordinances passed on May 24 were not GMA implementing Development Regulations. Covington's Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss, at 11. In essence, the City has relied on the notion that since GMA provides for "phased, not instantaneous, implementation," they, in the interim, were acting under some other authority, in this case RCW 35A.63. Id, at 8- 9. Intervenor Clark joins in the City's arguments. 2 2. WHIP's Arguments WHIP disagrees with Covington's position that its adoption of King County's 1994 . Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations as their own, were not GMA actions and thus the May 2000 Ordinances are also not GMA actions. WHIP's Response to Motions to Dismiss, at 2. WHIP has argued that the City had an obligation to comply with GMA upon its incorporation in 1997. Id, at 5. To distinguish the http: / /www.gmhb.wa.gov /central decisions/ 2000 / 0312, whip,orderonmotions,11- 6- 00.htm 2/12/2004 CENTRAL PUGET SOUND Page 5 of 8 present circumstances with those in Happy Valley, WHIP noted that the Board's lack of jurisdiction was based on the fact that the actions in question could not have been adopted pursuant to GMA because King County's GMA Comprehensive Plan had not even been adopted yet. Id, citing Happy Valley at 305. When GMA was originally enacted in 1990, King County already had a "fully established and elaborate" land use planning process, and "transition to the GMA planning process was not entirely smooth." Id, at 6, citing Happy Valley at 311. WHIP observed that Covington was not incorporated out of King County lands "at the beginning of the world of GMA," but rather at a time when the County was already in compliance with GMA and the City had their Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations to use. Id, at 6 — 7. Similar to Happy Valley, WHIP argued that the Board's lack of jurisdiction in Northgate, to review planning documents enacted under some non -GMA authority, were subject to the circumstances surrounding the "transition period" between pre -GMA and GMA plans and regulations. Id, at 7, citing Northgate at 326. That is, when jurisdictions were still required to plan under existing land use planning codes and ordinances before GMA had been implemented. Id "Covington indeed recognized these plan provisions and development regulation." Id, at 12. Petitioner argues that Covington was not essentially starting from "square one" in its process of GMA compliance. Id Conclusion re: Covington's and Clark's Motions to Dismiss Covington is a jurisdiction within a county (King) that is required to plan under the GMA. RCW 36.70A.040. The Board understands the City's argument that, because it incorporated in 1997, its deadline to adopt a GMA plan is not until August of 2001. An unspoken, -but not implausible implication of Covington's argument is that, until that deadline, it is free to adopt plans and regulations, adopt capital budgets and issue permits that are completely contrary to the guidance and requirements of the Growth Management Act. The Board disagrees that the legislature contemplated such an outcome. The Board concludes that Covington has erroneously interpreted its duty under the Act to adopt plans and development regulations. The August, 2001 date upon which the City relies is simply the date by which the City dust have adopted a GMA Plan and development regulations. It is not license to adopt plans and regulations totally detached from the goals and requirements of the Act. The Board agrees with WHIP that the City's reliance on Happy Valley and Northgate is misplaced. In Happy Valley, the ordinance was not a GMA action because it was enacted pursuant to pre - existing, non -GMA related planning Here, when Covington was incorporated in 1997, the "pre- existing" planning authority could only have been GMA_ Not only did Covington have King County's GMA documents at its disposal, it also had several nearby, or comparative, municipalities to assist them in the "existing" world of GMA compliance. There is but one way to adopt land use plans in the Central Puget Sound region. The Board has previously held: [T]he Board bolds, in the Central Puget Sound region, planning