Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2004, 04-13 Regular Meeting
AGENDA SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING Tuesday, April 13, 2004 6:00 p.m. CITY HALL AT REDWOOD PLAZA 11707 East Sprague Avenue, First Floor Council Requests All Electronic Devices be Turned Off During Council Meeting CALL. TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE INVOCATION: Pastor Barry Foster, Valleypoim at Pines ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF AGENDA INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS COMMITTEE, BOARD, LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS MAYOR'S REPORT: Proclamations: 1. National Youth Service Day 2. Small Business Month PUBLIC COMMENTS For members of the Public to speak to the Council regarding matters NOT on the Agenda. Please state your name and address for the record and limit remarks to three minutes. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Proposed 2004 Budget Amendment - Ken Thompson 1. SIGNAGE ISSUES - Marina Sukup PUBLIC COMMENTS 3. CONSENT AGENDA Consists of items considered routine which are approved as a group. A Councilmembcr may remove an item from the Consent Agenda to be considered separately. a. Approval of Regular Council Meeting Minutes of March 23, 2004 b. Apprawal of Council Study. Session Minutes of March 30, 2004 c. Approval of Council Study Session Minutes of April 6, 2004 d. Approval of Claims in the amount of $ 1.615,426.54 e. Approval of April 1, 2004 payroll of $143,110.01 NEW BUSINESS 4. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 04-014 Amending Ordinance 40 & 41 - Tom Scholtens [public comment] 5. First Reading Ordinance 04 -015 Proposed 2004 Budget Amendment - Ken Thompson [public comment] 6. Proposed Resolution 04 -009 Setting Public blearing Date for Street Vacation 0204 - Kevin Snyder [public comment] Council A3emdo 1 -1341 Regulir Meeting Peet 1 of 2 601 7. Proposed Resolution 04-010 Establishing Selected Locations far Alcohol Consumption on Park Property -Mike Jackson [public comment] 8. Proposed Resolution 04 -011 Amending Fce Resolution - Mike Jackson [ public comment] 9. Motion Consideration: Approval of Economic Analysis Scope - Marina Sukup [public comment] 10. Motion Consideration: Authorization for .15 FTE Engineer at Grade 17 -Nina Regor [public comment] 11. Motion Consideration: Sponsor of Small Business Association Celebration - Deputy Mayor Wilhite [public comment] PUBLIC COMMENTS (Maximum of three minutes please; state your name and address for the record) ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS: [no public comment] 12. Spokane Regional Convention and Visitor's Bureau Report - John Brewer 13. Essential Public Facilities Interlocal Agreement - Cary Driskelli.'tarina Sukup iNFORMATiON ONLY: (no public comment] 14, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 11, 2004 ADJOURNMENT FUTIRE SCHEDULE Regular Council Meetings are generally held 2nd and a Tueiilays, beginning al 6:00 p.m. Council Stud' Sessions are generally held in, 3`d and 5th Tuesdays, beginning at 6:00 p.m. Other Upcoming Meetings/Events: April 14, 2004 - Conversation with the Community, 3:00 p. m. Senior Center April 20, 2004, State of the City Address, 11:30 cent., Decades April 20, 2004 - Council Study Session CANCELLED April 20, 2004, 6:00 p.m. - 8:00 p.m. OPEN HOUSE. Central Valley Board Room Central Volley School District, 19307 E Cataldo. TOPIC Wastewater April 21. 2004. 6:30 - 9:00 p.m., Comprehensive Plan Community Meeting, Pratt Elementary School, 6903 E 4'. Spokane Valley April 27. 2004 -Topic on Regular Meeting Agenda: OPEN PUBLIC COMMENT Couplet Option 24 May 4. 2004 - Topic on Council Study Session Agenda: OPEN PUBLIC COMMENTS Couplet May 11, 2004 - Topic on Regular Meeting . 4genda: PGBIJC HEARING: Adoption of Municipal Code June 15 - 18, 2004, Association Washington Cities Conference Ocean Shores June 15, 2004 - No Council Meeting or Study Session .lucre 26, 2004 - Half Day Council Retreat NOTICE Individuals planning to attend the meeting wlio requite special assistance to accommodate physical. hearing. or nth= impairments. please contact the City Clerk at (509) 921.1000 as soon u possible so that arrangements may be made Council Agenda 04 -13-04 Regular Meeting Page 2of2 s1j�I jUalley WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, WHEREAS, Date PROCLA ATION NATIONAL 'AMEN SERVICE DAT CITY OT SPOWE VALLEY; WASJ(EWg2OW Spokane Valley's youth make important contributions to the city's welfare every day of the year; and most young people who volunteer as youth continue serving throughout a lifetime; and the City of Spokane Valley depends on youth as vital community assets; and the City of Spokane Valley supports Spokane's Promise, a countywide movement that provides youth with community service opportunities to help develop caring and competence; and WHEREAS, the 16 annual National Youth Service Day, a program of Youth Service America, in partnership with the National Youth Leadership Council and Parade Magazine, takes place April 16 -18, 2004. NOW, THEREFORE, I MAYOR MICHAEL DEVLEMING, ON BEHALF OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON, PROCLAIM APRIL 16 — 18, 2004 as National Youth Service Day in Spokane Valley. Michael DeVleming, Mayor DRAFT ItOCLAMA CITY 0 F sTogotivE VALLE% WAsI fIWGTo f WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley acknowledges the contributions made by small businesses to the economic growth and quality of life in the United States; and WHEREAS, small businesses are often recognized as the foundation of a healthy economy; and WHEREAS, the Small Business Association assists new businesses in Spokane Valley and around the country in getting started, growing and remaining competitive; and WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley acknowledges the business ingenuity i J and sprit of small businesses and realizes that these businesses help improve the climate, vitality and strength of this community. NOW, THEREFORE, I Mayor Michael DeVleming, on behalf of the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Washington, proclaim April 20 — June 12, 2004, as SMALL BUSINESS MONTH in Spokane Valley, Washington, and 1 encourage and invite all citizens to support the numerous small businesses that form the heart of the Spokane Valley business community. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Seal of the City of Spokane Valley to be affixed this 13 day of April, 2004. MICHAEL DEVLEM IG, MAYOR CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: 04 -13 -2004 City Manager Sign -off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent 0 old business ❑ new business • public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing to Consider Proposed Amendments to 2004 Budget GOVERNING LEGISLATION: State law requires an amendment to our budget and a public hearing when we believe we will exceed our budget appropriations. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: The City budget for 2004 was adopted in December of 2003. At the 04 -06 -2004 Council meeting staff was directed to proceed with a public hearing on the proposed 2004 budget amendments. BACKGROUND: Amendments to the 2004 budget are needed to pay for tourism promotion and capital projects which were budgeted in 2003 but not fully completed until 2004. Several street capital projects, funded by grant proceeds, need to be budgeted for 2004 as well. Staff would also like to appropriate S15,000 in the Equipment Rental & Replacement Fund. This vehicle purchase was budgeted in the General Fund in error when the budget was prepared. Staff has also added S500 for Student Advisory Council approved by Council on 03/30/04. These costs will be paid by existing fund balances, transfers from other funds, a small amount of unexpected sales tax dollars and grant proceeds. Staff will also be adjusting General Fund revenues (specifically property taxes and sales tax) and expenditures (revenue adjustment, service level stabilization and contingency) to more closely reflect current experience. Attached are revised pages 21 & 49 of the 2004 General Fund budget so you are able to see where the changes affect our General Fund budget. The Finance Committee will meet the week of 04 -12 -04 to review these adjustments. OPTIONS: Amending the budget is the only real option. The City could decide not to make these corrections to the budget, but the construction and tourism promotion costs will still be incurred due to prior obligations. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: A motion to conduct the first reading of the 2004 budget amendment ordinance is recommended. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Passage of this ordinance will provide the budget authorization to move ahead with tourism promotion expenditures and street capital projects carried over from 2003, street projects funded with grant proceeds and an adjustment to the Equipment Rental & Replacement Fund for a code enforcement vehicle budgeted originally in the General Fund. STAFF CONTACT: Ken Thompson, Finance Director General Fund Rovcnues City of Spokane Valley 2004 Budget Detail Revenues by Type Property Tai Property Tax - City S- 10 $ 9,265,809 Sales Taxes Sales Tax -- 1-0,800,000 11,000,000 Sales Tax - Criminal Justice 920,000 11.720,000 Gambling Taxes Punch Boards & Pull Tabs 110,000 Bingo & Raffles 30.000 Card Games 550,000 690,000 Leasehold Excise Tax 5.000 Franchise Fees 640,000 State Shared Revenues MVET Criminal Justice - Population 11,100 Criminal Justice Area #1 14,134 Criminal Justice Area #2 20,191 Criminal Justice Area #3 20,191 Criminal Justice Area #4 17,200 DUI - Cities 12,000 Liquor Board Excise Tax 296,000 Liquor Board Profits 492,000 882,816 Service Revenues Building Permits 506,000 Plumbing Permits 34,000 Grading Permits 7,000 Mechanical Permits 34,000 Demolition Permits 1,00D Misc. Permits & Fees 160,00D Plans Check Fees 197,000 639,000 Fines and Forfeitures Fines & Forfeits - Traffic 150,000 Other Criminal Non - Traffic Fines 250,000 400,000 Recreation Program Charges Activity Fees (To use a recreational facility) 9,000 Program Fees (To participate in a program) 220,000 229,000 Investment Interest Investment Interest 6,000 Sales Tax interest 6.000 Property Tax Interest 6,000 18.000 Transfers Transfer from Street Fund 42,500 Transfer from Capital Projects 80,000 122,500 Total General Fund Revenue 71 S- 2673567346 $ 25,112,125 Fund: 001 Dept: 090 General Fund General Government 2004 Budget General Government The General Government Department comprises activities that encompass services to multiple departments. Included in this department are the costs of city hall and related utilities, manage- ment information services, insurance costs, miscellaneous city intergovernmental costs and capital equipment costs that benefit more than one department. In 2004, the General Fund is scheduled to repay $800,000 of outstanding debt. Detail Budget General Citywide Costs Accounting & Audit Services $ 35,000 Software Maintenance 35,000 Election Costs 50,000 Forms 15,000 Advertising 21,550 Employee Recognition & Safety Program 3,000 Web Page 10,000 Telephone /DSL Charges 20,000 IT Consulting 60,000 Permitting Software 60,000 Miscellaneous 20,000 Interfund Interfund Loan Interest 75,000 Interfund Risk Management Payment 130,000 Operating Transfer - Loan Repayment 800,000 Facilities Facility Repairs & Maintenance 1,500 Miscellaneous Building Maintenance 5,000 City Hall Leasing Costs: City Hall Rent 220,683 Leasehold Improvements 88,745 Storage Space & Parking 3,000 Outside Services Memberships - SRTC 42,500 Alcohol Treatment 15,800 Spokane County Air Pollution Authority 115,000 City Economic Development 10,000 Cable Franchise Negotiations 50,000 Requests from Outside Agencies 100,000 Contingency & Reserves Reserve for Revenue Adjustments 1,170,461 463,300 Operating Reserve - Mirabeau Project 300,000 Service Level Stabilization Reserve 300,000 200,000 Contingency 695,000 500,000 S 4,752,239 $ 3,450,078 49 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: April 13, 2004 City Manager Sign -off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent El old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ® information El admin. report El pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Public Comment: Signage GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Chapter 14.804 Signage Standards Interim Zoning Regulations PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: City Council was briefed on the Interim Sign Regulations on March 30, 2004. On April 6, 2004, City Council authorized staff to solicit volunteers for an Ad hoc Committee with responsibility for the review and update of current signage regulations. At this meeting, City Council also identified priorities for enforcement of the interim regulations. BACKGROUND: The City Council adopted Chapter 14.804 of the Zoning Code of Spokane County as interim regulations governing signage. In order to provide a balanced review of regulations, the ad hoc Sign Committee would include two representatives from the sign industry actively engaged in the installation of commercial signage, two representatives from the Spokane Valley Business community, two neighborhood representatives, and one member appointed by the Planning Commission. The meetings of the Committee will be open to the public. Notice and an application form have been provided to the Spokane Valley Chamber of Commerce, the Spokane Valley Business Association and numerous individuals who expressed an interest in serving the Committee. We have requested that applications for appointment be submitted not later than April 30, 2004. On April 6, 2004, City Council approved a phased approach to full enforcement with priority assigned to signs representing a safety threat, those encroaching on the public rights -of -way, prohibited signs, and abandoned signs. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Accept public comments. BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A STAFF CONTACT: Marina Sukup, Community Development Director DRAFT Mayor DeVleming called the 40 City of Spokane Valley Regular Meeting to order at 6:00 p.m., and welcomed everyone to the meeting. Attendance: Councilmembers: Michael DeVleming, Mayor Diana Wilhite, Deputy Mayor Dick Denenny, Councilmember Mike Flanigan, Councilmember Richard Munson, Councilmember Steve Taylor, Councilmember Excused: Gary Schimmels MIENUTES City of Spokane Valley City Council Regular Meeting Tuesday, March 23, 2004 Staff: Dave Mercier, City Manager Nina Regor, Deputy City Manager Mike Jackson, Parks & Recreation Director Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney Ken Thompson, Finance Director Marina Sukup, Community Development Director Neil Kersten, Public Works Director Tom Scholtens, Building Official Scott Kuhta, Long Range Planner Greg McCormick, Long Range Planning Manager Sue Pearson, Deputy City Clerk Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk CD PLEDGE OF ALLEGLANCE: Mayor DeVleming led the Pledge of Allegiance. INVOCATION: Councilmember Munson gave the invocation. ROLL CALL: It was moved by Mayor DeVleming and seconded by Councilmember Wilhite to excuse Councilmember Schimmels front tonight's meeting. Vote by acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. City Clerk Bainbridge called roll; all councilmembers were present with the exception of excused Councilmember Gary Schimmels. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Mayor DeVleming announced that item #11 will be removed from tonight's agenda to be brought back at another date. lt was moved by Mayor DeVleming and seconded by Councilmember Munson to approve the agenda as amended. Vote by acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. COIVIM1TTEE, BOARD, LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS: Councilmember Denenny reported that during the National League of Cities Conference in Washington, D.C., he attended numerous seminars, established interactions with others, contacted legislators, and attended conferences and interviews with Senators and Congressman Nethercutt. Coamcilntentber Taylor added that he too attended those conferences, and attended a seminar which dealt with local planning and the Charrette process, which was also introduced at a recent Spokane Valley Joint Council/Planning Commission meeting; he also attended a seminar on liability MTI3E (gasoline additives) contamination which was very interesting and informative. Deputy Mayor Wilhite reported that she attended the recent • conference on Federal Highway and Transportation Funding and the Highway Funding System in general. Council Minutes 03 -23 -04 I'agc 1 ail Date Approved by Council: DRAFT Councilinember Munson said that on March 16 he attended a meth action team meeting, which is a regional group attempting to come up with action programs to address and mitigate the affects of drugs on our society. MAYOR'S REPORT: Mayor DeVleming reminded everyone that the Mayor's Ball is this Saturday. PU.RLIC CONTME.NTS: Mayor DeVleming explained the process for taking public comments, and invited any public comments not on topics listed on the agenda. Jeanne Gates, Veradale: on behalf of the members of the Spokane Valley Senior Center, she expressed thanks to Council for attention to the visits at the center, and support during the transition; and that she is excited about working with the Council on an ad hoc committee. WASTEWATER ISSUES: PUBLIC COMMENTS. Mayor DeVleming opened the floor and invited public comments concerning the wastewater issues. Howard Herman, 117 N McDonald: said as a friend to the Council, believes Council is about to commit a grievous error in contracting away ownership and future operation of the treatment plant; wants to argue not to do so, and wants to know what Council knows about the proposed interlocal agreement with the county; he wants discussions about the program; said approximately 90% of the meetings thus far have been study sessions with no interplay with the public and feels there should be significant citizen input regarding the interlocal agreement; that the topic deserves a number of public meetings and not just one or two. Tony Lazanis, 10626 E. Empire: said that study sessions are private sessions and don't involve the public; does not favor an agreement with the County to give the City of Spokane Valley's assets away to the County; asked Council not to "give our future away to the County;" that Valley people will be paying for about 80% of the county's plant. Eleanor Henderson: expressed concern about this issue, feels the citizens are not informed enough; that she worked on the election board the last time this was an issue and 90% of the Valley voted against this type of thing; that she wants more meetings so citizens can let council know how they feel. Ray Perry, 2020 N Eli: wants to admonish Council and hopes Council will invite public to many meetings; that this is a very serious matter and the outcome will have long lasting affects, wants council to invite the public to look at the whole scheme. Richard l3ehm, 3626 S. Ridgeview Drive: said he was designated as an expert in the field; in the late 70's he was one of the original people at the meeting to designate the aquifer as a sole source issue and has been involved in sewer and water issues since that time, wants more public hearings and more time to have people voice their opinions. Dr. Phillip Rudy, 10720 East: feels we need to own the plant and it needs to be in the City limits of Spokane Valley; that if the plant were in the City of Spokane, the City of Spokane could condemn and purchase the plant according to law if the City of Spokane Valley went into a partnership with the City of Spokane; said that utilities generate large amount of money, that Spokane County has in excess of 30 million dollars in wastewater reserves and that was collected from ratepayers, most of whom reside in the valley; that the City of Spokane Valley needs the ability to generate its own reserve funds. Wayne Frost, 3320 N Argonne: said that he does not live in the valley, but the company he represents owns a large amount of land in the valley; that he is a representative of the Local Governance Committee Council Minute 03 -23-04 Date Approved by Council: Page 2 of 8 of the Chamber of Commerce; that the public feels left out of the loop and the desire is for more information; in the past he's offered the Chamber to act as facilitator, and that invitation is still open; that he encourages Council to look at opportunities that perhaps have not yet been considered, and that the Chamber of Commerce is willing to look at this from an independent viewpoint. DRAFT Ed Mertens, 1310 N Pierce: said that the EPA reported that they might not allow the river to take any more sewage; feels we have to step back and look at what they'll give us; if we can't go into the river maybe we need a different plan; feels we have a right to put that in our control. Eldonna Gossett, CEO Chamber of Commerce: wanted to reinforce the comments of Wayne Frost; wants to help get citizens involved and would like to form a task force to work with Council to come to good conclusions. Mayor DeVleming invited further public comment; none was offered. Mayor DeVleming invited Public Works Director Kersten to offer comment. Director Kersten mentioned the council packet list showing the history of the meetings; that the County is moving ahead with the Playfair site; that a meeting was held February 25 at the Eastside Community Center for the Environmental Impact Study, which is scheduled to be completed mid - summer; that he and members of the County met March 2 regarding the interlocal and that there will be some formal public hearings on that matter; that the Board of County Commissioners met March 16 on that interlocal and they had comments which will be brought back to Council in April. Director Kersten said that he met with members of the Department of Ecology (DOE) who gave an update of the information they received from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and that the EPA told the DOE that the EPA does not want the DOE to issue any discharge permits into the river until the total maximum daily load (TMDL:) study is completed; and added that there is no specific timeframe for completion of that study, although there is a tentative time of summer of 2005. Director Kersten added that depending on the outcome of that study, this issue could stretch out for a year or more. He also mentioned that on March 16, the City of Spokane entered into an agreement with Playfair with the intent of having part of that site used as a regional wastewater treatment plant. In response to Councilmember Denenny's question about the implications if we were to change direction, and in response to Councilmember Munson's question about Mr. Emacio's recent paper, City Attorney Schwartz explained that we have a sewer collection system which is owned and operated by the County. In Mr. Emacio's basic assumption paper, which was premised upon the draft interlocal agreement still under. consideration, Attorney Schwartz said that Mr. Emacio stated that the "City of Spokane Valley cannot legally take over the county's collection system." Attorney Schwartz then read and explained RCW 36.94.180, which addresses the ability of a newly incorporated city to operate a sewage system owned by the County. Attorney Schwartz said that this statute has not been interpreted by our Washington State courts; that Mr. Emacio made the above statement because he interpreted the word "may" in the above statute to require that it be a negotiated agreement between the City and the County with respect to an assumption of the collection system by the City from Spokane County. Attorney Schwartz continued by discussing the assumption of an area lying within or the assumption of the facility, equipment and property lying within the City, all of which brings up more questions: What happens if a treatment plant is constructed outside the City? Can you or is there a desire to condemn it? Do you negotiate for capacity? What interest do you have in that outside facility? Attorney Schwartz said that although one interpretation of the word "may" means there must be a negotiated contract, perhaps other interpretations differ. in addition, Attorney Schwartz stated, if you were to do an assumption, you cannot materially interfere with the operation of the remaining county system. Attorney Schwartz said that in his opinion that means if you were to attempt to proceed with an assumption under Council Minutes 03 -23-04 Paee 3 of 8 Date Approved by Council: DRAFT this statute, judicial intervention would be necessary to determine if there is the ability to assume without . the consent of the County, but the materially affect hurdle would still be an issue. Finance Director Thompson then stated his concerns about moving ahead as the loan investor in a wastewater treatment plant in Spokane Valley; he stated that the County is in line to get an approximate 70 million dollar loan at 1.5 %; if Spokane Valley solely were to move ahead on the project, we would want to make sure we could also a similar loan as if we were to pay 4.5 to 5% in the market, the debt service would become significant; he also mentioned that the capital facilities charge that the County now charges and the user fees would likely have to increase; which doesn't mean the fees would not increase with any new plant. Director Thompson said another issue is, we have 26,000 of the users within our city limits and another 9800 that will eventually be connected to that system; to bill 36,000 accounts we would need additional staff (10 -15 more) just to handle the telephone traffic; in addition, we would not want to sell the bonds until the discharge permit has been issued (or we definitively know it will be issued). Director Thompson said we would also be required to consider a debt service coverage factor, which means after deducting the plant operating cost from the revenues there must be enough left over to have between 1.3 and 1.5 times the debt service, which allows the bond buyers to have a comfort level to know that there are extra revenues available; that we would also need a debt service reserve, which is usually equal to one year's debt service or the highest year's debt service, which could amount to six million dollars each year. Director Thompson explained that we must ensure that the capital facilities charge and user fees are competitive to the outlying area in order not to discourage people from locating their homes and businesses in the city limits; and that if we were to try to handle this project alone, it would dominate our work plan for the next five years and would likely accomplish little else. If the assumption issue goes to court, Director Thompson said, it would take years in time and substantial legal fees. In summary, Director Thompson said he has concerns this project might be too large for the City of Spokane Valley at this point. Public Works Director Kerstcn said that one of our concerns is actually acquiring the permit; and that we encouraged the County to send a letter to DOE clarifying if a permit could be obtained. Director Kersten said that we received a letter November 7 from Richard Wallace, Manager of Water Quality at the DOE, which stated that based on the current design, they would issue a permit. However, last week, the DOE requested a meeting with us, the County and the City of Spokane, and told us that EPA said that they do not want DOE to issue a permit at this time until the TMDL study is complete. Director Kersten said that if another site would be considered, another EIS would need to be conducted; that the County spent several years looking at possible sites, and that Director Kersten would estimate another one to two years to find a different site, and another six to nine months for an EIS. City Manager Mercier said that we have been advised by the County that the wastewater system currently has capacity at their projected growth rates, to last to about 2009, and it may take five years to go through the design, construction, and development of that facility in order to be available and useful. Mayor DeVleming said this is just the beginning of presentations and public comments on the issue. 