is now done exclusively under Chapter 36.70A RCW — the GMA. West Seattle Defense Fund v. City of Seattle, CPSGMB Case No. 96 -3 -0033, Final Decision and Order, March 24, 1997, at 11. Footnote omitted. The City of Covington is a GMA planning jurisdiction. It was under no obligation to adopt any amendments to the GMA plan and regulations that it adopted in 1997 as its own — having chosen to do so, the City must comply with the goals and requirements of the GMA. Because it has chosen to do so by adopting the challenged ordinances, it has taken actions that are subject to the goals and requirements of the GMA. Therefore, the Board concludes that pursuant to RCW 36.70A.280, it has jurisdiction to hear and decide the PFR that has been filed by WI4 P. Covington's Motion to Dismiss and Clark's Motion to Dismiss are therefore denied. http://www. gmhb .wa.gov/central/decisi on s/200 0/0312,whip,orderonm otions,11 -6-00.htm 2/12 /2004 LtIN 1KAL rulTC.1 JVUNL) B. WHIP'S Dispositive Motion on Public Participation 1. WHIP's Arguments Petitioner alleges that the City did. not comply with the GMA's requirements for public participation and asks that the Board invalidate the challenged ordinances. PFR, at 5. WHIP argues: ...based on the paucity of the City Index, WHIP requests that the Board find the City out of compliance with the public participation requirements of the Act because the City made substantial changes to its comprehensive plan without "sufficient information and/or analysis in the record to support the changes: and without assuring that the "public had a reasonable opportunity to review and comment on the changes" [and] because such substantial changes have been made to the Comprehensive Plan without adequate public process, WHIP requests that the Board find both the new Interim Future Land Use map, and its implementing zoning map, out of compliance with the Act ... WHIP's Dispositive Motion on Public Participation, at 2 -3. WHIP complains that the City did not adopt any public participation program, as required by GMA, nor did it give public notice that it intended to adopt the challenged ordinances on May 24, 2000. WFILP's Reply on Dispositive Motion on Public Participation, at 2 -3. Petitioner argues that: The Public was not notified about the City's planned ordinances to amend the City's existing comprehensive plan and development regulations, was not given reasonable opportunity to comment upon the ordinances, and the ordinances enacted significant change to the comprehensive plan and development regulations. Id, at 4. 2. Covington's Arguments Covington offers no argument that it has complied with the GMA. The City's position is consistent with its stated belief that the challenged ordinances were not GMA actions and that it therefore had no duty to comply with its provisions. Conclusiions re• WHIP'S Dispo iti�ve Motio n Public Pa 'cipation rage o or 5 WHIP argues that the City has violated the public participation goal of the GMA set forth in RCW 36.70A.020(11), and the public participation requirements of the GMA set forth in RCW 36.70A.035, .130, and .140, PFR, at 4. In rebutting these allegations, the City's only defense is the jurisdictional attack that the Board has rejected above - namely, that the City was under no statutory duty to do so because these are not GMA actions. In adopting its Interim Plan and amendments, the City has admitted that the related Ordinances contain no reference to the GMA or compliance with GMA. Covington's Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss, at 8. Instead, the City has explained that the Ordinances were intended to pre-date the City's GMA Comprehensive Plan and implementing development regulations. Id., at /O. The Board agrees with WHIP that the City did not assure that the public had a `reasonable opportunity to review and comment on the changes." Indeed, in view of the rigorous steps the City has taken not to cite to the GMA, the only facts before the Board are that Covington did not meet the Act's requirements for notice and "early and continuous" public participation. The Board finds that the City's actions adopting the challenged ordinances are not in compliance with the public participation requirements of the GMA, specifically RCW 36.70A.035, .130 and .140, and will remand them to the City with direction to repeal them, revise them or modify them. http: / /w'ww.gmhb.wa.gov /central / decisions / 2000 / 0312, whip,orderonmotions,11- 6- 0O.htm 2/12/2004 CENTRAL PUGET SOUND Page 7 of 8 IV. INVALIDITY .Having determined above that the City's challenged ordinances are not in compliance with the Act's requirements, the Board takes up WhIIP's request that the Board enter a determination of invalidity. PFR, at 5. The Board may determine challenged amendments invalid if the Board concludes that their continued validity would substantially interfere with the fulfillment of the goals of the Act. RCW 36.70A.302(1)(b). In the. present case, the Board finds that the evidence shows that substantial changes have been made to allowable uses and development standards in the land use districts affected by the challenged ordinances. These substantial changes create great potential that perrnit applications will vest to policies and regulations that were never subjected to the public's review pursuant to the goals and requirements of the GMA. Therefore, the Board concludes that the continued validity of the challenged ordinances would substantially interfere with the fulfillment of RCW 36.70A.0200 1). The Board enters a determination of invalidity as to the challenged ordinances. It should be noted that the Board has not reached the legal issues in the PFR which challenge the substantive compliance of any of the challenged ordinances with specific provisions of the GMA. Rather, the Board reaches only the public participation claim, and concludes that the City's failure to meet the public participation goals and requirements of the GMA is a fundamental and fatal flaw. V. ORDER Having reviewed and considered the above- referenced documents, having considered the arguments of the parties, and having deliberated on the matter, the Board orders: 1. Covington's Motion to Dismiss and Clark's Motion to Dismiss are denied. 2. WHIP's Dispositive Motion on Public Participation is granted: a. City of Covington Ordinance Nos. 05 -00, 06 -00, 07 -00, 08 -00, 09 -00, 10 -00, 11 -00, 12 -00, 13- 00, and 14 -00 are not in compliance with the goals and requirements of the Growth Management Act, specifically RCW 36.70A.035, .130 and 140. b. The Board has concluded that the continued validity of these non - compliant ordinances would substantially interfere with the fulfillment of RCW 36.70A.020(11) and enters a determination of invalidity effective immediately 3. The Board remands City of Covington's Ordinance Nos. 05 -00, 06 -00, 07 -00, 08 -00, 09 -00, 10 -00, 11 -00, 12-00, 13 -00, 14 -00 to the City with direction to repeal, revise or modify them by no later than Monday, January 15, 2000. If the City'wishes to subsequently re -adopt the substance of these ordinances, it must do so under the authority and subject to the goals and requirements of Chapter 36.70A RCW. 4. The City is directed to file with the Board a "Statement of Actions Taken to Comply with the Board's November 6, 2000 Order" the SATC), which shall include copies of all legal notices given and legislative actions taken to achieve compliance with the GMA as interpreted in this Order. The Cite shall provide four copies of the SATC to the Board and a copy to each of the parties by no later than 4:00.p.m., Monday, January 22, 2000. The Board will subsequently schedule a compliance hearing. 5. The bearing on the merits and the briefing schedule set forth in the Prehearing Order are stricken. http:// www .gmhb.wa.gov /centralldecisions /2000 /0312,whip,orderonmotions, 11- 6- 00.htrn 2 /12/2004 L.Giv itch.