2. CONSENT AGENDA: After City Clerk Bainbridge read the consent agenda, it was moved by Mayor DeVleming and seconded by Councilmember Denenny, to approve the Consent Agenda. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. NEW BUSINESS 3. Second Readin ' Pro.osed Towin Ordinance 04 -001 — Cary Driskell After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Mayor DeVleming and seconded by Councilmember Munson to approve Ordinance 04 - 001. Deputy City Attorney Driskell then discussed the background of this ordinance, and said in addition to the changes discussed at the previous council meeting, he is also recommending an amendment to this draft by eliminating section 10.E.13 which is in Council Minutes 03 -23 -04 Date Approved by Council: Page 4 orb DRAFT contradiction with other state law, and to then re number the remaining numbers of that section. Mayor DeVleming moved to amend his motion to reflect the modifications suggested by Attorney Driskell: seconder agreed. Mayor DeVleming invited public comment. Bettie Simmons, 35045 inland Empire: said as there is a valley tower here, she will defer to him. Rodney Sankey. 3907 E. Wellesley: said his business address is 14921 E. Trent; that he owns a towing company; he is concerned about the junk vehicle towing for free; said requiring performance without payment is similar to seizure of the business; he is also the AAA contactor for the Spokane Valley and does over 1,000 calls a month out here; he pays a driver to perform the tows and objects to the free towing; said only 60% of the impound vehicles are retrieved and he takes a loss on the remaining 40 %; he suggested making it on a rotation basis and they would have no objection; and that his fee to haul a junk vehicle is $30.00. Kay Seek, 13617 E. Wellesley: said her towing company is located in the Spokane Valley at 7125 E. Broadway; said the information given by Mr. Sankey is incorrect as his yard is not located in the Valley; that is a tentative site and has not yet been approved by the State Patrol; that she represents six of the seven Valley companies that are located within the city limits; that they are not supportive of the ordinance as written; that increasing insurance costs is not setting a level playing field; that we are willing to regulate them but have no provisions to regulate other towing companies that come into the city; there are many towers who do not pay insurance and don't pay taxes; that private towing is set at the State level and not the County level. Betsy Merrell, owns Rouse's Towing, 2621 University: they are the largest towing company in this county; said there are numerous incorrect facts; she feels the insurance liability amount should be one million dollars; that they are required to carry five million because they run large trucks; junk vehicles is an issue, however; as Spaulding Auto Parts receives $100 per ton and the average car weighs two tons, Spaulding gets approximately $200 per vehicle and they get nothing; that Mr. Driskell's premise is the towing company will get more law enforcement tows from the City of Spokane Valley — but she feels there will be a few more but not many; and it usually cost her between $100 and $150 to process each junk abandoned vehicle; she suggests Spaulding pick up the cars for free and keep the proceeds and eliminate the middle person; that law enforcement officers must be present when they pick up vehicles in order to protect drivers and that .issue should be addressed. She said also if a towing company twice refuses to pick up vehicles they may be removed from the law enforcement list; that several companies are one -truck companies and there will be times when they will be busy and more than two times in a six - month period when a company might turn down this type of call. Richard Brandenburg, 12121 E. Portland Ave: owns and operates Outback Towing; said he can't approve of this ordinance. Jim Seek, 13617 E. Wellesley; co - owner of Victoria Towing; said that AAA only requires $500,000 in insurance and our requirement is ten times the state requirement; that language is missing regarding State Patrol having the final say in towing; and that he would like to see council direct staff to answer some of these questions and come back again after the matter is more settled. Mayor DeVleming invited further public comment; none was offered. Councilmember Taylor said he feels there are more questions that could be answered and would like to ask staff to review the comments. It was moved by Councihnentber Taylor and seconded by Councilmember Flanigan to table the motion and move the issue to the next council agenda. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. Council Minutes 03 -23 -04 Pane 5 of $ Dote Approved by Council: DRAFT Mayor DeVleming called for a short recess at 7:35 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 7:45 p.m. 4. Second Reading Proposed Sign Amendment Code Ordinance 04 -008 — Scott Kuhta After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Mayor DeVleming and seconded by Councilmember Taylor to approve Ordinance 04-008. Long Range Planner Kuhta explained that this ordinance would permit greater wall silmage for schools, hospitals, and other public uses, and went over the background of the ordinance. Mayor DeVleming invited public comment; none was offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 5. Second Reading Uniform Development Code Ordinance 04 -013 — Marina Sukug After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Councilmember Munson and seconded by Councilmember Flanigan to approve Ordinance 04 -013. Community Development Director Sukup gave an overview of the ordinance and said that there have been no changes since the last meeting. Mayor DeVleming invited public comment; none was offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 6. First Reading Proposed Ordinance 04 -014 Amending Ordinance 40 and 41 — Tom Scholtens After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Councilmember Munson and seconded by Councilmember Flanigan to advance Ordinance 04 -014 to a second reading to be scheduled after CTED gives their reading on approval. City Manager Mercier mentioned that this ordinance will be set for final approval after receipt of comments from CTED. Building Official Scholtens explained the background of the ordinance, after which Mayor DeVleming invited public comment. Clay Conrad, Architect, 2121 East Temple Road: said he lives outside the City limits but that he practices on a number of projects in the City and has a number of projects held up because of this previous ordinance; he feels the intent would be served well by the ordinance adopting the 2003 Building Code, and he urges timely adoption. City Manager Mercier said staff is urging CTED to answer as promptly as possible. Mayor DeVleming invited further public comment; none was offered. Vote by acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 7. P posed Resolution 04 -005 Designating Bidder for Construction of CenterPlace — Neil Kersten After City Clerk Bainbridge read the resolution title, it was proved by Mayor DeVleming and seconded by Councilmember Denenny to approve Resolution 04 -005. Director Kersten gave an overview of the issue and said as evidenced by the bid tabulation sheet, bids were tight and competitive, and that staff recommends passing the resolution and authorizing the City Manager to enter into a contract; he added that. there are contingencies set aside to handle possible changes. Mayor DeVleming invited public comment; none was offered. Vote by acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous.. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 8. Proposed Resolution 04 -006 Designating Official Newspaper— Chris Bainbridge After City Clerk Bainbridge read the resolution title, it was moved by Councihnenrber Munson and seconded by Councilmember Flanigan to approve Resolution 04 -006. City Clerk Bainbridge explained that there have been no changes since this was last discussed with council, and the Spokane Valley circulation figures are enclosed for the Valley Herald and the Spokesman Review. Councilmember Taylor said he feels the substantial savings warrant changing to the Valley Herald, and that the Spokesman Review did a fine job and the change is matter of cost. Councilmember Munson said he will vote against the resolution in favor of going with the Valley Voice as an alternate. Mayor DeVleming invited public comment; none was offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Deputy Mayor Wilhite, and Councilmembers Taylor, Denenny, and Flanigan. Opposed Mayor DeVleming and Councilmember Council Minutes 03 -23.04 Page 6 of 8 Dote Approved by Council; DRAFT Munson. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. Mayor DeVleming said this discussion will come back next year as we will use the Valley Herald for a one -year period. 9. Motion Consideration: Senior Center Bus — Mike Jackson It was moved by Mayor DeVleming and seconded Councilmerrnber Munson to offer financial assistance to the association in an amount not to exceed the $4,300 for the remainder of 2004, to aS'S St them as they take responsibility for transportation at the Senior Center. Parks & Recreation Director Jackson said he feels good about the communication that occurred between City Staff and Council and with the Senior Center Association in an attempt to identify the cost of operating the bus; that last week the Senior Association asked that we consider an arrangement similar to what they had with the County, and a copy of that agreement is enclosed. Mayor DeVleming invited public comment. John Maley, E. 13905 DeSmit: presented figures for driver's wages, bus insurance, fuel, maintenance, etc, and said that he estimates $13,170 to maintain the bus; he added that he would like to know what is the end result of our animal control, how much money are we spending on our pets in the City of Spokane Valley, and that he will send e-mail to the appropriate staff to get those answers. Maryann Warren, 1102 N. McArthur Road: extended thanks because the bus is needed. Mayor DeVleming invited further public comment; none was offered. Vote by acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed. None. .Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 10. Spokane Housing Authority Report.— Executive Director Dianne Ouast Director Quast went over the annual report and explained some of the programs they offer, including home ownership program, the Sharon Lord Apartments, housing vouchers which amount to approximately 1.6 million dollars a month to assist families in maintaining homes; and stated that that program is in great jeopardy and she encourages Council to add this issue to their national legislative agendas. 11. one -Rem e This item was moved from the agenda and will be re- scheduled. l2. Report on Planning Studies and Budget— Greg McCormick Manager McCormick gave his PowerPoint presentation and background on the previously presented Charrettes and RUDAT, adding that Council requested more inforrnation prior to making a decision to move forward. After discussion on a city center, economic analysis on SpraguelAppleway, the draft scope of work, the upcoming community meetings and community feedback, it was decided to wait further until more community input has been received. 13. Employee Classification System — Dave Mercier City Manager Mercier reported that Council enacted several ordinances and resolutions to establish a personnel system, and embedded in some of those is the notion that the City Manager and staff would review that material from time to time; that staff is aware of that call to periodically assess the content of the job descriptions and of the ongoing intent to assure that the classification system bears some relation to market rates and costs; adding that staff will undertake a review of what was done by interim staff and will attempt to make market rate comparisons. It was determined that staff will establish the direction in this regard, and report back to council with their findings. 14. Towing Contract Form — Cary Driskell. In the interest of time, this item will be postponed until the following council meeting. Council Minutes 03 -23.04 Page 7 ors Date Approved by Council: DRAFT It was moved by Mayor DeVleming, seconded by Councilmember Munson, and unanimously agreed upon to extend the meeting to 9:30 p.m. 15. Formation of Student Advisory Council — Mayor DeVlemin Mayor DeVleming gave his PowerPoint presentation on the formation of a Student Advisory Council, and added that he will recommend budgeting 5500.00 from the discretionary fund to cover items such as mailings, advertising, letterhead, agendas, etc. Councilmember Taylor expressed concern about staff support as he did not want to overburden staff. Mayor DeVleming said he expects staff to help minimally, but does not anticipate staff being burdened. It was Council consensus to place this item on the March 30 agenda for further consideration. 15a. Fire District 1.1_pdate —Nina R gor Deputy City Manager Regor gave a synopsis of what has occurred to date concerning the election and annexation, and stated that the April 27 election (late was chosen to provide time for a second election if that proved necessary; and that staff is now considering the possibility of an election September 14; she added that no costs have been expended thus far and the ballot has not yet been printed. It was moved by Mayor Devleming and seconded by Councilmember Munson to request Spokane County to remove the Fire District Annexation ballot issue from the April 27, 2004 ballot. Vote by acclamation: .In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. It was then moved by Mayor DeVleming and seconded by Councilmember Munson to submit the fire district annexation issue to the Boundary Review Board on a notice of intention and immediately invoke jurisdiction. Vote by acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. It was moved by Councilmember Flanigan, seconded by Councilmember Munson, and unanimously agreed upon to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 9:25 p.m. ATTEST: Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Council Minutes 03 -23 -04 Date Approved by Council; Michael DeVleming, Mayor Page 8 of 8 DRAFT Attendance: Councilmembers: Michael DeVleming, Mayor Diana Wilhite, Deputy Mayor Dick Denenny, Councilmember Mike. Flanigan, Councilmember Richard Munson, Councilmember Steve Taylor, Councilmember MINUTES City of Spokane Valley City Council Study Session March 30, 2004, 6:00 p.m. Staff: Dave Mercier City Manager Nina Regor, Deputy City Manager Ken Thompson, Finance Director Neil Kersten, Public Works Director Cal Walker, Police Chief Mike Jackson, Parks & Recreation Director Marina Sukup, Community Development Director Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney Tom Scholtens, Building Official Kevin Snyder, Current Planning Manager Sue Pearson, Deputy City Clerk Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk Absent: Gary Schimmels, Councilmember, - Excused Mayor DeVleming opened the meeting at 6:00 p.m., welcomed all in attendance, reminded everyone that this is a study session and requested that all electronic devices be turned off for the duration of the meeting. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Wilhite and seconded by Councilmember Munson to excuse Councilmember Schimmels from tonight's meeting. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. It was then moved by Mayor DeVleming and seconded by Councilmember Denenny to excuse Councilrnembers Munson and Taylor from the April 6 Council Study Session. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed. None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. Mayor DeVleming announced that an item will be added to the beginning of the agenda for approval of an amended agreement with Tan Moore; and that agenda item numbers 5 and 6 will be heard in reserve order. Approval of Tan Moore Amended Agreement — Neil Kersten Public Works Director Kersten explained that in keeping with the Uniform Building Code, we are required to employ one. or more special inspectors to provide special inspections and testing during construction, and that this amendment authorizes Tan Moore Architects to contract with a local testing and inspection firm on behalf of the City. Director Kersten added that the maximum cost for this amendment is $25,000. It was moved by Mayor DeVleming and seconded by Deputy Mayor Wilhite to approve the amendment. Mayor DeVleming invited public comment; none was offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 1. Towing Contract Form Report — Cary Driskell Deputy City Attorney Driskell stated that a part of the ordinance to control police - initiated tows includes a process for tow operators to be included on the police tow list; and that a tow operator would need to sigi a contract with the City that they would participate in the junk vehicle abatement program. Attorney Driskell stated that after last Tuesday's council meeting, he met with several tow operators who seek clarification on the ability to arrange with Spaulding concerning the price per tow. The contract does not preclude tow operators and Spaulding negotiating a fee, but the contract does state that the City will not Study Session Minutes 03 -30 -04 Page 1 of 3 Date Approved by Council: DRAFT pay the tow operator for removal of junk vehicles. Attorney Driskell said that some of the small operators did not like the idea of stopping everything else to go pick up a vehicle, but Attorney Driskell said that was one of the reasons why he changed the time in which to respond from 48 hours, to 72 hours. Discussion then ensued regarding agreements between the tow operators and Spauldings, or between the City and Spauldings; the current raise in the price of steel, and our cost to get on the police tow list: ($100) compared with the City of Spokane's cost ($350 - $375). it was Council consensus to place this item on the April 13 agenda. 2. Signage Presentation — Marina Sukup Community Development Director Sukup explained that Spokane County originally adopted signagc standards in 1991, and in 2001 a Committee was established to review those standards and make recommendations for amendments. The regulations were ultimately approved by the County Commissioners. Spokane County ceased issuing permits and enforcing sign regulations when the City of Spokane Valley incorporated. Last spring Council directed staff to defer enforcement of the provisions of the sign regulations until further notice. Director Sukup then explained that tonight's meeting is to review and have Council give direction on the process for continued review and update of the sign regulations, and secure clarification of Council enforcement priorities. Director Sukup emphasized that while we don't regulate content, we do regulate where, when, and how the material is to be presented for commercial speech. Discussion took place throughout the PowerPoint presentation including safety issues such as not placing signs too close to power lines; the idea of an ad hoc committee, traffic safety issues, pro - active response versus reactive response to illegal signs; penalty provisions for misuse of signs, and signs in the right -of -way. It was Council consensus to direct staff to form an ad -hoc committee or minimally, the definition of such committee; work on cleaning up the illegal signs and violators, and address right -of -way and safety issues. 3. Economic Analysis (Scope of Work) — Marina Sukup Director Sukup said that Eastern Washington University has expressed an interest in working on this project and is developing a proposed timeline, and added that staff does not anticipate hearing from them until next week. Director Sukup stated that a draft was sent to the Chamber of Commerce, the Business Association, and a number of individuals who expressed interest, that it will be posted on our website, and we are soliciting suggestions and comments to be received by April 5. She added that the Scope of Work has not changed since last reviewed. Director Sukup said the next steps are that staff will brief Council April 6 on all comments and suggestions received; and that April 13 Council will be asked to approve the final scope of work and authorize staff to proceed with entering into an agreement with Eastern Washington University or securing a consultant. Councilmember Munson suggested staff contact Whitworth College as they also might have a consultant available. Rather than submit a public request for proposals to the Universities, Direct Sukup said staff will make sure the university explains its methodology and that they understand exactly what we seek. City Manager Mercier added that whoever performs the assessment will be working against some predisposed thinking on the issue regardless of what angle they approach; and added that universities might are likely to be more detached and not have a local bias. It was Council consensus for staff to proceed as planned. 4. Gradine/Excavation (earthwork) Code —Tom Scholtens Building Official Scholtens explained that this is a first touch on this topic and that there is currently no *grading/excavation ordinance. Official Scholtens displayed his PowerPoint presentation explaining the purpose for and highpoints of such an ordinance. Council stated it has no objection for staff to move forward with this proposed ordinance. Mayor DeV lent ing called for a short recess at 7:35 p.m.; he reconvened the meeting at 7:50 p.m. Study Session Minutes 03 -30 -04 p ane 2 of 3 Date Approved by Council: DRA1 T ATTEST: 6. Governance Manual Review Rc,ort — Ma or DeVleming Councilmetnbers Taylor and Flani an and City Manager Mercier Mayor DeVleming led the discussion accompanied by his PowerPoint presentation on the Governance Manual, including background of the manual and why we are proposing changes. Councilmember Munson suggested making the language more clear concerning the travel recommendation of expenses incurred during the last six month's of a term of office. Councilmember Denenny suggested changing page 11 to request to monitor instead of participate in a nonvoting capacity. Mayor DeVleming mentioned that this is a first touch, the intent is for this committee to re -group and address the suggested changes, and that they will address more formal language for items 3, 4, and 5. 5. Discussion, Proposed Resolution Authorizing Formation of Student Advisory Council — Mayor DeVleming After brief discussion of this resolution and of forming the Student Advisory Council, it was moved by Councilmember Munson and seconded by Deputy Mayor Wilhite to approve Resolution 04 -007. Deputy Mayor Wilhite asked that the language on the application be changed from "contestant" to "applicant." Councilmember Flanigan mentioned he did not have an opportunity to check with the home schooling center, but anticipates that group is larger than originally thought. Mayor DeVleming said he will make sure the invitation to the student at large includes the home schools, alternate schools, and other private schools. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 7. Advance Agenda Additions — Mayor DeVleming Mayor DeVleming announced the April 14 Conversation with the Community at the Senior Center, and the April 20 State of the City address noon at Decades. Mayor DeVleming also suggested holding several open houses to discuss wastewater issues, and to have information tables for finance, public works, and legal. City Manager Mercier suggested having key staff make an opening presentation, and then a wrap - up at the end, and that staff' will also accumulate fact sheets for distribution at those meetings. Councilmember Munson suggested advertising these meetings on the front page of our website, and as public service announcements with all local media. Councilmember Denenny added that he feels Councilmembers should not attend these community forums as he feels the presence of councilmembers might be inhibiting to a free public exchange of dialogue and ideas. 