• rvu aUU1' L' rtxSC 0 ui o So ORDERED this 6th day of November, 2000 CENTRAL PUGET SOUND GROWTH MANAGEMENT HEARINGS BOARD Edward G. McGuire, AICP Board Member Lois H. North Board Member Joseph W. Tovar, AICP Board Member Note: This order constitutes a final order as specified by RCW 36.70A.300 unless a party files a motion for reconsideration. U RCW 36.70A.280(1) provides: A growth management hearings board shall hear and determine only those petitions alleging either (a) That a state agency, county, or city planning under this chapter is not in compliance with the requirements of this chapter, chapter 90.58 RCW as it relates to the adoption of shoreline master programs or amendments thereto, or chapter 4321C RCW as it relates to plans, development regulations, or amendments, adopted under RCW 36.70A.040 or chapter 90.58 RCW; or (b) That the twenty -year growth management planning population projections adopted by the office of financial management pursuant to RCW 43.62.035 should be adjusted. U Happy Valley, et al. v. King County, CPSGMHB Case No. 93- 3- 0008c, Order Granting Respondent King County's Motion to Dismiss and Denying Happy Valley's Motion to Amend its Petition for Review, October 25, 1993. 137 Northgate Mall Partnership v. City of Seattle, CPSGMHB Case No. 93 -3 -0009, Order Granting Seattle's Motion to Dismiss, and Denying Northgate Mall's Cross Petition, and Its Motion to Strike Statements, November 8, 1993. • l41 Lakehaven Utility District v. City of Federal Way, CPSGMHB Case No. 97 -3 -0031, Order on Dispositive Motions, March 6, 1998. http:// www .gmhb.wa.gov /centraUdecisions/ 2000 / 0312, whip,orderonmotions,11- 6- 00.htm 2/12/2004 s1�1 ane �� Valley Cl J March 4, 2004 Leonard Bauer Managing Director Growth Management Services, Local Government Division Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development PO Box 48350 Olympia, WA 98504 -8350 Re: Determination of issues relating to submission of materials to CTED Dear Mr. Bauer: 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 ♦ Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.921.1000 • Fax: 509.921.1008 • cityhall @spokanevalley.org • There have been several communications between CTED and Spokane Valley over the past two months relating to whether Spokane Valley is required by Washington law to provide copies of proposed amendments to our interim development regulation. to CTED for review and possible comment. As you may know, we are a new city. As such, there are many land use issues that we must address in the near term to become a functional city. We adopted an interim Comprehensive Plan prior to incorporation, with the stated intent of drafting and adopting a comprehensive plan under GMA that more specifically fulfills our community needs. We are in the process of starting our GMA comprehensive plan process right now, and fully understand that we will need to work with your office in that process. I assure you we will do that. In the mean time, we are operating under our interim comprehensive plan, and have great need to flesh that out with interim development regulations. The problem we are running into is that some of our prior communications with CTED have left us with the definite impression that your office believes we need to submit all proposed development - related regulations to your office for review and comment at least 60 days prior to adoption. We have made clear in our transmittals that we do not believe this requirement exists for our interim development regulations because they were not adopted pursuant to, or to implement, a GMA comprehensive plan. If our comprehensive plan was not adopted pursuant to GMA, then RCW 36.70A.106 would not apply, and your review would not be mandatory. I understand your office disagrees with that assertion. Given this overlay, I send this letter with the hope of clarifying several issues. First, please provide the statutory basis in Washington law that requires a municipality to Leonard Bauer March 4, 2004 page 2 submit its proposed development - related regulations to CTED when those development regulations are to implement a non -GMA interim comprehensive plan. I have reviewed an e -mail from Dave Anderson to Scott Kuhta of our office, dated January 8, 2004, as well as the referenced document in it. Unfortunately, those materials failed to clarify this issue much_ Second, and assuming we are required to submit our proposed regulations to CTED for review and comment, please advise very specifically what types of development regulations must be submitted. Your office has stated that they do want to review the compliance section of our development