8. Council Check -in — Dave Mercier City Manager Mercier mentioned that the report on the governance committee review will serve as tonight's council check - in. 9. City Manager Comments — Dave Mercier City Manager Mercier reminded everyone of Monday's hearing regarding the Liberty Lake Comprehensive Plan. He also mentioned that the Washington Economic Development Finance Authority, which serves as the conduit for certain revenue bond lending, has asked Council for a letter of support in connection with their proposed financing package; and that this item will be on the April 6 Study Session agenda. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m. Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Michael DeVleming, Mayor Study Session Minutes 03 -30 -04 Page 3 of 3 Date Approved by Council: DRAFT Attendance: Councilmembcrs: Michael DeVleming, Mayor Diana Wilhite, Deputy Mayor Dick Denenny, Councilmember Mike Flanigan, Councilmember Gary Schimrnels, Councilmember Absent: Rich Munson, Councilmember - Excused Steve Taylor, Councilmember - Excused MINUTES City of Spokane Valley City Council Study Session April 6, 2004, 6:00 p.m. Staff: Dave Mercier City Manager Nina Regor, Deputy City Manager Ken Thompson, Finance Director Neil Kersten, Public Works Director Mike Jackson, Parks & Recreation Director Marina Sukup, Community Development Director Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney Kevin Snyder, Current Planning Manager John Hohman, Sr. Development Engineer Steve Worley, Sr. Engineer for CM Sue Pearson, Deputy City Clerk Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk Mayor DeVleming opened the meeting at 6:00 p.m., welcomed all in attendance, reminded everyone that this is a study session and requested that all electronic devices be turned off for the duration of the meeting. Mayor DeVleming then read the Proclamation announcing April 5 —11 as Public Health Week Employee introductions: Parks and Recreation Director Jackson introduced Carol Carter, new Administrative Assistant for Parks and Recreation; and Deputy City Attorney Driskell introduced Josh Leonard, intern, and second year law student at Gonzaga. 1. Letter of Su ort for Washington Economic I7evelo ment Finance Authorit WEDFA Industrial Revenue Bonds — Dave Mercier City Manager Mercier explained that the Washington Economic Development Finance Authority (WEDFA) is a source of tax - exempt economic development revenue bonds for qualifying private sector investments; that they are a self - supporting state agency which serves as the conduit for certain revenue bond lending for business activities and that WEDFA has requested City Council consideration of their intended issuance of tax- exempt non - recourse economic development revenue bonds to the Lawrence B Stone Properties #11, LLC Project, which would provide financing for the renovation and construction of buildings to be leased to SCAFCO, inc. City Manager Mercier also mentioned the accompanying "Frequently Asked Questions" and spreadsheet indicating their recent loan activity. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Wilhite and seconded by Mayor DeVleming to approve the letter of support. Vote by Acclamation: hi Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 2. Motion Consideration: Authorizing Formation of Ad Hoc Committee to Review Sin Regulations — Marina Sukuk As background, Community Development Director Sukup mentioned that Council was briefed on the interim sign regulations March 30, 2004, and as a result, Council proposed that an ad hoc committee be formed to review safety, definitions, and permit requirements. Director Sukup suggested membership be balanced between the sign industry, and the business and residential communities, and added that several people have volunteered for consideration. Mayor DeVleming stated he would like to see a defined Study Session Minutes 44 -06.04 Page 1 of 4 Date Approved by Council: DRAFT objective for this committee. 11 was moved by Councibnember.Denenny and seconded by Councilmember Flanigan to establish an ad hoc sign committee with responsibility of reviewing regulations and enforcement within Spokane Valley. Mayor DeVleming invited public comment; none was offered. Vote by .Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: none. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. Director Sukup said she will advertise for committee members via the newspaper and anticipates the committee initially meeting weekly. 3. Motion Consideration: Establishing Priorities for the Enforcement of Sign Regulations — Marina Sukup Community Director Sukup said that at the March 30, 2004 meeting, Council directed staff to work on clean up of the illegal signs, and to address right -of -way and safety issues; and that the primary areas of focus were to include safety, encroachment on the right -of -way, and cases which might involve signs that are not legal, adding that maintenance appeared to remain a lower priority. Councilmember Denenny suggested adding obviously abandoned signs, and Deputy Mayor Wilhite stressed that sign owners be given adequate notification concerning sign regulations. City Manager Mercier said that staff will request the Valley Chamber of Commerce to send out a valley flash to alert sign owners of the sign regulations which will be addressed. it was moved by Councilmember Denenny and seconded by Deputy Mayor Wilhite to approve a phased enforcement of the sign code ordinance as outlined in the staff report, including removal of abandoned signs. Mayor DeVleming invited public comment; none was offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 4. Proposed Resolution Setting Public Wearing Date for Planning Commission Re Street Vacation 0104 — Kevin Snyder Current Planning Manager Snyder explained that a street vacation request was received from Kurt and Mandee Vigessa requesting the City vacate a portion of 15' Avenue, a public street; and that state statute specifics that the legislative authority establish by resolution, the time such application will be considered. It ivas moved by Councilmember Denenny and seconded by Deputy Mayor Wilhite to approve Resolution 04 -008. Mayor DeVleming invited public comment; none was offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. 5. Proposed 2004 Budget Amendments — Ken Thompson Finance Director Thompson said that this will be the first amendment to the 2004 budget, and directed Council attention to and discussed the accompanying spreadsheet. Director Thompson added that the $500.00 for student Advisory Council is also included in these figures; that this amendment will also provide authorization to proceed with the remaining tourism promotion expenditures and street capital projects carried over from 2003, and that the sewer fund is no longer necessary so funds will be transferred back out into street capital fund or street operating fund. City Manager Mercier added that staff anticipates at least two future budget amendments as we have not yet experienced a full twelve months of sales tax distribution. It was Council consensus to move forward with the public hearing scheduled for April 13, 2004. 6. Utility Franchise Policy Points — Cary Driskell Deputy City Attorney Driskell said that Avista contacted staff a few months ago concerning an agreement on a new franchise; and that Avista's proposed agreement contained some issues not previously addressed by council. In this endeavor, Attorney Driskell said that two main issues he would like to discuss are vegetation, and undergrounding wires; that Avista proposes trimming the vegetation within our right -of- way, at their discretion. Attorney Driskell added that granting that type of discretion could have some legal liability implications concerning power lines. Mayor DeVleming said that Vera has hired an arborist and he feels that inland and perhaps Modern have also, and that using arborists generally results in healthy cuts and also longer times between cuts; that he likes the idea of burying lines but that it is generally very costly as it also entails digging up the asphalt. After further discussion on undergrounding Study Session Minutes 04 -06 -04 Dale Approved by Council: Page 2 of 4 DRAFT lines, Attorney Driskell said he will continue to collect information and explore the possibility of conducting a feasibility study to determine costs. Mayor DeVleming called for a recess at 6:55 p.m.; he reconvened the meeting at 7:10 p.m. 7. Couplet Option 2A — Neil Kersten Public Works Director Kersten and Senior Engineer Worley went over their PowerPoint presentation concerning the pros and cons of considering this option for the couplet. Director Kersten asked Council direction to continue to consider this option, or focus efforts on more cross - street access between Sprague and Appleway. Discussion continued concerning this option, including eliminating bike lanes, narrowing the landscape areas, frontage streets and limited access, and allowing only right- turns. Councilmember Denenny mentioned given the information presented, this option does not appear feasible. Mayor DeVleming said that although Option 2A was not the most favorite option, it did appear to be a compromise, and therefore, he suggests having an open public comment session April 27 to discuss this particular option and the three listed suggestions of (1) revise option 2A, (2) drop option 2A from further consideration, or (3) focus effort on more cross - street. access between Sprague /Appleway. Further, Mayor DeVleming stated that by having this discussion April 27, it might give staff more time to review the cross - street access issue. 8. Capital Facilities Fundintj2005. 2006, 2007 — Neil Kersten Public Works Director Kersten reviewed his spreadsheets indicating our current funding levels and savings, adding that we have saved over $500,000 to date this year; he added that by the end of June the six -year Transportation Improvement Program will be completed and staff will have that information to Council in June. City Manager Mercier stated that in the 2004 approved budget, we show street fund revenues slightly over two million and expenses 3.7 million, and said this will be the area of greatest challenge along with how to capitalize on each project and stay within the affordability range for the community. 9. Development Related Policy issues — Marina Sukup/Neil Kersten Public Works Director Kersten and Senior Development Engineer Hohman gave their PowerPoint presentation on development related road standards issues which briefed council on possible amendments to the adopted County Road Standards that should be considered prior to the completion of the comprehensive plan. They ended their presentation with the summary of proposed amendments, including street designations — public versus private; residential street design standards; neighborhood connectivity; and frontage improvements. Discussion then ensued regarding connectivity, public versus private streets, roadway conditions, and standards in general. It was Council consensus to move forward with further discussion. Community Development Director Sukup then went over her PowerPoint presentation on Planning Development Related Policy issues, with a purpose of briefing council on certain development regulations which should be considered prior to completion of the Comprehensive Plan. Discussion ensued regarding variances and exceptions, landscaping, enforcement, and concurrency which is required by GMA. It was moved by Mayor DeVleming and seconded by Councilmember Denenny to extend the meeting thirty minutes. Vote by acclamation: In Favor: Mayor DeVleming, Deputy Mayor Wilhite, Councilmembers Flanigan and Denenny; Opposed: Councilmember Schinamels. Abstentions: None, Motion carried. 10. Economic Analysis — Scope of Work — Marina Sukup Community Development Director Sukup explained that Council directed staff to proceed with an economic analysis on the Sprague!Appleway extension; that a draft scope of work was sent to the Spokane Valley Chamber of Commerce, the Spokane Valley Business Association, and interested Study Scssion Minutes 04 -06 -04 Pape 3 of 4 Date Approved by Council: DRAFT citizens, soliciting suggestions and comments by April 5, 2004; and that a similar request was posted on the City's website. Director Sukup went over the responses received as noted on the March 30, 2004 Request for Council Action form. In response to a question concerning the goal Director Sukup said the goal is to do what is best for the community; that she understands Council desires an objective analysis of the impacts of changing the circulation on Sprague, whether to extend the couplet, change one -way, and /or to consider other elements such as traffic generated at the mall, the new proposed interstate, and other traffic improvements. Director Sukup said that Eastern Washington University has expressed an interested in performing the analysis, but that the Professor from Whitworth College has declined as he feels he lacks the expertise and time commitment necessary. Councilmember Flanigan said he would be comfortable with issuing an R.FP and allowing FWU to bid on the project, and by issuing an RFP, we would be able to determine an estimated cost. Director Sukup indicated staff would draft an RFP. 11. Advance Agenda Additions — Mayor DeVleming Mayor DeVleming mentioned the April 20 open house at Central Valley School District on Cataldo. 12. Council Check -in /City Manager Comments — Dave Mercier City Manager Mercier said he received material from the Association of Washington Cities concerning seats on that Board of Directors that are up for renewal, and said there is only one potential seat possible for this Council, even though the incumbent from Pasco indicated they want to remain for another term. There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 9:16 p.m. ATTEST: Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Study Session Minutes 04-0641 Date Approved by Council: Michael DeVleming, Mayor Page 4of4 Meeting Date: 4 -13 -04 City Manager Sign -off: Item: Check all that apply: x consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Claims: Voucher listing total for March 22, 31, and April 5 and 7, 2004 OPTIONS: RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Approve claims for 3/22104 in the amount of $ 26,906.07 Approve claims for 3/31/04 in the amount of $ 1,337,747.52 Approve claims for 04/05/04 in the amount of $ 30,645.64 Approve claims for 04/07/04 in the amount of $ 220,127.31 TOTAL CLAIMS $ 1,615,426.54 BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: STAFF CONTACT: Ellen Avey ATTACHMENTS Voucher Lists CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action vchlist 03/22/2004 10:07:3 5A M Bank code : apbank Voucher 4511 4512 4513 4514 4515 4516 4517 4518 4519 Date Vendor 3/19/2004 000427 3/19/2004 000037 3/19/2004 000050 3/19/2004 000035 3/19/2004 000136 3/19/2004 000014 3/19/2004 000171 3/19/2004 000007 3/19/2004 000002 76 /CIRCLE K FLEET SERVICES AMERICAN LINEN APA - INLAND EMPIRE SECTION CORPORATE EXPRESS DEPARTMENT OF INFO SERVICES, EDEN SYSTEMS, INC. GEIGER CORRECTIONS CENTER GRAINGER INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY H & H BUSINESS SYSTEMS Invoice 4571671 358635 APA -3126 50413238 50413257 50554057 50579320 2004020223 19436 Feb 04 Jan 04 Voucher List Spokane Valley 800- 974078 117723 117731 117732 118029 4520 3/19/2004 000353 INTERNATIONAL TRADE, ALLIANCE Mar1204 PO # 40070 40055 40077 40070 Description /Account VEHICLE FUEL FLOOR MAT SERVICE REGISTRATION OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES OFFICE SUPPLIES SOFTWARE CONSULTING TOOL HOLDER Total : AUTOCAD SOFTWARE SUBSCR Total : COPY CHARGES COPY CHARGES COPY CHARGES COPY CHARGES REGISTRATION Total : Total : Total : Total : CONFINEMENT PROGRAM CON CONFINEMENT PROGRAM CON Total : Total : Total : Total : Page: 1 Amount 470.20 470.20 67.47 67.47 90.00 90.00 60.85 152.29 45.04 16.53 274.71 1,821.32 1,821.32 75.00 75.00 10,073.80 7,630.45 17,704.25 10.85 10.85 183.31 272.22 59.74 12.89 528.16 90.00 90.00 vchlist 03/22/2004 10:07:35AM Bank code : apbank Vouc:r List 'rage: 2 Spokane Valley Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # DescriptionlAccount Amount 4521 3/19/2004 000114 JVH TECHNICAL 7313 40073 PLOTTER INK 192.73 Total : 192.73 4522 3/19/2004 000464 MC CLINTOCK & TURK INC. 31104 DEPOSIT REFUND 150.00 Total : 150.00 4523 3/19/2004 000043 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS 432169121 - 012 CELL PHONE PLAN CHARGES 407.51 Total : 407.51 4524 3/19/2004 000239 NORTHWEST BUSINESS STAMP 47927 CUSTOM STAMP 32.97 Total : 32.97 4525 3/19/2004 000024 RESOURCE COMPUTING INC. 36275 40064 COMPUTER HARDWARE 3,664.38 Total : 3,664.38 4526 3/19/2004 000466 S.M.K. CONSTRUCTION SMK DEPOSIT REFUND 150.00 Total : 150.00 4527 3/19/2004 000324 SCWD #3 Feb 04 WATER UTILITY CHARGES 25.52 Total : 25.52 4528 3/19/2004 000465 T.W. CLARK CONSTRUCTION 031104 DEPOSIT REFUND 150.00 Total : 150.00 4529 3/19/2004 000093 THE SPOKESMAN - REVIEW 22904 ADVERTISEMENTS 107.94 Total : 107.94 4530 3/19/2004 000463 TOTAL ENERGY MANAGEMENT 31204 DEPOSIT REFUND 150.00 Total : 150.00 4531 3/19/2004 000177 U.S. POSTAL SERVICE 31204 postage POSTAGE 1,010.00 Total : 1,010.00 4532 3/19/2004 000337 UNITED PARCEL SERVICE Y3F950114 SHIPPING CHARGES 17.40 Total : 17.40 4533 3/19/2004 000167 VERA WATER & POWER Mar04 STREET LIGHT /SIGNAL POWER 199.66 Total : 199.66 Page: 2 vchlist 03/22/2004 10:07:35AM Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor 4534 3/19/2004 000347 WORLEY, STEVE 24 Vouchers for bank code : apbank 24 Vouchers in this report I, the undersigned, do certify under penalty of perjury. that the materials have been fumished, the services rendered, or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just, due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley, and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify to said claim. Finance Director Date Invoice 031604 Voucher List Spokane Valley PO # Description /Account EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : Bank total : Total vouchers : Page: 3 Amount 116.00 116.00 27,506.07 27,506.07 (l e• o'� e: 3 vchlist 03/3112004 10:13:47AM Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor 4535 3/26/2004 000150 ALLIED SECURITY 4536 3/26/2004 000060 DENENNY, RICHARD 4537 3/26/2004 000152 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIO RE- 313- ATB0309074 RE- 313- ATB40309073 4538 DEVLEMING, MICHAEL MD2 /04 4539 EAST SPOKANE WATER DIST #1 Mar04 4540 FARMERS & MERCHANTS BANK 3/26/2004 000059 3/26/2004 000246 3/26/2004 000028 4541 3/26/2004 000072 FLANIGAN, MIKE 4542 3/26/2004 000408 GRIFFIN PUBLISHING INC 4543 3/26/2004 000010 KINKO'S INC. 4544 3/26/2004 000472 LAWTON PRINTING Invoice SVC250088 SVC250208 031904 DD2/04 MF2 /04 Voucher List Spokane Valley 1225- Feb /Mar04 1332 Feb /Mar04 30904 3707 -1 5045 - Feb /Mar04 04025 NEWSLETTER PRINTING A4110 40097 MONTHLY NEWSLETTER PRIN Total : 289700052725 PO # 40087 40045 Description /Account 14057 PRINTING KEYS & LOCK SERVICES KEYS EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT CELL PHONE ALLOWANCE Total : STATE ROAD MAINTENANCE HWY LIGHTING /SIGNAL MAINTE Total : CELL PHONE ALLOWANCE Total : WATER UTILITY CHARGES Total : CREDIT CARD PAYMENT CREDIT CARD PAYMENT ENGINEERING MANUALS LO-INK CREDIT CARD PAYMENT Total : Total : CELL PHONE ALLOWANCE Total : COPY CHARGES Total : Page: 1 Amount 1,555.57 60.50 1,616.07 616.52 35.00 651.52 6,039.85 12,522.40 18,562.25 35.00 35.00 61.51 61.51 548.08 165.04 185.00 306.70 393.73 1,598.55 35.00 35.00 339.43 354.72 694.15 13.08 13.08 1,470.87 Page: 1 vchlist 03/31/2004 10:13:47AM Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 4544 3/26/2004 000472 000472 LAWTON PRINTING 4546 4547 4548 4549 4550 4551 4552 4553 4554 4555 4 556 4557 4545 3/26/2004 000368 LINDSEY CONSTRUCTION INC. 3/26/2004 000033 MCPC 3/26/2004 000062 MUNSON, RICHARD 3/26/2004 000239 NORTHWEST BUSINESS STAMP 3/26/2004 000036 OFFICE DEPOT 3/26/2004 000149 PIP PRINTING OF SPOKANE 3/26/2004 000019 PURRFECT LOGOS, INC. 3/26/2004 000024 RESOURCE COMPUTING INC. 3/26/2004 000415 ROSAUERS U -CITY 3/26/2004 000064 SCHIMMELS, GARY 3/26/2004 000467 SIRENNET.COM INC 3/26/2004 000230 SPOKANE CNTY AUDITORS OFC, RE 415792 3/26/2004 000172 SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER Voucher List Spokane Valley ADV -27 -03 4519880 RM2 /04 48100 3959 1330026573 10392 36278 545614 GS2104 0020650 -IN (Continued) PO # 40078 40082 Description /Account PERMIT REFUND OFFICE SUPPLIES Total : CUSTOM STAMP OFFICE SUPPLIES PRINTING POLICE VEHICLE DECALS IT TECH SUPPORT LABOR MEETING SUPPLIES RECORDING FEE CELL PHONE ALLOWANCE Total : Total : 1,470.87 Total : Total : Total : Total : Total : Total : Total : CELL PHONE ALLOWANCE Total : 40083 EMERGENCY VEHICLE LIGHTS Total : Total : 04 -18 COUNTY ENGINEERING SERVI Page: 2 Amount 300.00 300.00 91.10 91.10 35.00 35.00 49.13 49.13 218.79 218.79 206.24 206.24 647.52 647.52 3,729.45 3,729.45 49.98 49.98 35.00 35.00 188.40 188.40 20.00 20.00 9,110.61 2 vchlist 03/31/2004 10:13:47AM Bank code : apbank Voucher 4557 4558 4559 4560 4561 4562 4563 4564 4565 4566 4567 Date Vendor Invoice 3/26/2004 000090 SPOKANE COUNTY INFORMATION, ; 40302 3/26/2004 000001 SPOKANE COUNTY TREASURER 3/26/2004 000470 SPOKANE COUNTY, FAIR & EXPO C 1 3/26/2004 000471 SPOKANE STRUCTURES 3/26/2004 000385 SUN RENTAL CENTER 3/26/2004 000063 TAYLOR, STEVE 3/26/2004 000468 TRANSOFT SOLUTIONS INC. 3/26/2004 000025 UNISOURCE CORPORATION 3/26/2004 000280 USI 3/26/2004 000473 VALLEY PLAN CENTER Voucher List Spokane Valley Feb 2004 Feb04 Jan /Feb 2004 Jan04 Mar04 March 04 ADV -08 -04 02- 048639 -04 ST2 /04 15278 21146690 031146080001 VPC PO # 3/26/2004 000172 SPOKANE COUNTY ENGINEER ' (Continued) 04 -19 ROAD MAINTENANCE SERVICE Total : 40085 40081 40086 Description /Account GIS & RELATED SERVICES PROBATION SERVICES SPOKANE COUNTY CONTRACT JAIL SERVICES SPOKANE COUNTY CONTRACT SPOKANE COUNTY CONTRACT SHERIFF LAW ENFORCEMENT C Total : TOURISM PROMOTION PERMIT REFUND CANOPY RENTAL CELL PHONE ALLOWANCE SOFTWARE PAPER LAMINATING FILM DEPOSIT REFUND Total : Total : Total : Total : Total : Total : Total : Total : Page: 3 Amount 94,733.85 103,844.46 2,148.58 2,148.58 2,664.88 5,353.50 38,600.20 2,617.08 151,483.29 980,564.33 1,181,283.28 17,470.39 17,470.39 300.00 300.00 184.26 184.26 35.00 35.00 1,440.00 1,440.00 314.04 314.04 173.95 173.95 150.00 Page: 3 vchlist Voucher List Page: 4 03/31/2004 10:13:47AM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description /Account Amount 4567 3/26/2004 000473 000473 VALLEY PLAN CENTER (Continued) Total : 150.00 4568 3/26/2004 000023 VERISIGN, INC. 3300155093 INTERNET MERCHANT SERVIC 59.95 Total : 59.95 4569 3/26/2004 000061 WILHITE, DIANA DW2 /04 CELL PHONE ALLOWANCE 35.00 Total : 35.00 35 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total : 1,337,747.52 35 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 1,337,747.52 I. the undersigned, do certify under penalty of perjury. that the materials have been furnished, the services rendered, or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just., due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley, and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify to said claim. Finance Director Date vchlist 04/05/2004 10:22:24AM Bank code : apbank Voucher 4583 4584 4585 4586 4587 4588 4589 4590 4591 4592 4593 4594 4595 Date Vendor 4/2/2004 000476 ACME EXCAVATING & SEWER BORI PR -AE 4/2/2004 000037 4/2/2004 000277 4/2/2004 000035 4/2/2004 000284 4/2/2004 000353 4/2/2004 000132 4/2/2004 000058 4/2/2004 000029 4/2/2004 000475 AMERICAN LINEN ASSOC. OF WA CITIES CORPORATE EXPRESS CRUCIAL TECHNOLOGY PITNEY BOWES CREDIT CORP. PV PRIMARY/ URGENT CARE CLINI Invoice Voucher List Spokane Valley 367345 NR -reg 50718615 205848373 4/2/2004 000321 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCI 839 4/2/2004 000014 EDEN SYSTEMS, INC. 19544 4/2/2004 000106 FEDEX 1- 653 -95429 INTERNATIONAL TRADE, ALLIANCE AprO4 MODERN ELECTRIC WATER COMPA Nov03 OCCUPATIONAL MEDICINE, ASSOCI. 441840 521929437 5618533 -MR04 PO # 40084 40101 Description /Account PERMIT REFUND FLOOR MAT SERVICE REGISTRATION OFFICE SUPPLIES PC MEMORY Total : Total : Total : Total : Total : ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Total : SOFTWARE CONSULTING FEDERAL EXPRESS FEES EMPLOYMENT PHYSICAL EMPLOYMENT PHYSICAL Total : Total : ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Total : STREET LIGHTING POWER/WAT Total : Total : MONTHLY COPY EQUIPMENT R Total : Page: 1 Amount 41.00 41.00 67.47 67.47 130.00 130.00 67.55 67.55 113.49 113.49 13,750.00 13,750.00 37.50 37.50 121.53 121.53 3,500.00 3,500.00 7,143.09 7,143.09 101.00 101.00 447.53 447.53 137.00 Page: 1 vchlist 04/05/2004 10:22:24AM Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 4595 4/2/2004 000475 000475 PV PRIMARY/ URGENT CARE CL (Continued) 4596 4/2/2004 000322 QWEST Feb /Mar04 4597 4/2/2004 000415 ROSAUERS U -CITY 23 Vouchers in this report 545558 545617 554658 Voucher List Spokane Valley 116 12177 2/15-4/15 4598 4/2/2004 000067 SIGNS NOW 4599 4/2/2004 000311 SPRINT PCS 4600 4/2/2004 000081 STATE OF WA, DEPART OF REVENU March 04 4601 4/2/2004 000477 TURBAK, MIKE 4602 4/2/2004 000337 UNITED PARCEL SERVICE 4603 4/2/2004 000167 VERA WATER & POWER 4604 4/2/2004 000409 WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMEN1 Q1 -04 4605 4/2/2004 000129 WRPA 040504 23 Vouchers for bank code : apbank 40204 Y3F950124 Mar04 PO # 40094 40102 DescriptionlAccount TELEPHONE CHARGES Total : Total : RECEPTION PROVISIONS RECEPTION PROVISIONS RECEPTION PROVISIONS Total : SIGN BOARDS Total : CELL PHONE CHGS /EQUIP. Total : COMBINED EXCISE TAX RETUR Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : SHIPPING CHARGES Total : STREET LIGHTING /SIGNAL POW Total : LEASEHOLD EXCISE TAX REGISTRATION Total : Total : Bank total : Total vouchers : Page: 2 Amount 137.00 36.86 36.86 45.79 31.69 28.99 106.47 338.89 338.89 1,457.06 1,457.06 228.97 228.97 336.76 336.76 84.20 84.20 1,936.67 1,936.67 192.60 192.60 270.00 270.00 30,645.64 30,645.64 vchlist 04/05/2004 10: 22: 24AM Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # DescriptionlAccount Amount 1, the undersigned, do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished, the servioes rendered, or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just, due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley, and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify to said claim. Finance Director Date VOucuer is Spokane Valley r'utl 3 Page: 3 vchlist 04/0712004 10: 51:42AM Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 4606 4!712004 000001 SPOKANE COUNTY TREASURER DC04 2 Vouchers for bank code : apbank 2 Vouchers in this report 1, the undersigned, do certify under penally of perjury, that the materials have been furnished, the services rendered, or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just, due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley, and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify to said claim. Finance Director Date Voucher List Page: 1 Spokane Valley PO # 4607 4/7/2004 000193 NORTHWEST CHRISTIAN SCHOOLS Apr2004 CITY HALL RENT Description /Account Amount DISTRICT COURT SERVICES Total : Total : Bank total : Total vouchers : 197,388.63 197,388.63 22,738.68 22,738.68 220,127.31 220,127.31 1 Meeting Date: 4- 13 - -04 City Manager Sign -off: • Item: Check all that apply: x consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation OPTIONS: AGENDA ITEM TITLE : Payroll for Period Ending April 1, 2004 GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Payroll for period ending 04 -01 -04 Salary: $ 97,352.47 Benefits: $ 45,757.54 $143,110.01 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action STAFF CONTACT: Daniel Cenis /Courtney Moore ATTACHMENTS CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: 4/13/04 City Manager Sign Off Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ oid business 13 new business Opublic hearing ❑information ❑ admin. report g pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Second Reading of Ordinance to amend Spokane Valley Ordinance #40 and Spokane Valley Ordinance #41. (relating to 12 February 2004 Planning Commission Public Hearing and 24 February 2004 Administrative Report at City Council concerning proposed ordinance) GOVERNING LEGISLATION: SHB 1734 RCW 19.27 State Building Code WAC 51 -50 -007 Exceptions PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Approved at First Reading 3.23.04 Spokane Valley Ordinance #40 Spokane Valley Ordinance #41 BACKGROUND: When the City of Spokane Valley established the Building Code and the Fire Code in Ordinances #40 and #41, the ordinances mandated fire sprinklers in all buildings containing over 8000 sq ft of floor area. This area requirement disregarded basements, fire compartmentalization, types of construction or building usage. It also mandated retrofitting sprinklers in any building that had an addition put on that would make it 8000 sq ft in floor area or more. This portion of the code is not supported by current national and state of Washington codes or the 2003 International Building Code, the code mandated by the state of Washington for implementation on 1 July 2004. Although automatic fire sprinklers work to control or suppress fires, implementation of an overzealous approach to any code requirement defeats the ideas of uniformity and minimum requirements. The recently approved Spokane Valley Ordinance 04 -010, the Spokane Valley Building Code, does not echo the 8000 sq ft threshold requirement. That code only supports the minimum requirements found in the International Codes. The International Code fire sprinkler requirements are founded on principles of fire science and are promoted uniformly across the country. This change will allow designers or contractors the ability to use the Spokane Valley Building Code Ordinance 04 -010 as an alternative to the current Spokane Valley Building Code for design or construction until 1 July 2004. This amendment to the current ordinances establishes an equal level of fire safety allowing our construction industry to use the 2003 IBC as an alternative to the 97 UBC. Using this approach is an educational tool that will not only help our designers and contractors understand the 2003 International Codes, but having this flexibility will allow our inspection and plan review team to more slowly adjust to the new ideas expressed in the new code. Approval will allow contractors and designers the option of using which ever code may benefit them greatest while promoting safe development and growth in our built environment. The Public Hearing was held on 12 February 2004 Planning Commission Meeting. The Planning Commission concluded the hearing and recommended the ordinance to Council for consideration. Council discussed this proposed ordinance during an Administrative Report 24 February 2004 and recommended the ordinance for first reading. Approved at First Reading 3.23.04 OPTIONS: Approve or reject Ordinance at Second Reading. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Motion to approve proposed ordinance amending Spokane Valley Ordinances #40 and #41. BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: May reduce the cost of construction for the private sector. No anticipated financial impact for the City is anticipated. STAFF CONTACT: Spokane Valley Building Official Scholtens Attachment: Proposed Ordinance 0 DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 04 -014 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON, AMENDING THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY ORDINANCE #40, SECTION 5 AND ORDINANCE #41, SECTION 9, BY REPEALING THE AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER PROVISIONS STATED VVITAIN THOSE SECTIONS AND SUBSTITUTING THE AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER PROVISIONS FOUND WITHIN THE 2003 INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE, SECTION 903. WHEREAS, Washington statutes require all jurisdictions in the state to adopt by reference and enforce the same building code throughout Washington; and WHEREAS, Washington established the 2003 International Codes, promulgated by the International Code Council (ICC), as the basis of the new State Building Code pursuant to SHB 1734 and RCW 19.27. The exceptions to the International Codes are the 2003 Uniform Plumbing Code published by the International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials and the National Electrical Code, published by the National Fire Protection Association. WHEREAS, The City of Spokane Valley through Ordinance #40, Section 5 and Ordinance #41 Section 9 changed the Washington State Building Code requirements by mandating automatic fire sprinklers in all buildings over 8000 sq ft in floor area. WHEREAS, the Washington State Building Code will adopt by reference the 2003 International Building Code by July 1, 2004. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Washington, do ordains as follows: Section 1. Amend City of Spokane Valley Ordinance #40, Section 5 as follows: "Section 5. Section 904.2.2 all occupancies except Group R Division 3, and Group U Occupancies. Section 904.2.2 of the Uniform Building Code is amended as follows: 1. All automatic Fire Sprinkler Systems shall be installed in full compliance with the 2003 Edition of the International Building Code." Section 2. Amend City of Spokane Valley Ordinance #41, Section 9 to read as follows: "Section 9. Uniform Fire Code - Section 1003.2.2 - Automatic Sprinklers Required. Section 1003.2.2 of the Uniform Fire Code is amended as follows: 1. All automatic Fire Sprinkler Systems shall be installed in full compliance with the 2003 Edition of the International Building Code." Section 3. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance shall be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance. Ordinance 04 -014, Eire Sprinkler Provisions (Amending Ordinance 40 Section 5; and Ordinance 41 Section 9) Page 1 of 2 DRAFT Section 4. Effective date. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect five (5) days after publication of this ordinance or a summary thereof in the official newspaper of the City as provided by law. Approved by the City Council this day of April, 2004. ATTEST Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Approved as to form: Cary P. Driskell, Deputy City Attorney Date of publication: Effective date: Ordinance 04 -014, Fire Sprinkler Provisions (Amending Ordinance 40 Section 5; and Ordinance 41 Section 9) Michael DeVleming, Mayor Page 2 of 2 DRAFT AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 03 -096 PASSED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON DECEMBER 2, 2003 ANI) ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING A BUDGET FOR THE PERIOD .JANUARY 1, 2004 THROUGH DECEMBER 31, 2004 APPROPRIATING FUNDS AND ESTABLISHING SALARY SCHEDULES FOR ESTABLISHED POSITIONS." WHEREAS, subsequent to the adoption of the annual budget, it has become necessary to make changes by adding appropriations and creating funds in order to properly perform various City functions, services and activities; WHEREAS, the budget changes set forth in this Ordinance could not have been reasonably anticipated or known when the annual budget was passed by the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the best interests of the City are served by amending the adopted budget as set forth herein. NOW THEREFORE, The City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Washington do ordain as follows: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 04 -015 Section 1. 13udaet Amendment. The Budget for the year ending December 31, 2004, and each item, appropriation, and fund are hereby revised as follows. The following budget amendments are made: A. The General Fund of the 2004 budget is amended to provide for a reduction in appropriations in the amount of 51,301,661 to more closely reflect current conditions. B. The HotelMlotel Fund of the 2004 budget is amended to provide for an additional appropriation in the amount of 5175,000 funded through unrestricted fund balance. C. There is hereby established in the City treasury a fund known and designated as the "Community Development Block Grant Fund" for the purpose of accounting for revenues and expenditures related to Block Grant proceeds as specified by Title I of the Housing and Community Development Grant Program of 1974. The 2004 City budget is amended to provide an appropriation in the amount of 5504,000 funded through Community Development. Block Grant proceeds. D. There is hereby established in the City treasury a fund known and designated as the "Capital Grants Fund" for the purpose of accounting for revenues and expenditures related to Capital Grant proceeds. The 2004 City budget is amended to provide an appropriation in the amount of S837,000 funded through TIB Grant proceeds and transfers from Arterial Street Fund. Ordinance 04 -015 Budget 2004 Amendment Page 1 of 3 1. General $26,356,316 (1,301,661) 525,054,655 2. Street 3,773,184 -0- 3,773,184 3. Arterial Street 600,000 0 600,000 4. Trails &. Paths -0- -0- -0- 5. HoteVMotel 300,000 175,000 475,000 6. Debt Service LTGO 03 800,000 -0- 800,000 7. Capital Projects 180,000 . -0- 180,000 8. Special Capital Projects 300,000 -0- 300,000 9. Street Capital Projects 3,219,700 -0- 3,219,700 10. Mirabeau Point Project 9,500,000 -0- 9,500,000 11. Street Bond Projects 2,430,000 -0- 2,430,000 12. CD Block Grant -0- 504,000 504,000 13. Capital Grants -0- 837,000 837,000 14. Barker Bridge Reconstruction Sewer Fund -0- -0- 702,000 238,608 702,000 238,608 15. 16. Stormwater Manajement 518,700 -0- 518,700 17. Equipment R & R 28,600 15,000 43,600 18. Risk Management 137,500 -0- 137,500 TOTAL $48,1 44,000 51,1 69,947 549,31 3,947 DRAFT E. There is hereby established in the City treasury a fund known and designated as the .`Barker Road Bridge Reconstruction - Federal Grant Fund" for the purpose of accounting for revenues and expenditures related to BRAC Grant proceeds. The 2004 City budget is amended to provide an appropriation in the amount of $702,000 funded through BRAC Grant proceeds. F. The Sewer Fund of the 2004 budget is amended to provide for an additional appropriation in the amount of $238,608 funded through unrestricted fund balance. G. The Equipment Replacement & Repair Fund of the 2004 budget is amended to provide for an additional appropriation in the amount of $15,000 funded through a transfer from the General Fund. For purposes of these budget amendments, Exhibit "A" is attached hereto and incorporated by this reference as though set forth in full. Section 2. Funds Appropriated. To facilitate the above budget amendments from estimated revenues, including beginning fund balances for each separate fund, the appropriations and the aggregate total for all funds combined for the period January 1 through December 31 are set forth in summary form. FUND Section 3. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance. Ordinance 04 -015 Budget 2004 Amendment J3EG]NNLNG APPROPRIATI ON AMOUNT OF AMENDED Page 2 of 3 DRAFT Section 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five (5) days after publication of this Ordinance or a summary thereof in the official newspaper of the City as provided by law. Passed by the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley this ATTEST: Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney Date of Publication: Effective Date: Michael DeVleming, Mayor day of 2004. Ordinance 04 - 015 budget 2004 Amendment Page 3 of 3 Project Namo City of Spokane Valley Exhibit A 2003 2003 2004 2003 Actual Remaining Budget Funding Approprlatlon Expenditures Budget Amendment Source General Fund: Reserve for Revenue Adjustments $ - S - $ - $ (1,007.161) Reserve for Service Level Stabilization - (100,000) Contingency Reserve (195,000) Student Advisory Council - 500 Sates Tax Revenues Total General Fund $(1,301,661.00) Hotel/Motel Fund: SCVB $ 83,700.00 5 16,168.79 $ 67,531.21 $ 67,531.00 SRSC 52,200.00 52,200.00 52,200.00 SV Soccer 24,800.00 5,422.36 19,377.64 19,378.00 SV YMCA 18,000.00 18,000.00 18,000.00 Spokane County Fair 17,500.00 - 17,500.00 17,500.00 Valley Fest 2,800.00 2,800.00 - - SV Heritage Museum 1,000.00 1,000.00 Total HoteUMotel Fund 200,000.00 25,391.15 174,608.85 174,609.00 Fund Balance Sewer Fund: Hillview Acres Sewer Paveback Pinecroft/Mansfield Sewer Paveback Harrington Sewer Paveback Total Sower Fund S 480,000.00 S 423,729.60 $ 56,270.40 200,000.00 59,666.28 140,333.72 279,000.00 236.997.00 42,003.00 959,000.00 720,392.88 238,607.12 238,607.12 Sewer Fund Balance CD Block Grant Fund WeatherweodJOwens (STEP) 5 $ $ S 304,000.00 Street and and Block Grant Proceeds Carnahan (STEP) - 110,000.00 Street Bond and Block Grant Proceeds Total CD Block Grant Fund 50000.00 Capital Grants Fund Barker Road Reconstruction $ $ $ $ 639,000.00 TIB Grant & Transfers from Arterial Street Fund 241h Avenue Project 198,000.00 TIB Grant & Transfers from Arterial Street Fund Total Capital Grants Fund 837,000.00 Barker Road Bridge Bacon. Fund Barker Road Bridge Reconstruction 5 $ S 5 702,000.00 BRAC Grant Proceeds ER&R Fund Capital Outlay - Code Ent. Vehicle $ $ $ $ 15,000.00 Interfund Transfer - General Fund (Already Budgeted) Total ER&R Fund Budgeted originally in wrong fund OPTIONS: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: April 13, 2004 City Manager Sign -off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑C new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ['admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Resolution No. 04 -009: Establishment of Public Hearing Date and Time for Street Vacation Request (STV)-02-04 GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 35.79 (Streets- Vacation); Ordinance No. 04 -002 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: There has been no previous Council action taken on this matter. BACKGROUND: The City of Spokane Valley has received a Street Vacation request (City Reference No. STV- 02 -04) from multiple joint applicants for the vacation of existing public rights -of -way in the Woodland Terrace plat generally located south of 12 Avenue, north of 16 Avenue, west of Havana Road and east of Carnahan Road. The joint applicants are South Terrace Spokane, LLC, Rocky Top, LLC, Andrew and Joanne M. Del Pozzi, and Lindsey Construction, Inc. The applicants are requesting the City vacate: 1) the public alley extending through Blocks 2, 3 and 4; 2) a portion of 13 Avenue west of Chronicle Road; 3) portions of Lloyd and Custer Streets west of Chronicle Road; and 4) a portion of 12 Avenue between Lloyd Road and Chronicle Road. RCW 35.79.010 specifies that the legislative authority shall establish by resolution the time when a Street Vacation application shall be considered by the legislative authority or a committee thereof. The City Council approved Ordinance No. 04 -002 establishing regulations and procedures for the processing of vacations of public streets. Section 10 of Ordinance No. 04 -002 specifies that the Planning Commission shall conduct the public hearing required pursuant to RCW 35.79.010; and shall develop and forward a recommendation for a requested Street Vacation to the City Council. 1. Approve Resolution 'No. 04 -009 establishing the Planning Commission public hearing date and time for STV- 02 -04. 2. Deny Resolution No. 04 -009 thereby not establishing the Planning Commission public hearing date and time for STV- 02 -04. 3. Table consideration of Resolution No. 04 -009 and direct staff to conduct additional research and bring the Resolution back for future Council consideration at a future scheduled meeting. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Motion to approve Resolution No. 04 -009 establishing the Planning Commission public hearing date and time for STV -02 -04 as May 13, 2004, beginning at 6:30 p.m. BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: There are no budget or financial impacts for the City Council's consideration of Resolution No. 04 -009. Resolution No. 04 -009 only establishes the public hearing date and time for the Planning Commission's consideration of the requested street vacation. STAFF CONTACT: Kevin Snyder, AICP, Current Planning Manager Attachment: Resolution No. 04 -009 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SETTING THE PUBLIC HEARING DATE AND TIME FOR THE PLANNTNG COMMISSION TO CONSIDER STREET VACATION REQUEST STV -02 -04 PURSUANT TO RCW 35.79.010. WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley has received a Street Vacation application (City Reference No. STV- 02 -04) from South Terrace Spokane, LLC, Rocky Top, LLC, Andrew and Joanne M. Del Pozzi, and Lindsey Construction, Inc. acting as joint applicants that requests the City vacate the following public rights -of -ways in the Woodland Terrace Plat 1) the public alley extending through Blocks 2, 3 and 4; 2) a portion of la Avenue west of Chronicle Road; 3) portions of Lloyd and Custer Streets west of Chronicle Road; and 4) a portion of 12' Avenue between Lloyd Road and Chronicle Road; and, WHEREAS, RCW 35.79.010 specifies that the legislative authority shall establish by resolution the time when a Street Vacation application shall be considered by the legislative authority or a committee thereof; and, WHEREAS, the City Council approved Ordinance No. 04 -002 establishing regulations and procedures for the processing of vacations of public streets (hereafter referred to as "Street Vacation "); and, WHEREAS, Section 10 of Ordinance No. 04 -002 specifies that the Planning Commission shall conduct the public hearing required pursuant to RCW 35.79.010, and shall develop and forward a recommendation for a requested Street Vacation to the City Council; and, NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington, as follows: Section 1. Establishment of Public Hearing Date and Time for STV- 02 -04. The required public hearing before the Planning Commission for Street Vacation Request STV -02 -04 shall be conducted on May 13, 2004 beginning at 6:30 p.m. in the City Council Chambers at the City Hall of the City of Spokane Valley, 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 101, Spokane Valley, Washington 99206. 2004. ATTEST: Adopted this 13 day of April 2004. Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Approved as to Form: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. 04 -009 Section 2. Effective Date. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect on April 13, CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Michael DeVleming, Mayor Cary P. Driskell, Deputy City Attorney Resolution No. 04 -009: Establishment of Public Hearing Date and Time for S1V -02 -04 Page 1 of 1 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: April 13, 2004 City Manager Sign -off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business X new business 2 public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Resolution 04 -010 Establishing Selected Locations for Consumption of Alcohol on Park Property GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Spokane Valley Ordinance 03 -065 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Study session on March 16, 2004. BACKGROUND: Ordinance 03 -065, Section 9, states that the Council shall set by Resolution those areas in City -owned parks in which the City will allow the consumption of alcohol. Following discussion with the Council on March 16, 2004, as to what specific areas the Council would like to have included for such beverage consumption, staff drafted the attached Resolution. OPTIONS: Add to or subtract from the areas identified in the proposed Resolution 04 -010. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Motion to adopt resolution 04 -010 establishing locations for consumption of alcohol on park property in the City of Spokane Valley. BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None anticipated. STAFF CONTACT: Mike Jackson, Parks Director. ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Resolution 04 -010. CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. 04-010 A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING SELECTED LOCATIONS FOR CONSUMPTION OF ALCOHOL ON PARK PROPERTY IN THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY. WHEREAS, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 03 -65, which, in part, provided that "the City Council shall, through Resolution, designate specific areas in City Parks and Facilities where alcohol may be consumed after obtaining a (sic) Alcohol Beverage Permit "; and WI-IEREAS, the City Council desires to now designate certain, limited areas where alcohol may be consumed in City Parks and Facilities; and WHEREAS, the City Council may desire from time to time to review and adjust those places where alcohol is and is not allowed to be consumed in City Parks and Facilities. NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington, as follows: Section 1. Designation of Areas Where Alcohol May be Consumed. The City of Spokane Valley adopts three places in City parks or facilities at which alcohol may be consumed. The three areas are as follows: A. Centerplace at Mirabeau Point Park: The Great Room, kitchen, Senior Dining Room and Private Dining Room. These specific areas are further delineated in Attachment 1 to this Resolution; B. Mirabeau Meadows at Mirabeau Point Park: All of the Park area, excluding the parking lot area. These specific areas are further delineated in Attachment 2 to this Resolution; C. Mirabeau Springs at Mirabeau Point Park: All of that area that is known as Mirabeau Springs. These specific areas are further delineated in Attachment 3 to this Resolution. Section 2. Consumption of Alcohol Prohibited. Consumption of alcoholic beverages in all other City -owned parks, or areas of City -owned parks not specifically designated by this Resolution, is prohibited. C:1Documents and Settingslebainbridge \Local SettingsVrempornry Internet Files10LK6A1resolution re alcohol in parks 4 -8-04 draft 21.DOC Section 3. adoption. Al lEST: Adopted this 13 day of April, 2004. City Clerk, Christine Bainbridge Approved as to Form: Deputy City Attorney, Cary P. Driskell Effective Date. This Resolution shall be in full force and effective upon City of Spokane Valley Mayor Michael DeVleming C:1Documenis and Settinetbainbridge \Local Settingsvl'emporary Internet Files1OLK6Altesolution re alcohol in parks 4 -8 -04 draft 21.DOC GPhLRAL NOTE% e . ea.. W f � Iao . % • KEY NOTES p _ LEGEND: (a MAIN FLOOR PLAN - NORfII WINO MAIN FLO4 R KEY: f:trtm arm.'Y SWM..r rrr.waw Mate lel nrfhflul r r■meami M..Yyr�� u, • es0el∎r .rn.f CEII rEHPLACE Al SAIRAU AU POPIIT DESEGII OEVELOPIAENi Dt1CUhiEN rs TAN AI IMRE •M. 0 Ypta LIM FLOOR PLAN NORTH W'IMG A2.1 b ni‘ L 4 1 CI PI 7j1 cau it, orb ni • Cp.• 71./ du.* • . 4 .r . 1 . • • 4:0 (g Attachment #2 r04 141411 _1-- • J. LEQ1-211:" 4144 3.1.x Coy.... ,••■ • • b•p•••7 hvp•oni anusemeAd Tr. 4110 Pr.,•••••1 • F•••1 3..441 /.•••n• 066 . 777. • Jo ; ••••/0".• ravvicr 3101r004117 +- 'Co'. 4 41 NAM .1 bc.•••■01.... 31•1•■••1 Tall toopori Pack Oratcmy 150ourod 3.11.10' 11...twalk Prop••••131trtcorabor 8•••••••.../W•■■••••• • ..•••"‘ a • • t•maord SAKI Cluasp• Spokane County, Washington MASTER IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FEBRUARY, 1999 LECrIt. Iltatldiame III Gar. Cus.C.•••••■••by C....7■••• t0101•00012 ▪ 1141.•••••••••• 0110.4 (remold) P.F.0 Ir rt 331.0.•crylhatrla n rt n Dumb Mae, Cieslagie 0.0.• \ 11 • Bop. le rarr 17 Ms Ocasenkts elsch IPS 6000.• 11.1.0•■•• 0 heet letnixe. • 31.1.■*0•4•1•••■ 0.1 Can Callelme•ORI0/...17.1, nv Th. Iftdds, hal e lt 0,1•••••ThUls Err, 113 CLW Cue. 1104ftecuitag • 0..00 O 7 Tom 0•••■ nv C.A.1••0••slomk 03 Th. Mu, 200 Losimabil,W4 OW Dv, Com.104imtled• Ingup.m0antatios •LkIl •011,1 DAM 81,11)) MW AreCCIA03. 1121 Tr w Catlii•• OPOINIC t1fl0.a• oon• maw . •••••• • ile.111 ••••■••••• •••••••••••• f•••••■■•••011.•fl 0•43.41.1,11■0••110 11370.•IM 1•0101.1.121•Y MISS. sa• ruute.m•sercos•cm.• v Attachment J3 JP oar. 41mrsn • ....••• Foray 31.car, Roacyfichall Pi 14=6 n n VIsCructi Godusle Pam S _J CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: April 13, 2004 City Manager Sign -off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business X new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Resolution 04 -011 Amending 2004 Fee Resolution GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Spokane Valley Resolution 04 -001; Ordinance No. 03 -065, Section 9 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Study session on March 16, 2004. BACKGROUND: Ordinance 03 -065, Section 9, states that the Council shall set by Resolution those areas in City -owned parks in which the City will allow the consumption of alcohol. Proposed Resolution 04 -010, also scheduled for discussion at the April 13 meeting, addresses the issues of identifying specific areas. Ordinance 03 -065, Section 9, also requires that the Council set an alcohol beverage permit fee for events to be held in those allowed areas. The attached Resolution No. 04 -011 proposes an amendment to the Fee Resolution, which would establish the permit fee. OPTIONS: Not imposing a fee for such permits. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Motion to adopt Amended Fee Resolution 04 -011, with Attachment A. BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None anticipated. The proposed fee was set at an amount that should result in cost recovery. STAFF CONTACT: Mike Jackson, Parks Director. ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Resolution 04 -011. CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. 04-011 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, AMENDING RESOLUTION 04 -001, AND APPROVING AN AMENDED MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FOR 2004, WHEREAS, it is the general policy of the City to establish fees that are reflective of the cost of services provided by the City; and WHEREAS, the Spokane Valley City Council adopted Resolution No. 03 -053 on November 25, 2003 to adopt a City fee schedule for 2004; and WHEREAS, the Spokane Valley City Council adopted Resolution No. 04 -001 on January 20, 2004 to adopt a fee schedule for 2004. ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE PERMIT REGISTRATION FEE ESTABLISHMENT: WHEREAS, Ordinance No. 03 -065, Section 9(C) states that the City shall adopt by resolution the fee for an Alcoholic Beverage Permit; and and WHEREAS, the City Council directed staff to determine an appropriate cost for such a permit; WHER.EAS, staff has determined that the appropriate fee for the permit is $1 0.00 per event; and WHEREAS, it is necessary to modify the current Master Fee Schedule for 2004 specific to the establishment of an Alcoholic Beverage Permit Registration Fee. NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington, as follows: Section 1. Establishment of an Alcoholic Beverage Permit Registration Fee in Schedule E (Parks & Recreation) of Exhibit A of the Master Fee Schedule. For the purpose of establishing an Alcoholic Beverage Permit Registration Fee in Schedule E (Parks & Recreation) of Exhibit A of the Master Fee Schedule, the City Council hereby adopts the amended Master - Fee Schedule for 2004, which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" as if fully set forth herein. Section 2. Repeal. To the extent that previous fee schedules are inconsistent with those set forth herein, they are repealed. Section 3. Effective Date. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect April 13, 2004. Resolution 04 -011: Amended 2004 Master Fee Schedule 1 Adopted this 13" day of April, 2004. ATTEST: Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Approved as to Form: Cary P. Driskcll, Deputy City Attorney CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Michael DcVleming, Mayor Resolution 04 -011: Amended 2004 Muster Fee Schedule 2 Resolution No. 04 -011: Exhibit A AMENDED MASTER FEE SCHEDULE Fee Schedule Page No. Schedule A: Planning 2 Schedule B: Public Works 4 Schedule C: Building 5 Schedule D: Fire Code 12 Schedule E: Parks & Recreation 15 Schedule F: Administrative 17 Schedule G: Other Fees 18 Exhibit A of Resolution 04 -011: Amended Master Fee Schedule for 2004 Page 1 of 18 AMENDMENTS Comprehensive Plan amendment Zoning or other code text amendment. APPEALS Appeal of Administrative Decision Appeal of Hearing Examiner findings ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW SEPA checklist Single dwelling (when required) All other developments Environmental Impact Statement Review Shoreline Substantial Development Permit $800.00 Critical Areas $300.00 PERMITS Home Occupation Permit Conditional Use Permit Temporary Use Permit PLATS Subdivisions Preliminary plat Final plat Short Plats Preliminary 2-4 Tots Final Plat 2 -4 Lots Preliminary plat 5 -9 Lots Final Plat 5 -9 Lots MASTER FEE SCHEDULE Schedule A - PLANNING $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $1,000.00 $300.00 $100.00 $300.00 $2,000.00 $80.00 $800.00 $150.00 $2,000.00 Plus $25.00 per lot $1,000.00 Plus $10.00 per lot $500.00 5800.00 Plus $10.00 per lot $1,000.00 Plus $25.00 per lot $800.00 Plus $10.00 per lot Exhibit A of Resolution 04 -011: Amended Master Fcc Schedule for 2004 Page 2 of 18 Plat Modification Subdivision plat Short plat Binding Site Plan Binding site plan modification Change of Conditions Aggregation /Segregation Lot line adjustment Lot line elimination Zero lot line SIGNS Review of permanent sign Review of temporary sign SITE PLAN REVIEW STREET VACATION APPLICATION ZONING Zoning map amendments (rezone) PUD plan PUD modification S650.00 $265.00 S 1,500.00 $1,300.00 $650.00 VARIANCES Administrative $300.00 Public Hearings $1,500.00 $100.00 $100.00 $100.00 Plus $10.00 per lot $50.00 $50.00 $250.00 $1,300.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 Plus $25.00 per lot $500.00 Exhibit A of Resolution 04 -011: Amended Master Fee Schedule for 2004 Page 3 of 18 Schedule B — PUBLIC WORKS o Estimated cost of public works review fees is due upon submittal of application. Any additional actual costs are due at the time of occupancy pennit or final land action, whichever applies. ENGINEERING/PLAN REVIEW — For road design, drainage, erosion and sedimentation control, right of way improvements, plat maps, etc-. Commercial $250.00 Plus hourly rate after 5 hours Residential $150.00 Plus hourly rate after 3 hours HOURLY RATE* $50.00 *Examples of activities charged on an hourly rate .system include but are not limited to commercial site plan reviews and rezone reviews. INSPECTIONS Stormwater system review Stormwater system inspections Field monitoring or inspections of grading sites, residential or non - residential Commercial, multifamily, and multi lot sites Industrial or mineral industrial sites PERMITS Right-of-way obstruction permit Approach permit Floodplain permit Conditional Use permit Shoreline permit Variances Cash, certified check or bond for right of way cleaning *.25.00 minimum at time of application TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS REVIEW Exhibit A of Resolution 04 -011: Amended Master Fee Schedule for 2004 $250.00 $50.00 $200.00 $225.00 $16.00 $25.00 $50.00 $200.00 $50 Hourly rate 51,000.00 Plus hourly rate after 1 hour Hourly rate Plus hourly (four hour minimum) Plus hourly Plus review & inspection fee at hourly rate* Plus review & inspection fee at hourly rate* Plus hourly rate after hour Plus inspection fee Plus hourly rate after 1' hour 550.00 Plus hourly rate after hour Page 4 of 18 The building code permit fees are collected at the time of the issuance of the building permit. Other fees are also to be collected at the time of the issuing of the building perrnit. Each department for whom the fee is collected is to advise the permit specialist of fees due. GRADING Permit Fees 100 or less 101 to 1,000 1,001 to 10,000 10,001 to 100 100,001 to 200,000 200,000 or more 50 or less 51 to 100 101 to 1,000 1,001 to 10,000 10,001 to 100,000 100,001 to 200,000 200,001 or more Cubic Yards Plans Checking Fees Cubic Yards Schedule C — BUILDING Land Clearing only (without earth being moved) STRUCTURAL CODE No fee $12.00 $20.00 $25.00 $25.00 for the first for each additional $98.00 for the first for each additional $158.00 FEE S20.00 $20.00 for the first 100 Cu. Yd., plus $7.00 for each additional 100 Cu. Yd. $83.00 for the first 1,001 Cu. Yd., plus $6.00 for each additional 1,000 Cu. Yd. $147.00 for the first 10,000 Cu. Yd. plus $15.00 for each additional 10,000 Cu. Yd. $368.00 for the first 100,000 Cu. Yd. plus $15.00 for each additional 100,000 Cu. Yd. $503.00 for the .first 200,000 Cu. Yd. plus $15.00 for each additional 200,000 Cu. Yd. FEE 10,000 Cu. Yd. plus $7.00 10,000 Cu. Yd. 100,000 Cu. Yd. plus $6.00 100,000 Cu. Yd. $65.00 Building permit fees for each project are set by the following fee schedule. The table below is to be used to determine the building permit fees and plans check fees based on the value of the construction work as stated by the applicant or the value calculated by the Building Official using the latest valuation data published in the Building Safely Journal by the International Code Council, whichever value is greatest. Exhibit A of Resolution 04 -011: Amended Master Fee Schedule for 2004 Page 5 of 18 Valuation Table Total Valuation S I to 525,000 525,001 to $50,000 550,001 to $100,000 5100,001 to 5500,000 $500,001 to $1,000,000 $1,000,000 and up Private garages (wood frame) Private garages (masonry) Pole buildings Open carport, decks, porches Plans Review Fees Valuation Exceptions Fee $69.25 for the first $2,000 plus 514 for each additional 51,000, or fraction thereof, up to and including 525,000 $391.25 for the first $25,000 plus $10.10 for each additional $1,000, or fraction thereof, up to and including $50,000 $643.75 for the first 550,000 plus 57 for each additional 51,000, or fraction thereof, up to and including $100,000 $993.75 for the first $100,000 plus 55.60 for each additional $1,000, or fraction thereof, up to and including 5500,000 $3,233.75 for the first $500,000 plus $4.75 for each additional 51,000, or fraction thereof, up to and including $1,000,000 55,608.75 for the first $1 ,000,000 plus $3.15 for each additional $1,000, or fraction thereof Fee Per Square Foot $19.00 $22.00 $19.00 $15.00 Fees are to be collected at the time of receiving the application for permit if the plans review fee is over $50.00. If less than $50.00, it may be collected at the time of permit issuance. Plans review fee (general) 65% Of bldg permit fee Plans review fee — Group R -3 occupancies (single family 40% Of bldg permit fee less than 7,999 sq. ft.) Plans review fee — Group R -3 occupancies (single family 8,000 sq. ft. or greater) Plans review fee — U -1 or U -2 occupancies (sheds, barns, etc.) Plans review fee — temporary tent or structure 65% Of bldg permit fee 25% Of bldg permit fee 25% Of bldg permit fee Plans review fees are not refundable once the plan review has been started. This fee is in addition to the full basic fee. The WSI3CC fee is to be collected at this time. if a set of plans already checked and approved is resubmitted by the owner or his /her agent, an hourly rate of $47.00 will be applied for the re- review. Exhibit A of Resolution 04 -011: Amended Master Fee Schedule for 2004 Page 6 of 18 PLUMBING CODE The plumbing code fees will be collected when the associated permit is issued. If the plumbing is included in the Building Permit the unit costs are added, but not the basic plumbing permit fee. A. Basic fees 1) Basic fee for issuing each permit 2) Basic for each supplemental permit 13. Unit fees (in addition to the basic fee) 1) For each plumbing fixture on a trap (including garbage disposals, dish washers, back flow device, drainage, hot tubs, built in water softener, water closets, lavatories, sinks, drains, etc ) 2) Private sewage disposal system 3) Water heater 4) industrial waste pretreatment interceptor including its trap and vent, except kitchen type grease interceptors functioning as fixture traps. 5) Repair or alteration of water piping, drainage or vent piping 6) Lawn sprinkler system on any one meter 7) Atmospheric type vacuum breaker 8) Backflow protective device other than atmospheric type vacuum breakers 9) Medical gas 10) Interceptors MECHANICAL CODE $35.00 $7.50 $6.00 $20.00 $6.00 Each $15.00 $6.00 Each fixture $25.00 $6.00 Each $6.00 Each $6.00 Per outlet $6.00 Each The mechanical code fees will be collected when the associated permit is issued. If it is included in the Building Permit, the unit costs are added, but not the basic mechanical permit fee. A. Basic fees 1) Basic fee for issuing each permit $35.00 2) Basic for each supplemental permit $7.50 B. Unit fees (in addition to the basic fee) 1) Furnaces & suspended heaters - Installation or relocation a. up to and including 100,000 btu $12.00 b. over 100,000 btu $15.00 2) Duct work system $10.00 Exhibit A of Resolution 04-011: Amended Master Fee Schedule for 2004 Pagc 7 of 18 3) Heat pump & air conditioner a, 0 to 3 tons S12.00 b. over 3 to 15 tons S20.00 c. over 15 to 30 tons $25.00 d. over 30 to 50 tons $35.00 e. over 50 tons $60.00 4) Gas water heater $10.00 5) Gas piping system $1.00 Per outlet 6) Gas log, fireplace, and gas insert installation $10.00 7) Appliance vents installation; relocation; replacement $10.00 Each 8) Repairs or additions $15.00 9) Boilers, compressors, and absorption systems a. 0 to 3 hp - 100,000 btu or less $12.00 h. Over 3 to 15 hp - 100,001 to 500,000 btu $20.00 c. Over 15 - 30 hp - 500,001 to 1,000,000 btu $25.00 d. over 30 hp - 1,000,001 to 1,750,000 btu $35.00 e. over 50 hp - over 1,750,000 btu $60.00 10) Air Handlers a Each unit up to 10,000 cfm, including ducts $12.00 b. Each unit over 10,000 cfm $15.00 11) Evaporative Coolers (other than portable) $10.00 12) Ventilation and exhaust a. Each fan connected to a single duct $10.00 b. Each ventilation system $12.00 c. Each hood served by mechanical exhaust $12.00 13) Incinerators a. Installation or relocation of residential $19.00 b. Installation or relocation of commercial $22.00 14) Appliances, each $10.00 15) Unlisted appliances a. under 400,000 btu $50.00 b. 400,000 btu or over $100.00 16) Ilood a. Type I $50.00 b. Type II $10.00 17) L P Storage tank $10.00 18) Wood or Pellet stove insert $10.00 19) Wood stove system - free standing $25.00 Exhibit A of Resolution 04 -011: Amended Master Fee Schedule for 2004 Page 8 of 18 ENERGY CODE Energy Code Plans check fee is also established to check to meet the requirements of R.CW 51- 11 `VAC. These are in addition to the Building Code Fees. If City inspectors are assigned to verify Energy Plans, the following fees apply. If an outside energy inspector is required, that fee will be determined by the outside agency. Residential RemodellAddition - $ -0- New Single Family $ -0- Tenant Improvement A. 0 to 10,000 square feet $35.00 B. 10,001 square feet and over $45.00 C. Multi - Family $60.00 Per building D. New Commercial and industrial $90.00 OTHER BUILDING CODE FEES Annual Permit Annual Spokane Valley Building Permits used to: 1) maintain equipment or buildings, 2) construct or remodel small areas of assembly occupancies, or 3) install tents or membrane structures may be available depending upon the determination of the valuation of work made by the Spokane Valley Building Official. Certain record keeping and inspection responsibilities shall be established in a site specific Spokane Valley Annual Permit Agreement. Demolition Permit Single Family Residence Commercial buildings Garage or accessory building associated with a residence or commercial building Septic tank or underground flammable tank associated with a residence or commercial building $44.00 $125.00 $20.00 $10.00 Each Early Start Agreements (Foundations) 25% Of bldg permit fee Exhibit A of Resolution 04 -011: Amended Master Fcc Schedule for 2004 Page 9 of 18 Sign Fees Fees collected for a sign permit and a plans check fee for signs erected in accordance with the Sign Code. The below fee plus the WSBCC fee of $4.50. Signs mounted on buildings $45.00 Sign and pole mounting $65.00 Temporary Certificate of Occupancy $50.00 Washington State Building Codc Council (W.S.B.C.C.) Surcharge A flat fee of $4.50 will be collected on each permit for approved plans or any other permit that is issued in accordance with the Spokane Valley Building Code. EXCEPT: For multi- family projects, the fee is $4.50 for the first living unit and $2.00 for each additional unit. The City Finance Department will forward this fee to the WSBCC on a quarterly basis. OTHER MISCELLANEOUS FEES A. For City personnel 1) Hourly rate set for City Employees (unless otherwise specified) 2) Hourly rate for permit specialist 3) Overtime charges 13. Hourly rate for contracted services $47.00 $42.00 1.5 times regular rate Set according to contract rate C. Hourly rate for special called inspections $47.00 D. Mobile home location permit and inspection 1) Temporary mobile home $60.00 2) Manufactured home inspection, per section $50.00 E. House Moving Fee 1) Class I, II, and III — Moving permit $60.00 2) Class 1, II, and III — Inspection fee $60.00 ** 3) Class IV (if already permitted by Spokane $ -0- County or Spokane City) * Plus basement /crawlspace valuation permit fee * *Plus $47.00 per hour after the 1' hour, and $.50 per mile if the building to be moved into the City is outside the City limits Exhibit A of Resolution 04 -011: Amended Master Fcc Schedule for 2004 Page 10 of 18 F. Minimum Housing Inspection fee $55.00 Plus $47.00 per hour after 1' hour G. Work on any structure or building without a permit if a Spokane Valley Permit is required: 1) Minimum investigative inspection fee $55.00 2) Total investigative fee to be equal to the permit fee determined for the value of the illegal work accomplished H. Special inspections (requested by owner or tenant) 1) Fire, wind, mud slide or flood damage $60.00 2) Day Care $60.00 3) Nursing Homes, hospitals, et al $60.00 Plus $ 47.00 per hour after 1st hour 4) Special Occupancies Excess inspections for a given project created by the developer, owner or contractor Condominium conversion plans review /inspection fee 2) Basic permit fee M. Swimming pools (Over 5,000 gallons) N. Re -roof Permit: Fee based on the value of the project. plans are submitted for review. O. Change of Use or Occupancy Classification permit P. Towers, elevated tanks, antennas BUILDING CODE FEE REFUND POLICY $60.00 $47.00 Temporary tents, canopies, and air supported structures for public use; inclusive of all tents for a single event. It does not apply to tents less than 200 sq. ft, canopies less than 400 sq ft, camping tents, or to tents used for private, non commercial events. 1) Plans check fee $13.00 2) Basic permit fee $60.00 L. Enclosing an existing deck or patio I) Plans check fee 40% $50.00 No plan review fee will be charged unless $47.00 Per inspection or re- inspection Based on value of project and bldg code valuation Of the basic fee for plans examination Based on value of project; minimum $3,000 Plus plumbing fees Based on value of project No Permit Fee refund is allowed once the work has been started. If a refund is requested, the request shall be addressed to the Building Official in writing, and shall be received at the Spokane Valley Permit Center within 180 days of the date of issuance of the permit. Any fee refund request received after 180 days of the date of permit issuance shall be denied. Any refund approved shall be limited to 80% of the total Permit Fee paid. Refunds shall be limited to Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Permit fees paid to the City of Spokane Valley. Exhibit A of Resolution 04 -01 1:.Amended Master Fee Schedule for 2004 Page 11 of 18 Schedule D - FIRE CODE FIRE ALARM, SPRINKLER AND OTHER PROTECTION SYSTEMS Plans check and review fees, inspections, and permit for installation of separate fire alarm system or sprinkler system applications, and other fire protection systems. Fire Alarm System A. Commercial — permit, plans check and inspection B. Residential 1) All zones 2) Permit fee Sprinkler Systems A. Tenant improvements 1) Less than 10 heads 2) 11 or more heads B. New systems 1) Commercial — permit, plans check and inspection 2) Residential Other Protection Systems A. Fire extinguishing system (other than sprinklers) E. Standpipe installation 1) Class I and Class II 2) Class 111 C. Fire pump installation D. Emergency or standby commercial power generators installation Flammable and combustible liquids storage tanks installation 1) a. Underground, 1. st tank b. Plus each additional tank on same site 2) a. Above ground tank b. Plus each additional tank on same site 3) Annual permit fee for storage Hazardous materials storage tanks installation 1) Less than 500 gallons 2) 500 - 1,199 gallons 3) 1,200 gallons or more E. F. Exhibit A of Resolution 04-011: Amended Master Fee Schedule for 2004 $40.00 $35.00 $65.00 $85.00 Based on value of system Based on value of system $60.00 Each riser, plus $1.10 per plug/head $50.00 Plus $1.50 per nozzle $58.00 $70.00 $55.00 $55.00 $55.00 $35.50 $55.00 $35.00 $30.00 $75.00 $104.00 $147.00 Per tank Page 12 of 18 G. Liquefied petroleum tanks installation 1) Less than 500 gallons 2) 500 - 9,999 gallons 3) 10,000 gallons or more H. Gaseous oxygen systems installation 1) Less than 6,000 cubic feet 2) 6,000 - 11,999 cubic feet 3) 12,000 cubic feet or more 1. Nitrous systems installation J. Medical gas systems installation 1) Gaseous system 2) Liquefied system K. Hazardous material recycling system installation 1) 110 gallons or less per day capacity 2) More than 110 gallons per day capacity L. Vapor recovery system installation 1) Phase 1- tank truck and tank 2) Phase 1I - vehicle fueled and tank M. Cryogenic tank installation 1) First tank 2) Each additional tank on same site N. Removal, abandonment, or any combination thereof, of flammable or combustible liquid storage tanks 1) First tank (commercial) 2) Each additional tank on the same site (commercial) 3) Contractor's permit for removal or abandonment of residential under - ground fuel tanks $84.00 $104.00 $147.00 $78.00 $90.00 $118.00 $95.00 $90.00 $95.00 $95.00 $117.00 $90.00 $115.00 $95.00 $35.00 $84.00 $47.50 $75.00 Per tank Plus $12.00 each outlet Plus $12.00 each outlet Plus $12.00 each outlet Per tank 0. Fire Department fee for inspections and follow up. For initial inspection, plans check and follow up inspections as called for in the Fire Code and performed by the fire department the fire department will be paid 65% of the fee collected for the permit. This payment will be paid quarterly. Exhibit A of Resolution 04-011: Amended Master Fee Schedule for 2004 Page 13 of 18 FIRE FALSE ALARM FEES The following fees are set for repeated malfunctioning false alarms in a given six month period. First alarm Second alarm Third alarm Fourth alarm Fifth and subsequent alarms FIREWORKS Public display fee* $100.00 Maximum per RCW 70.77 *Also requires a performance bond or cash deposit of S500.00 for clean up purposes and a liability insurance policy of S1, 000, 000.00. PLANS CHECK AND REVIEW BY THE BUREAU OF A. New commercial plans check and inspection (for projects not mentioned elsewhere) B. Fire watch service C. Hourly rate D. After hour inspections, plans review, consultations for projects that do not require a permit, and other special services Exhibit A of Resolution 04 -011: Amended )toaster Fcc Schedule for 2004 $30.00 $70.00 $120.00 $47.00 No charge FIRE PREVENTION $40.00 Require a hired fire watch $140.00 3 hour min. plus hourly thereafter 1.5 times regular rate Page 14 of 18 ADMINISTRATIVE PEES Schedule E — PARKS & RECREATION Basic fees to be considered when applying rates Administrative Fee Refuse Fee AQUATICS Pool admission (age 5 and under) free Pool admission (age older than 5) $1.00 Pool punch pass (25 swims) $20.00 Weekend family discount 1 child under 13 free with paying adult Reservation (less than 50 people) $100.00 Per hour* Food fee (if applicable) $25.00 Reservation (50 — 100 people) S125.00 Per hour* Food fee (if applicable) $50.00 Reservation (101 — 150 people) $150.00 Per hour* Food fee (if applicable) $75.00 *Minimum 2 hours EVENTS — includes Pavilion Events include but are not limited to activities such as car shows, tournaments and activities involving 200 or more people. The Director of Parks and Recreation will make the final determination. General Fee $150.00 Non -profit applications $80.00 Or free with sponsorship* *Applications for joint sponsorship with the City of Spokane Valley will be considered by the Spokane Valley Parks Department. FIELD RENTAL Use Fee $25.00 First hour plus $15 each additional hour INDOOR USE Open gym admission Playground program admission (10 entries) $30.00 $50.00 $2.00 $20.00 Exhibit A of Resolution 04 -011: Amended Master Fee Schedule for 2004 Page 15 of 18 El PROFESSIONAL PHOTOGRAPHY Permit Fec MIRAREAU Mirabeau Springs Small shelter and waterfall Refundable deposit (less than 200 people) Mirabeau Meadows Shelter (less than 200 people) Shelter (200 or more people) Refundable deposit (less than 200 people) Refundable deposit (200 or more people) NOG C BE,���� RIAC?El.'. 1[Ti lAlcohOliu#El;eyerage Pctm. Fee, PICNIC SHELTERS Picnic Shelter (less than 200 people) Picnic Shelter (200 or more people) Refundable deposit (less than 200 people.) Refundable deposit (200 or more people) RECREATION $150.00 Maximum 4 hours $50.00 $80.00 5150.00 $50.00 5250.00 $30.00 5150.00 $50.00 $250.00 $25.00 Annual Recreation program fees are set to recover costs as specified in the Parks and Recreation revenue policy. VALLEY MISSION ARENA Rental* $100.00 Per weekend Refundable deposit $50.00 *Renter responsible for on -site preparation. Rental requires liability insurance. Exhibit A of Resolution 04 -011: Amended Master Fec Schedule for 2004 Page 16 of 18 Schedule F - ADMINISTRATIVE COPY FEES Copy of audio tapes, video tapes, photos, maps or other records needing reproduction Copy of written records Copy of annual budget Copy of full documents OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE FEES NSF Check $25.00 At cost $0.15 Per page $10.00 At cost Exhibit A of Resolution 04 -011: Amended Master Fee Schedule for 2004 Page 17 of 18 ADULT ENTERTAINMENT FEES Establishment Licenses Live Adult Entertainment Adult Arcade Other Adult Entertainment Licenses Adult Arcade Device License Manager License Entertainer License Late License Fee — Charged in addition to license fee. SECURITY FALSE ALARM FEES Repeated malfunctioning security false alarms in a given six -month period. First alarm Second alarm Third alarm Fourth and subsequent alarms Schedule G - OT.H_E.R FEES $1 $1,500.00 $150.00 $150.00 $150.00 Percent of Past Due Calendar Days License Fee 7 — 30 25% 31 — 60 50% 61 and over 75% TOW OPERATOR ANNUAL REGISTRATION FEE $30.00 $70.00 $120.00 $100.00 No charge Exhibit A of Resolution 04-011: Amended Master Fee Schedule for 2004 Page 18 of 18 Meeting Date: April 13, 2004 City Manager Sign -off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ® old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report Q pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Motion Consideration: Approval of Economic Analysis Scope GOVERNING LEGISLATION: NA BACKGROUND: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: City Council was briefed on the proposed Scope of Work of an Economic Analysis for the Sprague /Appleway extension on March 23, 2004, with updates on March 30 and April 6, 2004. At the April 6 meeting, staff provided an update on comments received to the draft scope of work. Based on those comments, City Council did not propose any changes to the scope. Staff is preparing a Request for Proposal, which will be finalized once the scope of work is approved. By the April 13 meeting, staff should have a response from Eastern Washington University concerning its ability, willingness and availability. OPTIONS: Approve the scope of work as -is, revise the scope of work, or provide additional direction. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve the scope of work for an Economic Analysis of the Sprague /Appleway Couplet. BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Estimated cost $50,000. STAFF CONTACT: Marina Sukup, AICP, Director of Community Development ATTACHMENTS: Draft Scope of Work for an Economic Analysis of the Sprague /Appleway extension Sprague Corridor Economic Analysis SCOPE OF WORK The economic analysis should include an area extending from the intersection of Sprague /Appleway and Interstate 90 on the west to Sullivan Avenue on the east.. In conducting the evaluation, proponent should consider external factors affecting the development and redevelopment within the Corridor, including but not limited to, retail centers outside the corridor such as the Spokane Valley Mall and the Costco /Home Depot center; existing mining operations and the proposed North Spokane Corridor transportation improvements. The analysis should evaluate the following: • The economic impact on existing business of a change in motor vehicle traffic during the five, ten and twenty year planning horizon. Traffic forecast data will be coordinated through the Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC). • The economic impact on existing businesses of roadway construction during a five year period. • The economic opportunities created by the extension of Appleway to Sullivan and the opportunity cost of the failure to extend Appleway during the five, ten and twenty year planning period. • Barriers to successful redevelopment of the Corridor, including institutional and regulatory barriers. • Strategies to maximize redevelopment within the Corridor, including but not limited to traffic circulation improvements and land use regulations. • Mitigation strategies to counteract adverse economic impact and /or lost opportunity for specific types of business enterprise. Economic impacts should be quantified and the methodology for calculating and evaluating impact detailed. Meeting Date: 4 -13 -04 Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ information AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Authorization for Projects CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action City Manager Sign -off: ❑ old business X new business ❑ public hearing ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation .15 FTE to Assist with Engineering on Capital GOVERNING LEGISLATION: N/A PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: N/A BACKGROUND: The City has two Engineering positions responsible for approximately $20 million in annual Capital Improvement projects, each project in different stages of planning, design, and construction. The Program relies heavily on grant funds from state and federal agencies (Transportation Improvement Board, Spokane Regional Transportation Council, Bridge Replacement Program, etc.) to pay the majority of these CIP project costs. The grant process is very competitive. Knowledge and experience in determining which projects are good grant candidates are extremely important in leveraging city funds. Spokane County has been very successful in getting grant funds because of the knowledge and experience of key engineering staff. One of these key engineers recently retired from Spokane County. The City has the opportunity to hire this engineer on a part-time basis (0.15 FTE). This engineer has historical information, specific knowledge and experience in selecting successful transportation projects within Spokane Valley for grant funding. If approved, the 0.15 FTE would primarily assist the CIP Senior Engineer with the selection, planning, budgeting, transportation analyses, and grant application preparation related to the CIP program. This 0.15 FTE would replace some of the tasks outlined in the County's Engineering Services Interlocal agreement. This position would also provide capital project assistance (Barker Bridge, Barker Road, Couplet, etc.) as needed. Funding for this 0.15 FTE would be paid for by reducing tasks currently budgeted for within the County agreement. The agreement allows for changes of up to 10% with advance notice. The rate established in the County agreement for this work is $52.98 per hour. By hiring directly, the cost is reduced to approximately $30 per hour. The position would be classified at Grade 17, the same grade as the City's part -time Traffic Engineer. OPTIONS: Continue to supplement engineering services via Spokane County. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve authorization for .15 FTE Engineer at Grade 17. BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The cost of .15 FTE is about 10,000. The Engineering agreement with the County would be lowered by that amount to offset the cost. STAFF CONTACT: Nina Regor, Deputy City Manager; Neil Kersten, Public Works Director CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: 03 -13 -04 City Manager Sign -off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE : Motion Consideration: GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: OPTIONS: RECOMMENDED MOTION: That the City of Spokane Valley help sponsor the celebration of events for the Small Business Association during this year's "Small Business Month" and in that connection, authorize the use of the City of Spokane Valley logo where appropriate. BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: CONTACT: Deputy Mayor Wilhite ATTACHMENTS ■• e•�BY: US SBA; • ■ • • • • • ••• •• • U.S. Small Business Administration To: Chris Bainbridge Organization: Phone: Date: 4 -8 -2004 From: Adrlertee Abney -Cole 509 353 2600; Fax Transmission Cover Sheet City Clerk, Spokane Valley Fax: (509). 8 -ate 9 a 1- , oo Time: Office: Business Information Center Phone: (509) 353 -2800 Fax: (509) 353 -2600 No. of pages (including this cover sheet ): 4 Message: Small Business Month 2004: List of events as it appears the BIC webpage httpjhvwnl.spokenebtc.org SBA Form 959 (11101) Previous editions ere obsolete. Fn)rVi w -e,ena r.t .a. p......4 a t.. -r... am.. emir APR -8 -04 3:2IPM; PAGE i Did you know that in fiscal 2001 the SBA -- • backed more than $16.5 billion in financing to America's small businesses? • approved more than 50,000 loans totaling almost $12.2 billion? • invested $4.5 billion in small businesses through its venture - capital program? • provided more than 48,000 loans totaling more than $1 billion to disaster victims for residential, personal- property and business loans? • gave management and technical assistance to an estimated 1.3 million entrepreneurs through its grant programs and resource partners? • responded to almost a quarter million telephone and e-mail inquiries at the SBA Answer Desk? Did you know that America's 25 million small businesses -- • employ more than 58 percent of the private work force? • generate more than 51 percent of the nation's gross domestic product? • are the principal source of new jobs? Contact us at: 1 -800 -U ASK SBA www.sba.gov answerdesk@sba.gov NOTE: Be aware fax machines using thermal paper produce an unstable image which will deteriorate. Copy messages onto plain paper prior to filing as a record! r '7NFIDEN T IALfTY NOTE: the Information contained in chic facsimile transmittal sheet and the document(s) that follow am for the exclusive use of the dressee and may contain information protected by the Privacy Act, 5 U-S.C. 55 ?.1, or otherwise confidential. privileged, or non- disciosable r carnation. If the recipient or this facsimile Is not the addressee or is not the person responsible for delivering this facsimile to the addreesoo, the redplent may violate the law by reading, photocopying, distributing or otherwise using this facsimile transmission or its contents in any wey. If tho recipient has received this fat-Mollie transmission in error. call the sending office imrradietety. Tne torn%wax at ctt Th Ily prontQn by Eite rt7aaml t•oma:. Inc. 30+ days of Small Business - Calendar of Events � - Sunda Monde Tuesday Wednesda Thursda Friday Saturda April 20 21 22 _,.. 23 _•• - 26 27 , 2B 29 30 . May 3 4 - 5 6 . 7 1 0 _.. 17 11 — — 1q 12 �.,.. 13 14 21 19 20 24 25 26 27 28 June . Memorial Day June 1 2 9 3 ,o • 4 — 11 7 8 - � Activities In Spokane and Coeur d'Alene Activities throughout the Inland NW 4/20 4/22 Power-.of AngQLlrlveating. Semin.8r, INTEC,WTC & Delta Angel Group - Spokane 8 - 5pm AHANA - FACJto FACE_w/ Pmeurement _ 0_82ortunittes, 5:30- 8:30pm, Spokane Stacting.& Managing a _ausine SCORE, Sandpoint, ID 8:30am- 3:30pm 4/24 • Ba e_Legal,ls$ues for -Small Bu$imess 6 -9pm - SBDC- Spokane Financing Your Small Business - SBDC, Kennewick 4/28 Recordkeeping Bast 8:30 - noon - SCORE MaXLmlzing Hit.&to_Your Web.Site, _ 6 -9pm, SBDC- Spokane 1 Basics, 6 - 9pm, SBDC -N. ID, Post Falls, ID • SENT BY: US SBA; 509 353 2000; Small Business Month 2004 Daily Calendar of Events: Money T3Xos mall Bu .Manth Working Together for Small Business • t • �.s -rid `Y - to Daily Calendar of Events Money pc http:// www. spokanehic.org/May2004daily.htm Innovation Technology - Innovation Technology �� APR -8 -04 3:21PM; Small Business Month 2004 Daily Calendar of Events Procurement Links below go to Adobe . pdf files Procuremenf- jaa Items shaded in light blue are Special Events, Others are offered on an ongoing basis PAGE 2/4 Page 1 of 5 4/8/2004 introilection to Constructs n Biding, 6 -9pm, 4/29 SBDC-Spokane — SBA OJ(grvie_w 8. Lin Br-I-efing, 8a & QMWBE Certificate!! Orientation 8am -12pm Tri- Cities 4130 Starting a pusine.9 in Idaho, 9 -11 am, Post Falls, ID 5/1 a 3 4 t 5 SBDC -N. ID, - _ Beglnning.Beceldkeeping (concludes 5/10) 6 -9pm, SBDC Spokane QuickBooks II -A for Small Business, SBDC - Pasco Starting a Business. SBDC Richland Business & the Law, SBDC -Walla Walla Ecortgmlc Rally, West Plains Chamber Cheney WA 7:30- 9:30am How May I Assist You .Q 1ivering Outstanding Customer Service. BizStreet/Spokane Reg1. Chamber Letters of Credit - .Exporters, ITA Pleating a Ftdll.Sttaising..FrAmew.ol -k, 1 -4pm, SBDC- . Spokane rt t _ Columbia River Wine Expo, May 5 -6 . - - -� 9 a S 8:30-noon, n mall Business 8:-o ass a o Storting t r SCORE Howse MakeXQur,BanKQ! Say Yes 6 -9prn, SBDC- Spokane QulckBoo.ks for Consktietion 6.9pm 6 OMWBE - Marketing to State Agencies, 9am -noon NAWBO /BIC Seminar prn Introduction to Grant Writing (for nonprofits) 1 -3pm, SBDC- Spokane Tera-byte Triatl9LOpen H_o a 4 :30- 7:30pm Storting_ &ookkeep -Lrlg.Servl,c. 6 -9pm, SBDC - Spokane Writing a Marketing Plan, SBDC, Kennewick Evaluate Yeur StorE14 Business Idea SCOPE - Wenatchee 7 — _... Top of Page 10 @lisle Taxes for Small Business (concludes 5/17) 6- QuickBooks II -B for Small Business, SBDC - Pasco 9.m, SBDC- Spokane 11 EEO - Overv.Ie!' ..6-9pm, SBDC- Spokane Celebrotion of Entrepreneurship, 7:30 -9am, • EWU- Spokane Financial Management (concludes 5/13, 6 -9pm SBDC - Spokane Business Pia ri; admap_ to Success B:30 -noon, Spokane, SCORE - _ USPS.- Mv.e -Post Office (4) free 1hr. hands -on 12 workshops at the BIC, Spokane Inland NW ManufacttlLi_Lunch, 1 1 am -1 prri, Coeur d'Alene - Techeielp QulckBooks for Po .r.QII 6 -9pm SBDC - Spokane Lea,c,LBkiefing - 11:45 -1 pm, SBA/BIC Board/Staff ReI tipnst11p 11 am 2pm, SBDC- • I Spokane IRS #1- Setting Up for IRS: Choosing the Right Identity SBDC - Kennewick How to�repare s_Business Plan SCORE- Wenatchee Mid-Columbia Awards Ban. uet, Tri- Cities 14 financlnl for,No_nProtlts 8.0Oam, SBDC Spokane Startirlg-.Q-BUsinesq 1n Idaho, 9-11am, ' SBDC -N. ID, Post Falls, ID . - . Top of Page OuiekBooks-,Extras, 6 -9pm, SBDC - Spokane - Exportlng_101 - ITA/U.S. Dept of Coinrnerco Broadband for Smell Business, SBDC SENT BY: US SBA; 509 353 2600; Small Business Month 2004 Daily Calendar of Events: APR-8-04 3:21 PM; PAGE 3/4 Page 2of5 http:// www, spokanebie .arg/N1ay 4/S /2004 18 Pals P11oITlpsis_Trleks, 6 -9pm, SBDC- Spokane Finding &_Eyaluating-Frnn . hls.e, 6 -9pm, SBDC- Spokane EyalkLting a FrArchise Opportunity, 6- 8:30pm, SBDC ID, Post Falls, ID Kennewick Starting a Business, SBDC Richland Patents, Trademarks & Copyrights - SBDC Walla Walla —._— -N. ._ _ . _ 19 20 Princlples of ,M,orketing - 8:30 -noon, SCORE ReconikeepLng wIlh Qui.k_gooks, 6 -9pm, SBDC - S•okane _ —_ 1 .. __ Small Business Money Mgmt.. SBDC Kennewick Business Marketing SCORE Wenatchee The_MIasing Link to Profits, SBDC Walla Walla , _.__._ -, ___ Spokane PTAC Event 7:30 - 9am OMWBE - Stale Certification Briefing, 10am - noon NAWBO /BIC Seminar pm Etoerd R.ecruitment& Retention 6 -9pm SBDC C__QIINEOLNW inyestor_Fskrum, Spokane h unctjd 6,11, INTEC. Spokane T_op ofPa•e 24 r Payroll RecordkegpIng, 6 - 9pm, SBDC - Spokane - Time Management, SBDC Kennewick Using the Internet. to ResJNew Listomers, 8- 25 fpm, BBB & US Dept. of Commerce Managing Your Cash_Fj_pw 6 - 9pm, (concludes 5/27), SBDC - Spokane 26 Recordkeeping Basics - SCORE IQ Dept. of Commerce Disadvantaged Busi.ess Enterprise &.SBA HUBZone Orientation -Post Falls, ID Doing Business with Hanford, 7:30am Spokane PTAC usiness Freud Seminar 8 -noon - BBB ID Dept. of CQ.[izmerce 0_l.S.$dvantsUc ed Business nterpris.e_ SBA HtBZone Orientation - Lewiston, ID IRS #12 -Sole Proprietor/ Schedule C & Expenses SBDC Kennewick Want to Do Business with Hanford? PTAC /131C Lotln�riefin.g 11:45-1 pm, SBA/BIC Memorial Da Weekend 6/1 7 :30 - 9am - Spokane Regional Strategic Planning for Small Business SBDC amines D en g 5�� P 9 Kennewick Chamber /BizStreet Startinta Business - SBDC Richland 6/2 Agora Awards.- Spokane Regional Chamber Basics of Startin II Bu .l _ass SCOFF_ _, .,, 6/3 Qusiness Sales &. Promotion SCORE Wenatchee Overcomiri I b lllty SBDC Kennewick • 6/4 _ • 6/7 -.- ..-. -._ ... SENT BY: US SBA; 509 353 2600; Small Business Month 2004 Daily Calendar of 'Events: 6/10 6/11 &12 Bu ness. e.gol Considerations - SCOR Wenatchee Ey©. o the lavestor_Entrepreneur Seminar, Richland, WA 11 am -5pm, WTC, SBDC Small Business Workshop - Inchelium by CTEC- SBRC 618 6/9 Inl.aitd NW Manuit!cture s. _urtch, 11 am -1 pm, Coeur d'Alene - TechHelp Lonn Briefing, 11:45 - 1 pm, SBA/BIC htt p: l/ www, spokanebic .org /ivlay Tn 2 r,t P_3g9 APB -8 -04 3:22PM; PAGE 4/4 Page 3of5 4/8/2004 Spokane Regional Convention & Visitors Bureau 2003 Annual Report The Spokane Regional CVB is a destination marketing organization whose niche is the recruitment of visitors for leisure, meetings, conventions and film production work. Marketing the destination means presenting a desirable and compelling reason for people to want to visit. As the regional hub for business, retail, entertainment, culture, recreation, medical services and education, our trade area includes 1.7 million people in Washington, Idaho, Montana, Oregon,Alberta and British Columbia. Our media reaches upwards of 2.6 million viewers and readers. This market serves as the core for leisure travel recruitment. As a state, regional and national convention destination, the CVB recruits over 200 groups each year, representing almost 106,000 delegates, spending over $45 million directly in Spokane County. Future business looks bright with Convention Center and regional facilities' expansion, new market development, growth in national groups and over $ 120 million on the books through 2010. S ItiEGION Going For the Regional Vern! 2003 Spokane Regional CVB Annual Report Highlights for 2003 Included Convention Sales and Services . 2003 Business: Hosted 232 conventions dunng 2003. representing approximately 547261.496 in realized business. • Future Business. Secured $40.987.350 in future convention saies.The projected economic impact of future convennons and meetings booked by the CVB, an scheduled from 2004 to 2009 is $122.284.380. . Spokane Center: Booked 18 future meetings for Spokane Center with a projected economic impact of $11.280.885. • FAM toursWelcomed 25 meeting planners on individual site inspections and group FAMiiianzation programs. Of these, 12 have already booked a future meeting in Spokane for a combined economic impact of $5.559,900. • Exhibiting Marketed Spokane's regional facilities and member properties at five major industry conferences and trade shows. Tourism Sales & Services • Web Sites Enhanced four existing web sites and developed four spash sites which received 15,281,041 hits and 279,834 unique visitors. • Green Bluff Secured $15,000 grant and raised 57.000 in additional funding to increase visitors and develop the Green Bluff brand. • Summer Campaign: Developed innovative multimedia marketing program promoting the region's golf and shopping assets.. Increased unique visits to www.golfinspokane.tom by 235%. Group Tours• Increased group tour database from 527 to 608. • FAM Tours: Hosted more than 100 guests on FAMIliarization Tours. • Film & Video: Provided scouting, production assistance and referral on 23 projects with budgets totaling more than $173 million. . Publications:As the portal for visitor information, we produced 120,000 regional Visitor Guides and 40,000 events calendars for distribution worldwide. . Visitor Services:Assrsted 20.236 guests through our visitor centers. Going For the Regional Win! 2003 Spokane Regional CVB Annual Report 2 Highlights for 2003 Included Public Relations Media Exposure: Generated 53.175.105 in equivalent advertising value from stories placed in national and international media, and an additional $ 139,827 in regional media. Travel Writers: Conducted fnre FAMihanzation tours involving 19 travel writers, and provided information and/or assistance to 79 additional travel writers. News Releases: Produced and proactively promoted 37 news releases in 2003 Government Affairs: Researched and produced support materials for legislators and elected officials regarding enabling legislation allowing formation ofTourism Promotion Areas in Washington State. Image & identity. Created greater awareness of the Spokane Regional CVB, the tourism and hospitality industries and their contributions to the regional economy. Member Relations New Members_ Welcomed 83 new members to the CVB in 2003. Expansion: Expanded the membership dues base by 514,068. Retention: Retained 87% of the CVB's dues - paying members, = Committees Implemented a new committee structure that provided an opportunity for our members to shape the future direction of the CVB, while sharing valuable networking time with the industry. • Events Sponsored numerous events throughout the region, Informing the community on the benefits and the impact of tourism. Going for the Regional Wn! 2003 Spokane Regional CVB Annual Report 3 2003 Revenue and Expense Summaries 2003 Revenue Summary Total Revenue $I,402,073 Membership $288,071 Public Relations S69.484 Administration $398,818 Other Private $199,880 Public Sources 2003 Expense Summary Total Expenses $I,453,158 Convention Sales /Service $385,327 Membership Development $117,891 Wriply T Tourism Sales /Services $481,518 IN/ • Guinp For the 2003 Spokane Regional CVB Annual Report 4 Travel Impacts 2002 Visitor Spending Recreation $16 million Retail $87 million. Ground Transportation $93 million Hotels $83 million Grocery Stores $30 million c Visitors to Spokane County spent an estimated $505.9 million.* Local tax revenue only equals $8.7 million.'` Restaurants $138 million c Travel related employment totaled 8.220 jobs in Spokane County.' State and local taxes generated by visitors to Spokane County equal $44.2 million.' December 2003 Dean Runyan Associates as reported for Washington State Office of Trade and Economic Development using new NICS (North American Industry Classification System) codes for all years' figures. Prev'ous year reports used SIC (Standard Industrial Classification) codes. Going for the Regional 2003 Spokane Regional CVB Annual Report S Meeting Date: April 13, 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: Regional Siting Process for Essential Public Facilities, Interlocal Agreement GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A - Growth Management Act (GMA) PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: N/A BACKGROUND: "Essential Public Facilities" include facilities that are typically difficult to site. such as airports, state education facilities, state or regional transportation facilities. state and local correctional facilities, solid waste handling, in- patient facilities including substance abuse. mental health, group homes and secure community transition facilities. GMA requires the adoption of a process to provide for the siting of Essential Public Facilities. including Secure Community Transition Facilities ( SCTFs). ( "Secure community transition facility" means a residential facility for persons civilly committed and conditionally released to a less restrictive alternative environment. A secure community transition facility has supervision and security, and either provides or ensures the provision of sex offender treatment services to its residents.) The 2001 legislation relating to SCTFs prompted the creation of an inter - jurisdictional task force that established a regional review process adopted in July 2002, with location analysis to which all jurisdictions within Spokane County are signatory with the exception of Spokane Valley and Liberty Lake. Absent City agreement with the regional review process, the location of essential public facilities, including SCTFs, may be determined by the State The first step in the analysis requires the application of functional criteria to all potential sites to permit selection of the top ten. These sites are then screened using more qualitative criteria to narrow the alternatives to three. Both processes include public comment periods. Finally. the Board of County Commissioners holds a public hearing to allow additional public comment, to identify mitigation strategies. if required, and to rank the sites. selecting the preferred alternative. The proponent of the facility is required to work with the local jurisdiction to secure all necessary permits. The requirement for siting Essential Public Facilities is included in the current and proposed update of the Countywide Planning Policies. A wastewater treatment facility, for example, would be subject to the review. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Place the interlocal agreement on the agenda of the April 27, 2004 regular meeting for Council consideration. BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS NIA CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action STAFF CONTACT Marina Sukup, Community Development Director ATTACHMENTS Spokane County Regional Siting Process for Essential Public Facilities Community Development Department • Brief the Council the Regional Essential Public Facilities (EPF) Siting Process Purpose What is an Essential Public Facility? • "Essential Public Facilities" (EPFs) include facilities that are typically difficult to site, such as airports, state education facilities, state or regional transportation facilities, state and local correctional facilities, solid waste handling, in- patient facilities including substance abuse, mental health, group homes and secure community transition facilities. • A 'Secure Community Transition Facility" (SCTF) is a secure and supervised residential facility for convicted BACKGROUND • GMA requires that the Comprehensive Plan include a process for siting EPFs • Legislation in 2001 included SCTFs in EPFs • The requirement prompted the establishment of an inter - jurisdictional task force within Spokane County that recommended a regional siting process • Ail jurisdictions within Spokane County are signatories to the process EXCEPT Spokane Valley and a e. �: EPF Siting Process • Functional criteria applied to all potential sites to permit selection of the top ten locations • More qualitative criteria applied to narrow the alternatives sites to three • Both processes include public comment periods • Finally, the Board of County Commissioners holds a public hearing to allow additional public comment. to identify mitigation strategies, if required, and to rank the sites, selecting the preferred alternative. • The proponent of the facility Is required to work with risdictiory to secure all necessa. ermits. EFP Siting Process • The requirement for siting EPFs is included in the current and proposed update of the Countywide Planning Policies (CWPPs)_ • A wastewater treatment plant, for example, is subject to the review process. 3 Recommendation • Consider placing authorization to enter an inter -local agreement for the regional siting of EPFs on a future Council agenda. 