code, but that they do not want to review our proposed new building code. These would appear to me to be opposite answers for the two categories than I would have anticipated. In short, we want to be neither over - inclusive nor under - inclusive in the materials we send. Third, if we submit something to you at least 60 days prior to adoption, and you comment in 20 days, are we okay to then move forward with adoption, or do we have to wait the full 60 days, even though the reason for waiting is no longer needed (to give CTED sufficient time to review and comment)? In effect, our understanding of your position is resulting in an additional 60 day extension on a lot of our ordinances we need to adopt that will form the framework for our new city. We would like to get this matter resolved as quickly as possible so we can proceed in a more timely fashion on adopting those ordinances. 1 look forward to your response. if you have any questions or comments, please feel free to contact me. CPD c: Dave Mercier, City Manager Julie Wilkerson, Director of CTED Very truly yours, AA-1- Cary P. Driskell Deputy City Attorney CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: 03 -16 -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 : Official Newspaper GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RC \'V 65.16.020: Qualifications of legal newspaper. The qualifications of a legal newspaper are that such newspaper shall have been published regularly, at least once a week, in the English language, as a newspaper of general circulation, in the city or town where the same is published at the time of application for approval, for at least six months prior to the date of such application; shall be compiled either in whole or in part in an office maintained at the place of publication; shall contain news of general interest as contrasted with news of interest primarily to an organization, group or class; shall have a policy to print all statutorily required legal notices; and shall hold a periodical class mailing permit. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: On December 17, 2002, Interim Manager Walton reviewed proposal information submitted by various local newspapers as to their capability and costs for providing legal publication services to the City, and recommended that the City authorize a one -year contract with Spokesman- Review for legal publication services. Thereafter, council approved Resolution No. 02 -11 Designating the Spokesman review as the Official Newspaper and authorized City Manager to execute a one -year contract with The Spokesman Review for legal advertising services. The motion carried unanimously. OPTIONS: (1) Retain the Spokesman Review as the official newspaper and authorize City Manager to execute a new contract; or (2) Designate the Spokane Valley News Herald as the official newspaper and authorize new resolution be placed on appropriate Council agenda. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: STAFF CONTACT: Chris Bainbridge ATTACHMENTS January 31, 2004 memo from Chris Bainbridge to Dave Mercier Newspaper Comparison Spreadsheet, publication costs last year . Memorandum To: Dave Mercier, City Manager From: Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk Date: January 31, 2004 Re: Newspaper Advertising Comparisons 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 • Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.921.1000 • Fax: 509.921.1008 • cityhall @spokanevalley.org A "Request for Newspaper Publication Services" was sent mid- December to the Spokesman Review, the Local Planet, the News Herald, and the Journal of Business. We received responses from the Spokesman Review, the News Herald, and the Journal of Business. We will not be able to use the Journal of Business as our official newspaper as it is a bi- weekly publication and state law requires at least weekly. Below are the comparisons: Ncws Herald: weekly publication legal notices .75 per agate line the first run .65 per agate line thereafter which equals $10.50 per column inch first run and $9.10 per column inch second run (columns measure 1.75" wide, type size 6 point) The Herald meets the qualifications of a legal