4 Spokane County Regional Siting Process for Essential Public Facilities July 25, 2002 Table of Contents Executive Summary 3 Key Elements of Spokane County Regional Siting Process for Essential Public Facilities 7 I_ Essential Public Facilities 7 Definition of an EPF 7 Clarification of Utilities 7 Ownership 7 II. EPF's Level of Significance 7 Siting Process Determination 7 III. Public Involvement 8 IV. Review Process: Roles and Responsibilities 8 Board of County Commissioners 8 Applicant 8 V. Location Analysis 8 Equitable Distribution 9 9 9 10 11 11 11 11 12 12 12 13 14 14 Nature 14 Criteria for Assessment Functional Analysis Qualitative Analysis Scoring Matrix: Weighted Analysis VI. Preferred Site Review Public Hearing Urban Impact Site Development Criteria Cost Sharing VII. Local Siting Process VIII. Process Flow Chart APPENDIX "A ": Level of Significance Essential Public Facilities of a State -wide Nature Essential Public Facilities of a Regional /County -wide Essential Public Facilities of a Local Nature APPENDIX "B ": Public Involvement Strategy Guidelines APPENDIX "C ": Evaluation Example APPENDIX "D ": Siting Criteria for EPFs APPENDIX "E ": Inventory of EPFs 14 16 17 19 21 Executive Summary Spokane County and the towns and cities of Airway Heights, Cheney, Deer Park, Fairfield, L atah, Liberty Lake, Medical Lake, Millwood, Spangle, Spokane, Rockford, and Waverly are required to plan for essential public facilities (EPFs) pursuant to the Growth Management Act (GMA). RCW 36.70A. The Steering Committee of Local Elected Officials for Spokane County (Steering Committee) through the County Wide Planning Policies along with the "Growth Management Essential Public Facilities Technical Committee Report" adopted on May 3, 1996 set forth a model project review process for the siting of EPFs. AB jurisdictions provided a mechanism m their Comprehensive Plans to utilize the model project review process either verbatim or as a model. Recently the Legislature passed two laws addressing siting of EPFs. In June 2001 the state enacted 3ESSB 6151, and in March 2002 the state enacted ESSB 6594. These laws require counties and cities fully planning under GMA to include a process in their Comprehensive Plans to provide for the siting of Secure Community Transition Facilities (SCTFs). In 2001 planning staff from all jurisdictions in Spokane County formed a task force to cooperatively develop a regional siting process for all essential public facilities, including SCTFs. The Essential Public Facilities Task Force, with assistance from the Office of Community Development (OCD), the Department of Social and I- Iealth Services (DSI -TS), and technical staff from the jurisdictions developed a regional siting process for essential public facilities titled Spokane County Regional Siting Process for Essential Public Facilities. The regional process provides for a review process with a location analysis. Public involvement • takes place throughout the process with public comment periods as well as public hearings. The review process requires the applicant for an EPF to assume responsibility for the bulk of the analysis and processing of the proposal. The analysis includes two parts. First, an analysis of • , functional criteria of all potential sites is conducted to select the highest- ranking ten (10) semi- finalist sites. Second, these ten semi- finalist sites are analyzed using more qualitative criteria and resulting in selection of at least three (3) preferred sites. Both analyses include public comment periods. Next, the Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) conducts a public hearing on the Preferred Site List to allow for further public comment, identify strategies to address any issues associated with particular sites, and rank the finalist sites. The BoCC ranking is advisory to but not binding on th e applicant. Last, the applicant, after selecting a specific site, will work directly with a local jurisdiction and its regulatory requirements to permit construction and operation of the EPF. The regional siting process is based on a coordinated interjurisdictional approach, which in combination with consistent development regulations among the jurisdictions will implement the requirement of equitable distribution of EPS of a statewide or regional /countywide nature. L P :(21 This regional siting process for essential public facilities is the result of a collaborative countywide process including a range of participants. It is founded on the Growth Management Essential Public Facilities Technical Committee Report approved by the Steering Committee of Elected Officials on May 3, 1996. The process was crafted by a task force consisting of representatives from all planning jurisdictions in the county. From there, it was reviewed by various technical committees, and endorsed by all jurisdictions' planning commissions and elected officials. EPF Task Force members: Airway Heights: Cheney: Deer Park: Fairchild Air Force Base: Fairfield: Latah: Liberty Lake: Medical Lake: Millwood: Rockford: Spangle: City of Spokane: Spokane County: Waverly: Capital Programs: Environmental Programs: Fire: Human Services: Public Works: Solid Waste: Acknowledgments City of Spokane, EPF Technical Advisory Committee: dZogionrm .C5 t'rvii`CSS for 1.1 1-s Stephen Roberge Glenn Scholten, Tom Richardson Roger Krieger, Kathy Marcus John Gibson Kathy Marcus Kathy Marcus Amanda Tainio, Doug Smith Doug Ross, Bill Grimes Heather Cannon Bill Grimes • Kathy Marcus Susanne Croft Esther Larsen, Bruce .Hunt, Scott Kuhta, Dan Antonson, Marisa Schuchart Kathy Marcus Dick Raymond Lloyd Brewer Greg Hesse, Rich Leonhardt June Shapiro Roger Flint Bill Vensel Paz_ 4 of 21 , Contact Information for Jurisdictions within Spokane County • Airway Heights: Planning Department 13120 West 13th Avenue Airway Heights, WA 99001 509 -244 -2552 • Cheney: Planning Department 112 Anderson Road Cheney, WA 99004 509- 235 -7221 • Deer Park: Mayor / Community Services Director 316 E. Crawford Avenue P.O. Box F Deer Park, WA 99006 -0228 509 - 276 -8802 • Fairfield: Mayor/ Clerk-Treasurer P.O. 130x 334 Fairfield, WA 99012 -0334 509 -283 -2414 • Latah: Mayor/ Clerk- Treasurer P.O. Box 130 Latah, WA 99018-0130 509 -286 -3471 • Liberty Lake: Plan.ni.ng & Community Development Department 1421 N. Meadow wood Ln., Suite 120 Liberty Lake, WA 99019 509 - 755 -6700 • Medical Lake: Public Works Director 124 S. Lefevre Avenue Medical Lake, WA 99022 509 -565 -5000 • Millwood: Planning Director 9103 6. Frederick Ave. Spokane, WA 99206 509 -924 -0960 • Rockford: Clerk/ Treasurer P.O. Box 49 Rockford, WA 99030 509 -291 -4716 • Spangle: Mayor/Clerk-Treasurer P.O. Box 147 Spangle, WA 99031 -0147 509 -245 -3260 • City of Spokane: Planning Services Department 808 W. Spokane Falls Blvd. Spokane, WA 99201 -3329 509 -625 -6060 • Spokane County: Division of Planning, Long Range Planning 1026 W. Broadway Ave., 2 ^d Floor Spokane, Washington 99260 509 -477 -2294 mailing address: Spokane County Division of Planning, Long Range Planning Mail Stop PWK-2, 1116 W. Broadway Ave., Spokane, WA 99260 -0240 • Waverly: Mayor / Clerk - Treasurer P.O. Box 37 Waverly, WA 99039 -0037 509- 283 -4122 Rcge43aa1 S U r g t-'rc: cs fnF I k's L'agi 6 of 21 Key Elements of Spokane County Regional Siting Process for Essential Public Facilities I. Essential Public Facilities Definition of an EPF Essential Public Facilities (EPFs) are defined as follows: Essential public facilities include those facilities that are typically difficult to site, such as airports, state education facilities and state or regional transportation facilities as defined in RCW 47.06.140, state and local correctional facilities, solid waste handling facilities, and in- patient facilities including substance abuse facilities, mental health facilities, group homes, and secure community transition facilities as defined in RC W 71.09.020. (RCW 36.70A.200) Clarification of Utilities Utilities, as defined m the Countywide Plann ing Policies for Spokane County (CWPPs), are excluded from this EPF regional siting process. In general, a "utility" refers to a system of delivery, as opposed to a facility at which processing and /or treatment occurs. For example, delivery systems such as sewer pipes are utilities, whereas the wastewater treatment plant itself is an EPF. Siting issues concerning utilities shall be addressed within each jurisdiction's comprehensive plan. Ownership If the services provided meet an essential public need, the facility may be considered essential, regardless of whether it is publicly or privately owned. An EPF may include a facility providing or housing a needed public service that is: • provided by or substantially funded by government, or • provided by a private entity subject to public service obligations/, or • on an officially adopted state, regional, county or local community EPF list. II. EPF's Level of Significance Siting Process Determination The regional siting process outlined herein applies to siting EPFs of statewide or regional /countywide significance. EPFs of local significance will be sited according to the process in place for each local jurisdiction. (See Appendix A for classification guidelines and examples.) 1 The 1996 Growth Management Essential Public Facilities Technical Committee Report defines a public service obligation as an obligation imposed by law on service providers to furnish facilities and/or supply services to all who may apply for and be reasonably entitled to service," If a proposed facility is not listed in Appendix A, the Board of County Commis sioners (BoCC) is responsible for determining whether the proposal is an essential public facility, and if so, its level of significance. To aid in this determination, the project applicant shall identify the potential area of adverse impact and public benefit. If it is determined that a proposed EPF is of statewide or regional /countywide significance, the regional process for siting EPFs shall be carried out as described herein. 1I1. Public Involvement Public involvement is a key part of the siting and decision process. While answers to some of the site selection criteria will be fairly straightforward and objective, assessment of other criteria may require a subjective judgment based on public opinion and community values. To a large extent, the nature of the EPF will determine the appropriate level and type of citizen participation in the siting process. (See Appendix B for guidelines and options for a public involvement strategy.) IV. Review Process: Roles and Responsibilities Board of County Commissioners The BoCC has three main roles in this regional siting process. As mentioned above, if there is a question as to whether a proposal is an EPF, it is the body that makes that determination. Also, it is responsible for resolving any conflict arising from an applicant's unwillingness to comply with a public, agency or departmental request for further study or analysis. Finally, the BOCC is the body that conducts the public hearing on the Preferred Site List. The purpose of this hearing is to allow the public to comment on the finalist sites, identify strategies to address any issues associated with particular sites, and rank the finalist sites. The BoCC ranking is advisory to but not binding on th e applicant. App;iccnt The applicant assumes responsibility for the bulk of the analysis and processing of its proposal. The applicant performs the Functional and Qualitative Analyses, and generally coordinates and conducts the various elements of the process including public involvemen t, review by other agencies and jurisdictions, SEPA analysis, and notification requirements. V. Location Analysis EPFs shall be located based on their respective siting and service delivery criteria, regardless of Urban Growth Area (UGA) boundaries? 2 See CWPP6.2. I(cg onaE S'it3.n YF:iz :— 2::r L'i'L S i'ag :.:f 21 Equitable Distribution In addition, site selection shall conform to the following Equitable Distribution Philosophy3: The procedural process for siting EPFs shall be consistent within all Spokane Count y jurisdictions, including consistent siting criteria and development regulations, so as to ensure that: (1) no jurisdiction will be viewed by virtue of the siting process or review criteria more or less favorably than another with regard to locating a particular EPF; (2) service providers are able to locate to meet their client's needs; and (3) predictability of development regulations will help project developers to select and develop sites. Criteria for Assessment Some types of information are more easily evaluated through objective criteria, while other questions involve a more subjective assessment. Therefore, potential sites shall be identified through both objective and subjective assessments of various types of information. First, an analysis of functional criteria is performed. These criteria may vary, depending on the operational and location requirements for the particular type of facility proposed. GIS (Geographic Information Systems) or equivalent geographic and demographic data analysis is used to identify a range of alternative semi - finalist sites (approximately ten) that meet the applicant's basic siting criteria. A site survey must then be performed for each of those sites in order to confirm the findings and assess the potential for negative impacts and possible mitigation strategies. During the second stage of analysis, the public evaluates these semi- finalist sites based on more qualitative criteria. As part of the functional and qualitative analyses, the applicant routes the proposal to effected agencies and jurisdictions for a minimum 30-day comment period. Finally, the criteria are weighted and the list of potential sites is further narrowed down to approximately three sites that reflect legal requirements and public preference. A narrative example of this analysis process is provided in Appendix C. Functional Analysis This step in the Location analysis consists of an evaluation of a site's capability of meeting the basic siting criteria for the proposed EPF. As part of this step, the applicant shall publish notice of the proposal as well as a Notice of Availability of Functional Analysis regarding an Essential Public Facility, according to the requirements described in Appendix B herein. In addition, the applicant will distribute the proposal and the functional analysis for a minimum 30 -day comment period to all jurisdictions within Spokane County, as well as agencies, special purpose districts, and other interested parties. 3 Based on the Technical Committee Report's Essential Public Facilities Equitable Distribution Philosophy, which was adopted by the Steering Committee on October 6, 1995. Also referenced in CWPP 3.15 and CWPP 6.2(d). SAL: is L_.: _LT L's . 'J . �. �� Data and site analysis will be conducted for factors on the applicant's list of basic siting requirements. The functional analysis will also address other relevant factors, including but not limited to those listed below. In addition, comments from members of the public and affected agencies and jurisdictions may identify other factors requiring analysis. (1) available minimum acreage required for the particular type of EPF; (2) protection of the natural environment, such as air quality, open space corridors, natural resource areas and critical areas; (3) protection of public health and safety, through proximity to and available capacity of various services, including the location's access to law enforcement, fire protection and other public safety or emergency response services, as well as other aspects of public safety and public health, such as spill containment, reduction of crime opportunity, proximity to particularly sensitive receptors or electromagnetic force impacts; (4) adequate capacity available in the transportation network, as determined from systems such as Level of Service Standards and concurrency management; (5) adequate access to the required transportation networks, such as highways, municipal street systems, mass transit, railroad, and air; (6) adequate capacity available from supporting public facilities and public services, such as social services and utilities such as sewer, water, and solid waste; (7) county -wide equitable distribution, based on existing sites; (8) consistency with existing land use and development in adjacent and surrounding areas; and (9) compatibility with existing comprehensive plan land use designations and development regulations for the site and surrounding areas. Sites will be ranked based on a formula where each factor is assigned a number indicating the extent to which that particular site satisfies that siting requirement for the proposed facility. (See Appendix D for potential siting criteria for various types of facilities.) The end product of this stage of analysis is a list of approximately ten (10) alternative semi - finalist sites. Qualitative Analysis The ten (10) semi - finalist sites that ranked highest in the functional analysis will be selected for further evaluation using more qualitative criteria. A public process will be conducted to assess the political, economic, legal and social impacts of the EPF, as well as the extent of public need for the facility. In the end, all semi- finalist sites must be available for lease for the anticipated use period or for purchase, with the consent of the owmer. This stage of analysis will result in a general description of the relative impacts associated with the proposed EPF at each of the semi - finalist sites, including but not limited to the following factors. (1) present and proposed population densities of the surrounding area; (2) presence of archeological, cultural and historical sites; (3) site design; (4) availability of a labor pool; (5) availability of affordable housing; Lteg oLieit Siting P.MLC:Ea r`.c r Li. T5 Page 10 CA 21 (6) spin -off (secondary and tertiary) iinpacts (e.g., traffic, economic, social); (7) potential for associated development being induced by the siting of the EPF; and (8) proposed mitigating measures to alleviate or minimize significant potential adverse environmental impacts, including those from closure of or lack of siting an EPF. The findings at this stage will be balanced against the public need for the proposed facility, and justification, if any, for why the proposed facility needs to be in a particular proposed location. An important ingredient at this stage is the dialogue that takes place between the proponen t and the public regarding mitt gation strategies to address potential adverse impacts. Each factor will be assigned a number indicating the extent of impact anticipated for the proposed EPF at each site. The end product of this stage of analysis is a list of approximately three (3) alternative finalist sites. As part of this step in the location analysis, the applicant shall publish a Notice of Availability of Qualitative Analysis regarding an Essential Public Facility, according to the requirements described in Appendix B herein. In addition, the applicant will distribute the qualitative analysis for a minimum 30 -day comment period to all jurisdictions within Spokane County, as well as agencies, special purpose districts, and other interested parties. Comments received from members of the public and affected agencies and jurisdictions may identify additional qualitative factors requiring analysis. Scoring Matrix: Weighted Analysis Finally, a scoring matrix is used to rank the sites in order of preference. The scores in the matrix reflect weighted values that are assigned to the various functional and qualitative criteria based on how important ea ch criterion is to the comu The conversation that results in this determination is a key part of the public participation conducted during this siting process. (See Appendix 13 for a summary of public involvement strategy guidelines.) VI. Preferred Site Review Public Hearing Satisfactory completion of all preceding required review procedures, including weighted analysis, results in selection of at least three (3) preferred sites. The final public hearing assesses these finalist sites for the factors listed below. The 13oCC conducts the public hearing on the Preferred Site List. The purpose of this hearing is to allow the public to comment on the finalist sites, identify strategies to address any issues associated with particular sites, and rank the finalist sites. The BoCC ranking is advisory to but not binding on the applicant. Urban Impact The proposed EPF shall be reviewed for impacts on regional growth planning concepts, including but not limited to the urban nature of the facility, existing urban growth near the facility site, compatibility of urban growth with the facility, compatibility of facility siting with respect to Urban Growth Area bou.ndaries, and urban sprawl. Site Development Criteria Proposed EFFs shall also be reviewed for site development criteria including the time required for construction, property acquisition, control of on and off -site impacts during construction, and the possibility of expediting and streamlining necessary government approvals and permits. Cost Sharing Finally, the proposed EPF shall be reviewed to determine if the financial impact on the jurisdiction can be reduced or avoided. The review will identify potential economic impacts from closure or lack of siting an EPF and include mitigation strategies to minimize impacts (i.e., bond or insurance). Intergovernmental agreements will be established to mitigate any disproportionate financial burden that may fall on the jurisdiction that becomes the site of an EPF of statewide or regional /countywide significance. Especially in the case of an EPF of statewide significance, the proponent state agency may be required to mitigate costs related to siting the facility. In addition, all proponent entities are required to assume full responsibility for the costs of operating and maintaining their facility, and this burden shall not fall on the jurisdiction in which the facility is sited (unless the jurisdiction so desires). VII. Local Siting Process Following final selection of the most appropriate site, the applicant will then work directly with that local jurisdiction and its regulatory requirements to permit the construction and operation of the EPF. A coordinated interjurisdictional approach is essential in order to fully implement the regional siting process requirement for equitable distribution of EPFs of a statewide or regional /countywide nature. For this reason, except for unique circumstances, each jurisdiction's specific project review guidelines, siting criteria, and development regulations {land use) are expected to be consistent with all other jurisdictions in Spokane County for the siting of EPFs of a statewide or regional /countywide nature. Kcgipzufl Sit 1'racc_5; so! LPL's VIII. Process Flow Chart The basic stages of the regional siting process are as follows: Proposal Weighted Analysis (� -3 sites) On EPF list? Yes A.-- k Functional Analysis Further Functional Analysis (� -10 sites) • Qualitative Analysis Additional Qualitative Analysis (on -10 sites) tick €o_11J.: if,.;. No f applies BoCC Public Hearing on Preferred Site List (ranks finalist sites) Review Period Review Period BoCC makes EPF determination Process Specific Site Selected b Applicant Process does not apply Local Permit Application Process APPENDIX "A ": Level of Significance The proposed essential public facility (EPF) will be classified as having statewide, regional /countywide or local significance according to the following. Essential Public Facilities of a State -wide Nature EPFs having statewide significance are major facilities that provide a needed public service affecting, or potentially affecting, residents and /or property located in two (2) or more Washington State counties and may be included on the Washington State Office of Financial Management list of EPFs. These facilities include, but are not limited to: regional transportation facilities, such as commercial and military airports, freeways, highways and beltways; state correctional facilities; secure community transition facilities; state social services; state parks; and state higher- educational facilities. Essential Public Facilities of a Regional /County -wide Nature EPFs having regional/countywide significance are local or interlocal facilities providing a needed public service affecting, or potentially affecting, residents and /or property located in two or more Spokane County jurisdictions. They include, but are not limited to: general aviation airports; county correctional facilities; regional transportation system; public transit maintenance and operational facilities; regional solid waste disposal /recycling /composting /handling facilities; community colleges; regional wastewater treatment facilities; arenas, stadiums and other entertainment facilities; and regional social and health services such as inpatient hospitals, mental health facilities, substance abuse treatment centers, and group homes (including adult family homes, boarding and retirement homes, and nursing homes). Essential Public Facilities of a Local Nature EPFs having local significance are facilities providing a needed public service affecting or potentially affecting only residents and /or property within the jurisdiction in which they are located. Local jurisdiction's comprehensive plans shall provide for additional locally significant public facilities that are also likely to be considered as "essential". For example, the following may fall into such a list: fire stations, police stations, child care facilities, public libraries, community parks, recreation facilities, community centers, local social services, and elementary, middle and high schools, etc. When developing locally significant EPFs, the jurisdiction shall document their reasons for adding a particular type of facility to the local list. There shall be relative consistency of these lists from one jurisdiction to the next, in order to avoid forcing the siting of a particular facility in one jurisdiction or another and to assist in meeting service providers' permitting needs. ttegionuti Siting l:`zdu•esQ for : ?l °i •s kl'age 14 of 21 In order to allow each Spokane County jurisdiction to determine a proposal's classification, the project applicant shall identify the potential area of adverse impact and public benefit. If it is determined that a proposed EPF is of statewide or regional /countywide significance, the process for siting EPFs shall be carried out as described herein. (See Appendix E for an Inventory of all EPFs of a statewide or regional/countywide significance that are located within Spokane County, as well as a map showing the location of each facility.) APPENDIX "B ": Public Involvement Strategy Guidelines Every process to site an EPF shall include methods to provide early notification and involvement of affected citizens and jurisdictions, thus allowing for opportunities to comment on the proposal. The nature of the EPF shall be considered when determining the appropriate level and type of citizen participation in the siting process. Applicants for statewide and regional /countywide significant EPFs shall initiate a citizen participation program prior to final site selection. The program shall include comnmu nity involvement in the screening process for the identification of alternative sites most suitable for locating a given EPF. This process shall be documented and the documentation provided to the reviewing jurisdiction. Along with public input on site selection, citizen participation shall include involvernent with issues such as but not limited to: • Administration of state contract services • Air pollution • Air traffic • Availability of utilities • Building design • Change in type of traffic • Cost of closure • Encroachment on other land uses • Environmental impacts • Groundwater contamination • Hazardous materials • Hours of operation • Increase in traffic • Procedural Requirements The process for citizen involvement shall include the following elements: • The applicant shall publish notice of the proposal in those newspapers designated by the affected jurisdictions. • As part of both the functional and qualitative step in the location analysis, the applicant will distribute the proposal for a minimum 30-day comment period to all jurisdictions within Spokane County, as well as agencies, special purpose districts, and other interested parties. • In addition, the application shall conduct open houses or workshops as appropriate, and at least one public hearing. • The applicant will provide additional public participation opportunities according to the guidelines set forth in WAC 365 - 195 -600 and the Spokane County Public Participation Program Guidelines. ktegincat Siang Proccs: tc,r ! ITs • Lighting • Litter • Noise • Odor • Operational costs • Parking • Periodic high use • Risk of disaster • Safety • Site design (within the range of feasible costs and technical requirements) • Stimulus to changing character vai;e 16 of 21 APPENDIX "C ": Evaluation Example The following narrative provides an example of the two -step assessment and the scoring matrix used in the location analysis portion of the regional siting process for essential public facilities. Potential sites shall be identified through both objective and subjective assessments of various types of information. First, an analysis of Functional Criteria will be performed. These criteria will vary slightly, depending on the operational and location requirements for the particular type of facility proposed. Once a range of alternative sites are identified which meet the applicant's basic siting criteria, these semi- finalist sites will be subjected to pubic evaluation based on more subjective Qualitative Criteria. Finally, a scoring matrix is used to rank the sites in order of preference based on weighted values assigned through a public process. For example, the functional assessment step might involve ana lysis for such factors as public safety, availability of support services, environmental irnpact, distribution equity, and land use designation. 