newspaper and is currently the legal newspaper for Spokane County Spokesman Review Daily 2.87 per line, per day Daily 1CD $40.24 per inch [columns measure 1.25" wide] Sat/Sun 3.17 per line per day Sat/Sun ICD $44.40 per inch [columns measure 2 1116 "] (ICD = Illustrated Classified Display) Spokesman Weekly Publications: Thursday Valley Voice .79c per line per day or $11.03 per inch ICD Saturday Valley Voice .86¢ per line per day or $12.03 per inch ICD Our contract with the Spokesman review expired the end of the year. To designate a different official newspaper, we would need to present Council with a resolution superceding Resolution 02 -011. If we want to continue with the Spokesman Review, we need a new contract. Let me know how you would like me to proceed. SPOKESMAN REVIEW* VALLE figigM HEftAIND •;; :_. , •er line 1st run per line add'I run 1.12 column inch 1st run 15.61 column inch add'I rvn Column inch = Circulation 1.25" 118,753" .Daily PUBLICATION TYPE 1-12 Weekly 0.75 0.65 10.5 9.1 1.75" _ 1' 060'h _ SPOKESMAN REVIEW DAILY 2.87 40.24 1.25" SPOKESMAN REVIEW SAT/SUN 3.17 44.4 1.25" figure is average: Mon,Tu,Th, Fri Wednesdays Saturdays Sundays Spokesman " i' eraid ? a •_pro i ate;! 100,587 122,847 . 118,921 132,587 Spokesman boasts greater circulation Herald boasts runnin more legals than others and they are Spokane County's official newspaper ' Contract Rate: minimum $15,000 annual legal advertising; newspaper for not less than one year retain Spokesman as legal _ PUBLICATION DATA Year # Summary Ordinances $ Summary Ordinances # Public Hearing $ Public Hearings # Other Legals $ Other Legals $ TOTALS 2002 -2003 98 9981.7 40 2981.51 46 3480.54 16443 -75 2004 5 423.84 10 871.93 3 299.32 1595.09 18038.84 Total Cost: $18,038.84 divided by Spokesman Review column inch cost S15.61 = approximately 1 155.60 co umn inches run 1,155.60 column inches times $10.50 column inch cost of Herald = $12,133.80 Use of the Herald for those inches would have saved approximately $6.000 annually From: Re: DRAFT A.DVAiNCF_. AGENDA For Planning Discussion Purposes Only as of March 1.0, 2004 1:30 p.m. Please note this is a work in progress; items are tentative Council & Staff City Manager Draft Schedule for Upcoming Council Meetings March 23, 2004 Regular Meeting 6:00 p.m. [due date March 12] 1. OPEN PUBLIC COMMENTS: Wastewater Issues [20 minutes] 2. CONSENT AGENDA [5 minutes] 3. Second Reading Proposed Towing Ordinance 04 -001 — Cary Driskell [10 minutes] 4. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 04 -008 Amendment Sign Code, Institutional Uses — Scott Kuhta [5 minutes] 5. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 04 -013 Uniform Development Code Re Enforcement & Penalties — Marina Sukup [5 minutes] 6. First Reading Proposed Ordinance Amending Ordinance 40 & 41 (Bldg Code, Fire Code) - Tom Scholtens [10 minutes] 7. Proposed Resolution, CenterPlace Bid Award —Neil Kersten [5 minutes] 8. Proposed Resolution Designating Official Newspaper — Chris Bainbridge [5 minutes] 9. Administrative Reports: [no public comment] a. Convention Visitor's Bureau Report (confirmed) [15 minutes] b. Spokane Housing Authority Report (confirmed) (15 minutes) c. Formation of Student Advisory Council — Mayor DeVleming [15 minutes] 10. Information Only: [no public comment] a. Status of Previous Public Comments /Concerns; b. Minutes of Planning Commission; c. Departmental Monthly Reports [estimated meeting time: 120 minutes* ] Saturday, March 27, 2004 — Mayor's Ball — Mirabeau Hotel March 30, 2004, Study Session 6:00 p.m. [due date March 19] 1. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance Amending Ordinance 40 & 41 (Bldg Code, Fire Tom Scholtens 2. Proposed resolution: Formation of Student Advisory Council — Mayor DeVleming 3. Proposed Sidewalk Ordinance Discussion —Neil Kersten 4. Signage Presentation — Marina Sukup 5. Governance Manual Review Committee Report 6. Grading Code Discussion — Tom Scholtens 7. Fire Annexation Ballot Update — Nina Regor 8. Council Check in — Dave Mercier 9. Advance Agenda Additions — Mayor DeVleming 10. City Manager Comments — Dave Mercier Advance Agenda— Draft Revised: 3/1012004 1:31 PM Code) - (5 minutes) (10 minutes) (15 minutes) (30 minutes) (30 minutes) (15 minutes) (5 minutes) (10 minutes) (5 minutes) (10 minutes) TOTAL MINUTES: 135 Max mtg time: 150 minutes Page 1 of 3 April 6, 2004. Study Session 6:00 p.m. [due date March 26] 1. Capital Facilities Funding 2004 & 2005 — Neil Kersten (30 minutes) 2. Precinct Lease Agreement Discussion — Cal Walker (15 minutes) 3. Development Related Policy Issues — Marina SukuplNeil Kersten (45 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: 115 Max mtg time: 150 minutes April 13, 2004 Regular Meeting 6:00 p.m. [due date April 2] 1. CONSENT AGENDA [5 minutes] 2. First Reading Proposed Grading Ordinance — Tom Scholtens [ 15 minutes] 3. First Reading Proposed Ordinance Adopting Municipal Code — Chris Bainbridge [5 minutes] 4. Motion Consideration: Set Public Hearing for 4/27/04 to Adopt Municipal Code — Chris Bainbridge [5 mins] 5. Public Comment: Signage [30 minutes] 6. Proposed Resolution Student Advisory Council [5 minutes] [estimated meeting time: 65 minutes *] April 14, 2004, 3:00 p.m. Conversation with the Community, Senior Center April 20, 2004, Study Session 6:00 p.m. [due date April 9] 1. Review of Contracts Inventory — Nina Regor (20 minutes) 2. Administrative Report Proposed Sidewalk Ordinance —Neil Kersten (15 minutes) 3. Council Check in — Dave Mercier (10 minutes) 4. Advance Agenda Additions — Mayor DeVleming (5 minutes) 5. City Manager Comments — Dave Mercier (10 minutes) TOTAL iVIIINUTES: 60 Max mtg time: 150 minutes April 27, 2004 Regular Meeting 6:00 p.m. [due date April 16] 1. PUBLIC BEARING: Adoption of Municipal Code [10 minutes] 2. CONSENT AGENDA [5 minutes] 3. Second Reading Proposed Grading Ordinance —Tom Scholtens (10 minutes) 4. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance Adopting Municipal Code — Chris Bainbridge [5 minutes] 5. Second Reading Proposed Sidewalk Ordinance — Stanley Schwartz [10 minutes] 6. Administrative Reports: [no public comment] 7. Information Only: [no public comment] a. Status of Previous Public Comments /Concerns b. Minutes of Planning Commission c. Departmental Monthly Reports [estimated meeting time: 40 minutes* ] Advance Agenda — Draft Revised: 3(102004 1:3 I PM Page 2 of 3 May 4, 2004, Study Session 6:00 p.m. [due date April 23] 1. OPEN PUBLIC COMMENTS: Couplet (45 minutes) 2. Consultant Presentation of Community Survey Results — Greg McCormick (15 minutes) 3. Business License Program Discussion — Ken Thompson (20 minutes) 4. CenterPlace Construction Status —Mike Jackson (10 minutes) 5. Council Check in — Dave Mercier (10 minutes) 6. Advance Agenda Additions — Mayor DeVleming (5 minutes) 7. City Manager Comments — Dave Mercier (10 minutes) TOTAL MINUTES: 115 Max mtg time: 150 minutes May 11, 2004 Regular Meeting 6:00 p.m. 1. CONSENT AGENDA 2. May 18, 2004, Study Session 6:00 p.m. 1. Advance Agenda Additions — Mayor DeVleming 2. City Manager Comments — Dave Mercier May 25, 2004 Regular Meeting 6:00 p.m. [due date May 14] 1. CONSENT AGENDA [5 minutes] 2. Administrative Reports: [no public comment] 3. Information Only: [no public comment] a. Status of Previous Public Comments /Concerns b. Minutes of Planning Commission c. Departmental Monthly Reports [estimated meeting tine: _minutes* ] June 1, 2004. Study Session 6:00 p.m. 1. Council Check in — Dave Mercier 2. Advance Agenda Additions — Mayor DeVleming 3. City Manager Comments — Dave Mercier .tune 8.2004 Regular Meeting 6:00 p.m. 1. CONSENT AGENDA Saturday, June 26, 2004 — Half Day Council Retreat r estimated meeting time does not include time for public cornmentsl [due date April 30] [5 minutes] [estimated meeting time: minutes* ] [due date May 7] (5 minutes) (10 minutes) TOTAL MINUTES: Max mtg time: 150 minutes [due date May 21] (10 minutes) (5 minutes) (10 minutes) TOTAL MLNUTLS: 115 Max mtg time: 150 minutes [due date May 28] June 15 —18, 2004 AWC Conference Ocean Shores (No Council Meeting June 15, 2004) OTHER NON - SCHEDULED PENDING ISSUES: Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 04 -007 Stormwater— Stanley Schwartz [10 minutes] First Reading Proposed Sewer Ordinance —Neil Kersten [20 minutes] [5 minutes] Advance Agenda — Draft Page 3 of 3 Revised: 3/1 0!2004 1:31 PM