1. Public safety - The location's access to law enforcement, fire protection and other public safety or emergency response services. Also includes other aspects of public safety and public health, like spill containment, reduction of crime opportunity, proximity to particularly sensitive receptors or electromagnetic force impacts. 2. Availability of support services - The location's access to necessary support services, like airports, prisons, medical facilities, public transit, utilities, libraries or schools. 3. Environmental impact - The overall assessment, SEPA- style, of the project's impacts to earth, air, water, traffic, noise, light, aesthetics or other categories of environmental evaluation. 4. Distribution equity - The relative saturation of EPFs in proximity to the proposed location. 5. Land Use Designation - Each jurisdiction's comprehensive plan land use designations for the potential sites and surrounding areas. The qualitative assessment step might involve analysis for such factors as economic impact, aesthetic impact, and the extent to which the site's impacts might be mitigated. 6. Economic impact - The location's susceptibility to negative economic impact (or positive economic impact) as a result of the project. 7. Aesthetic impact - The location's visual sensitivity to the type of project the EPF represents. 8. Mitigatability - The project's ability to offer compensation (financial or other incentives, provision of amenities, etc.) or design modifications to mitigate the location's specific concerns. A scoring matrix would look something like the one shown below. Initially, the individual sites (completely hypothetical) are scored against the Criteria on a scale of 1. to 5, five being the most favorable score. These scores are then assigned a Weight on a scale of 1 to 5, five being most preferred or important. The initial score for each of the functional and qualitative criteria are then multiplied by that weighted value to produce the Total Score for each criterion, by site. The Final Score for each site is the sum of the resulting weighted Total Scores for each criterion. Criteria 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Site 1 Score 4 4 4 3 3 2 1 5 Site 2 Score 3 5 3 5 4 2 4 3 Site 3 Score 4 3 5 4 5 1 1 1 Site 4Score 1 3 2 2 2 3 5 2 Weight 5 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 Total Score Final Score Site 1 20 16 12 9 9 6 2 10 84 Site 2 15 20 9 15 12 6 8 6 91 Site 3 20 12 15 12 15 3 2 2 81 Site 4 5 12 6 6 6 9 10 4 58 In this example, Site 1 barely nudges out Site 3 as the second most preferred site for this particular LPF. Site 3 scores highly with respect to public safety, environmental impact, distribution equity, and consistency with the comprehensive plan's land use designation, but it has some negative economic impact, would probably look bad and would be difficult to mitigate. Site 4 presents an alternative which scores rather poorly on all but the aesthetic criteria. It involves a risk to public safety, a negative environmental impact, distribution inequity, weak consistency with the comprehensive plan's land use designations, some economic impact, and would be difficult to mitigate, but it will look sharp. Y&e is_�.,1 Si2ir i'i--ryes: Page 18 of 21 APPENDIX "D ": Siting Criteria for EPFs Following is the Dept. of Social and Health Services' April 2002 "Summary of Key Statutory Siting Requirements" relative to Secure Community Treat vent Facilities ( SCTFs). This appendix may be supplemented at a later date to include siting criteria for other types of EPFs. Summary of Key Statutory Siting Requirements • Planning. By September 1, 2002, cities and counties must establish or amend their processes for identifying and siting essential public facilities and amend development regulations as needed to provide for siting of secure community transition facilities ( SCTFs). • Non - Compliance with Planning Requirements. Failure to act by 9/1/2002 is NOT a condition that would disqualify county or city from receiving public works trust funds, water pollution control facility grants, etc., or be a basis for a Growth Management Hearings Board Review or private cause of action. • Preemption. After October 1, 2002, the state preempts and supersedes local plans, development regulations, permitting requirements, inspection requirements, and all other laws as necessary to enable the department to site, construct, renovate, occupy, and operate SCTFs in the following counties or any of their cities that fail to complete the required planning consistent with state law by 9/1 /2002: Clark, King, Kitsap, Snohomish, Spokane, and Thurston Counties. • Immunity from liability. Cities and counties are immune from causes of action for civil damages related to the siting of SCTFs. Cities and counties and their law enforcement officers are also immune from causes of action for civil damages when officers responds in good faith to emergency calls involving SCTF residents. • Risk potential activities /facilities. Defined as public and private schools, school bus stops, licensed day care, licensed preschools, public parks, publicly dedicated trails, sports fields, playgrounds, recreational and community centers, churches, synagogues, temples, mosques, and public libraries. Does not include bus stops established prirnarily for public transit. • Proximity to risk potential facilities. SCTF not permitted to be located adjacent to, immediately across the street or parking lot from, or within line of sight of a risk potential activities /facilities in existence at the time a site is listed for consideration. "Within line of sight" means that it is possible to visually distinguish and recogmize individuals. Give great weight to sites that are the farthest removed from risk potential locations. °'I • Response Time. Requirement to site in areas in which it is possible to "endeavor to achieve an average five - minute response time by law enforcement" has been deleted. • Equitable Distribution. In considering potential sites, give great weight to "equitable distribution factors" (i.e., number of residential facilities operated by Dept of Corrections, residential facilities operated by DSHS Mental Health Division, and Level 2 and Level 3 sex offenders in each jurisdiction). • Public Safety and Security Criteria. ♦ Visibility between SCTF and adjacent properties is limited or barriers can be established to limit visibility; ♦ Electronic monitoring devices/systems are available and are functional in the area; ♦ Existing building, if used for an SCTF, is suitable or can be feasibly modified; and ♦ Adequate security and back -up system resources can be installed at the site and contractor /maintenance services are available on 24/7 basis. • Security panel must be commercial grade with tamper -proof switches and key -lock to prevent unauthorized access. • All staff must be issued personal panic devices. • All staff must be issued and wear photo ID badges. • Other Siting Requirements. ♦ Site must be in area with access (reasonable commute distance) to medical, mental health and sex offender treatment providers, and community services such as employment, educational and other services. ♦ Treatment providers must be available - this means the providers are qualified, willing to provide services, and within a reasonable commute. ♦ Site must be in location suitable for programming, staffing and support considerations. ♦ The SCTF property must be available at reasonable purchase or lease cost. Note: Public safety and security criteria - including distance of SCTF from risk potential locations - must be given the greatest weight. .s�% c iutI Siti tg )'rsccea foz 1.1`1 t'. ge 20 of 21 APPENDIX "E ": Inventory of EPFs Attached are an inventory of all EPFs located in Spokane County that are of a statewide or regional /countywide significance, and a map showing the locations of those EPFs. Staff Note: The map is available by contacting the Spokane County Division of Planning. e•:,tr1. - 2.1 6/19/02 Page 1 of 6 Spokane County Regional Siting Process for Essential Public Facilities - Statewide and Regional Inventory Significance Category Name Address City Zip Phone Jurisdiction Source Parcel # Statewide Commercial and Military Airport Facilities Fairchild Air Forco Base 200 W Bong St Fairchild Air Force Base 99011 247 -1212 Fairchild Air Farce Base Called - May 2002 Statewide Commercial and Military Airport Facilities Felts Field Airport 6105 E Rutter Av Spokane 99212 455 -6455 County Called - May 2002 Statewide Cormercial and Military Airport Facilities Spokane International Airport 9000 W Airport Or Spokane 99224 455 -6455 County Called May 2002 Statewide State Correctional Facilities Airway Heights Corrections Center 11919 W Sprague Av Airway Heights 99001 244 6700 Airway Heights Called -May 2002 Statewide State Correctional Facitities Pine Lodge Pre - Release 751 S Pine St Medical Lake 99022 299 -2300 Medical Lake Called - May 2002 Statewide State Correctional Facilities Turner House 925 W Broadway Av Spokane 99201 326 -6606 Spokane Called - May 2002 Statewide Higher Education Facilities Eastern Washington University 526 5th St ' • Cheney 99004 359 -6200 Cheney Called - May 2002 Statewide Higher Education Facilities Eastem Washington University Riverpoint 668 N Riverpoint Blvd Spokane 99202 358 -2237 Spokane Called - May 2002 Statewide Higher Education Facilities Eastern Washington University Spokane Center 705 W 1st St Spokane 99201 623-4200 Spokane Called - May 2002 Statewide Higher Education Facilities Gonzaga University 502 E Boone Av Spokane 99258 328 -4220 Spokane Called - May 2002 Statewide Higher Education Facilities Intercollegiate College of Nursing "'(WSU, Eastern. Whitworth, Gonzaga - state funded) 2917 W Fort George Wright Dr Spokane 99224 324 -7360 Spokane Called - May 2002 Statewide Higher Education Facilities Washington State University Spokane 601 W 1st Av Spokane 99201 358 -7500 Spokane Called - May 2002 Statewide Higher Education Facilities Washington State University Spokane 668 N Riverpoint Blvd Spokane 99202 358 -7500 Spokane Called - May 2002 Statewide Higher Education Facilities Washington Slate University Spokane 310 N Riverpoint Blvd Spokane 99202 358 -7500 Spokane Called - May 2002 Statewide Higher Education Facilities Whitworth College 300 W Hawthorne Rd Spokane 99251 777 -1000 County Called - May 2002 Statewide Higher Education Facilities Spokane Intercollegiate Research & Technology Institute (SIRTI) 665 N Riverpoint Blvd Spokane 99202 358 -2000 Spokane Phone Book - May 02 Statewide Other Spokane Caine Laboratory 1100 W Mallon St, Room 100 Spokane 99201 456.4145 Spokane OFM 4 -10-02 Statewide Park Mount Spokane State Park 26107 N Mount Spokane Park Dr Mead 99021 238-4258 State Phone Book - June 02 6/19/02 Page 1 of 6 Statewide Park Riverside Stale Park 9711 W Charles Rd Nine Mile Falls _ 99026 465 -5064 State Called - June 2002 Statewide Park Turnbull National Wildlife Refuge 26010 S Smith Rd Cheney 99004 235 -4723 Federal Called - June 2002 Statewide Regional Transportation Facilities 1 -90 (Interstate) NIA • NIA NIA NIA Multiple SRTC - Concurrency Management System Report 4 -24-01 Statewide Regional Transportation Facilities SR -195 (Pullman- Colfax Highway) NIA N/A NIA NIA Multiple SRTC - Concurrency Management System Report 4 -24 -01 Statewide Regional Transportation Facilities SR -2 (Newport Highway) N/A NIA NIA NIA Multiple SRTC - Concurrency Management System Report 4 -24 -01 Statewide Regional Transportation Facilities SR -395 (Division Street) N/A NIA NIA NIA Multiple SRTC - Concurrency Management System Report 4 -24 -01 Statewide Regional Transportation Facilities Centennial Trail NIA NIA NIA N/A Multiple OFM 4 -10-02 Statewide Social Service Facilities West Lake Facility 1451 W Maple St Medical Lake 99022 299 -3121 Medical Lake Called - May 02 - Statewide Social Service Facilities Lakeland Village 2320 S Salnave Rd Medical Lake 99022 299 -3131 Medical Lake Called - May 02 Statewide Social Service Facilities Eastern State Hospital 850 W Maple St Medical Lake 99022 299 -3121 Medical Lake Called - May 02 Regional General Airport Facilities Deer Park Airport 1200 N Cedar Rd Deer Park 99006 276-8663 Deer Park Called - May 2002 Regional Community Center Mirabeau Community Complex not built yet Spokane 99216 N/A County OFM 4 -10-02 Regional Regional Correctional Facilities Martin Hall - Juvenile Detention Facility 201 S Pine SI Medical Lake 99022 299 -7733 Ivtedical Lake Called - May 2002 Correctional Facilities Geiger Corrections Center 3507 S Spotted Rd Spokane 99219 477 -1578 County Called - May 2002 Regional Correctional Facilities Spokane County Jail 1100 W Mallon Av Spokane 99260 477 -2278 Spokane Called - May 2002 Regional Correctional Facilities Brownstone Work Training Release 223 S Browne Spokane 99201 363 -8109 Spokane DSHS Database 2002 - Dept of Corrections File 6/19102 Page 2 of 6 Regional Correctional Facilities Eleanor Chase House 427 W 7th Av Spokane 99204 456 -6318 Spokane DSHS Database 2002 - Dept of Corrections File Regional Correctional Facilities Spokane County Juvenile Detention Center 1208 W Mallon Av Spokane 99201 477 -2462 Spokane Called - May 2002 Regional _ Higher Education Facilities Spokane Community College 1610 N Greene S1 Spokane 99217 533 -7000 Spokane Called - May 2002 Regional Higher Education Facilities Spokane Falls Community College 3410 W Fort George Wright Dr Spokane 99224 533 -3500 Spokane Called - May 2002 Regional Higher Education Facilities The Institute for Extended teaming 3305 W Fart George Wright Dr _ Spokane 99224 533 -3770 Spokane Called - May 2002 Regional Other Cheney Cowles Museum 1 2316 W 1st Av Spokane 99204 456 -3931 Spokane OFM 4 -10 -02 Regional Police Stations Spokane County Sheriffs Department 1100 W Mallon Ave Spokane 99260 477 -5641 Spokane Phone Book - May 02 Regional Regional Transportation Facilities Airway Heights Park 8 Ride 12825 W Sunset Highway Airway Heights 99001 325 -6000 Airway Heights Ryan Stewart (STA) - email 4/24/02 Regional Regional Transportation Facilities STA Boone Street Administrative, Maintenance and Storage facilities 1229 W Boone Av Spokane 99201 325 -6000 Spokane Ryan Stewart (STA) - email 4124/02 Regional Regional Transportation Facilities STA Boone Street Administrative, Maintenance and Storage facilities 1230 W Boone Av Spokane 99201 325 -6000 Spokane Ryan Stewart (STA) - email 4/2002 Regional Regional Transportation Facilities STA Jefferson Park & Ride and Transit/Transfer Center Under 1 -90 between Jefferson and Walnut Streets Spokane 99201 325 -6000 Spokane Ryan Stewart (STA) - email 4/24/02 Regional ' Regional Transportation Facilities STA Spokane) Arena Park & Ride and Transit/Transfer Center In between Washington and Howard on Boone Spokane 99201 325 -6000 Spokane Ryan Stewart (STA) - email 4/24/02 Regional Regional Transportation Facilities STA Country Homes Christian Church Park 8 Ride 8415 N Wall St Spokane 99208 325 -6000 County Ryan Stewart (STA) - email 4124102 Regional Regional Transportation Facilities Evergreen Park & Ride (under construction), 13209 E Indiana Av Spokane 99216 325 -6000 County Ryan Stewart (STA) - email 4/24/02 Regional Regional Transportation Facilities Five Milo Park 8 Ride Ash & 5 Milo Rd. Spokane 99208 325 -6000 Spokane Ryan Stewart (STA) - email 4/24/02 Regional Regional Transportation Facilities Hastings Park & Ride Hastings & Mayfair Spokane 99218 325 -6000 County Ryan Stewart (STA) - email 4/24102 Regional Regional Transportation Facilities K St. Station Park & Ride 2nd & "K" St. Cheney 99004 325 -6000 Cheney Ryan Stewart (STA) - email 424/02 6/19/02 Page 3 of 6 Regional Regional Transportation Facilities Liberty Lake Park & Ride Mission & Country Vista Dr. Liberty Lake 99019 325 -6000 Liberty Lake Ryan Stewart (STA) - email 4124102 Regional Regional Transportation Facilities Hamblin Park Presbyterian Park & Ride 4102 S Crestline St Spokane 99203 325 -6000 Spokane Ryan Stewart (STA) - email 4/24102 Regional Regional Transportation Facilities Manito Park & Ride and Transit/Transfer Center 830E 29th Av Spokane 99203 325 -6000 Spokane STA Wobsite Regional Regional Transportation Facilities Si Marks Lutheran Park & Ride 316 E 24th Av Spokane 99203 325 -6000 Spokane Ryan Stewart (STA) - email 4/24/02 Regional Regional Transportation Facilities Medical Lake Park & Ride and Transit/Transfer Center Lake & Broad St. Medical Lake 99022 325 -6000 Medical Lake Ryan Stewart (STA) - email 4/24/02 Regional Regional Transportation Facilities Pence -Cole Valley Park & Ride and Transitaransfer Center 414 S University Rd Spokane 99206 325 -6000 County Ryan Stewart (STA) - email 4/24/02 Regional Regional Transportation Facilities Pines Rd1190 Park & Ride E. Montgomery, Pines &I-90 Spokane 99206 325 -6000 County Ryan Stewart (STA) - email 4/24/02 Regional Regional Transportation Facilities Spokano Transit Authority Plaza (Administration) 701 W Riverside Av Spokane 99201 325 -6000 Spokane Ryan Stewart (STA) - email 4/24/02 Regional Regional Transportation Facilities STA Maintenance - Bowdish (Fleck Service Center) 123 S Bowdish Rd Spokane 99206 325 -6000 County Ryan Stewart (STA) - email 4/24/02 Regional Regional Transportation Facilities Spokane Community College Park & Ride 1810 N Greene St Spokane 99217 325 -6000 Spokane Ryan Stewart (STA) - email 4124102 Regional Regional Transportation Facilities SR -206 (Ml. Spokane Park Drive) N/A NIA N/A N/A Multiple SRTC - Concurrency Management System Report 4 -24 -01 Regional — - Regional Regional Transportation Facilities SR -27 (Pines Road) N/A N/A N/A NIA Multiple SRTC - Concurrency Management System Report 4 -24-01 Regional Transportation Facilities SR -278 (Hoxie Road) N/A NIA N/A N1A Multiple Spokano County Capital Facilities Plan 6119/02 Page 4 of 6 Regional Regional Transportation Facilities SR -290 (Trent Avenue) N/A NIA NIA NIA Multiple SRTC - Concurrency Management System Report 4 -24-01 Regional Regional Transportation Facilities SR-291 (Francis /Nine Mile Road) NIA N/A N/A NIA Multiple SRTC - Concurrency Management System Report 4 -24-01 Regional Regional Transportation Facilities SR -902 (Medical Lake Highway) NIA N/A NIA NIA Multiple SRTC - Concurrency Management System Report 4 -24 -01 Regional Regional Transportation Facilities SR -904 (Cheney Highway) NIA NIA N/A N]A Multiple SRTC Concurrency Management System Report 4 -24 -01 Regional Solid Waste, Wastewater & Water Facilities Graham Road Disposal & Recycling Landfill 1820 S Graham Rd Medical Lake 99022 244 -0151 County Spoke e County GIS Regional Solid Waste, Wastewater & Water Facilities Northside Sanitary Landfill 5502 W Nine Mlle Rd Spokane 99208 625 -6666 Spokane Phone Book - May 02. Regional Solid Waste, Wastewater & Water Facilities Norcal Compost 22200 N Elk Chattaroy Rd Colbert 99005 238 -1738 County Spokane County GIS 1995 Regional Solid Waste, Wastewater & Water Facilities Waste to Energy Facility (Garbage Incinerator) 2900 S Geiger Blvd Spokane 99204 625 -6870 County Spokane County GIS 1995 Regional Solid Waste, Wastewater & Water Facilities Wastewater Treatment Plant 4401 W Aubrey L White Pkwy Spokane 99205 625 -4600 Spokane Phone Book - May 02 Regional Solid Waste, Wastewater 8 Water Facilities Beeler Inert & Demolition Landfill 14910 W Craig Rd Spokane 99204 244 -5049 County Spokane County GIS 1995 Regional Solid Waste, Wastewater & Water Facilities Chester Inert & Demolition Landfill 11614 E 44th Av Spokane 99206 926-4023 County Spokane County GIS 1995 Regional Solid Waste, Wastewater & Water Facilities North County Recycling - Transfer 22123 N Elk Chattaroy Rd Colbert 99005 625.6880 County Spokane County GIS 1995 6!19/02 Page 5 of 6 Regional Solid Waste, Wastewater & Water Facilities Valley Recycling- Transfer 3941 N Sullivan Rd Spokane 99216 625 -6885 County Spokane County GIS 1995 Regional Social Service Facilities Sacred Heart Medical Center 101 W 8th Av Spokane 99204 474 -3131 Spokane Phone Book - May 02 Regional Social Service Facilities The Heart Institute of Spokane 122 W 7th Av Spokane 99204 625 -3000 Spokane Phone Book - May 02 _ __ Regional Social Service Facilities Valley Hospital and Medical Center 12606 E Mission Av Spokane 99216 924 -6650 County Phone Book - May 02 Regional Social Service Facilities Veterans Affairs Medical Center 4815 N Assembly St Spokane 99205 434 -7000 Spokane Called - May 02 Regional Social Service Facilities Holy Family Hospital 5633 N Lidgervrood St Spokane 99207 482 -0111 Spokane Phone Book - May 02 Regional Social Service Facilities Deaconess Medical Center 800 W 5th Av Spokane 99204 458 -5800 Spokane Phone Book - May 02 Regional Social Service Facilities Shriners Hospital for Children 911 W 5th Av Spokane 99210 455 -7844 Spokane Phone Book - May 02 Regional Social Service Facilities St. Lukes Rehabilitation Institute 711 S Cowley St Spokane 99202 638 -4771 Spokane Phone Book - May 02 This database was compiled by the Spokane County Division of Planning as a general planning tool. Due to the differing quality of source documents, the Division cannot accept responsibility for errors or emissions, and therefore, there are no warranties which accompany this material. In the event of a conflict between this database and information shown as a result of field investigations, the latter shall prevail. 6119102 Page 6 of 6 3-0136 BEFORE TRE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON IN THE MATTER OF ADOPTING AN INTERLOCAL ) AGREEMENT REGARDING SITING OF ESSENTIAL ) PUBLIC FACILITIES WITHIN SPOKANE COUNTY ) AND TO AMEND THE SPOKANE COUNTY DIVISION) FINDINGS OF FACT OF PLANNING'S ZONING AND LAND USE FEE ) AND SCHEDULE TO ADOPT A UNIFIED SPOKANE ) RESOLUTION COUNTY REGIONAL SITING PROCESS ADMINISTRATION FEE WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 36.32.120(6), the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County, Washington, hereinafter referred to as the "Board," has the care of County property and the management of County funds and business; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of RCW 36.70A, on November 5, 2001 the Board adopted a Comprehensive Plan and Capital Facilities Plan for Spokane County, hereinafter referred to as the "Comprehensive Plan" (County Resolution No. 1- 1059); and WHEREAS, on March 12, 2002 the Washington State Legislature declared an emergency and passed Engrossed Substitute Senate Bill 6594 (ESSB 6594) implementing the recommendations of the Joint Select Committee on the Equitable Distribution of Secure Community Transition Facilities, and on March 21, 2002 the Governor signed ESSB 6594; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of ESSB 6594 Spokane County, along with all planning jurisdictions within the state of Washington, was mandated to amend its Comprehensive Plan to include a process for identifying and siting essential public facilities, hereinafter referred to as EPFs, including, among other facilities, secure community transition facilities as defined in RCW 71.09.020; and WHEREAS, on August 13, 2002 pursuant to the provisions of RCW 36.70A(200)(1) and (2) the Board adopted an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan regarding siting of EPFs, including a revision to Comprehensive Plan Policy CF.15.1 relating to EPFs and the Spokane County Regional Siting Process for Essential Public Facilities (Spokane County Resolution No. 2- 0812); and WHEREAS, the Board's Decision set forth in Spokane County Resolution No. 2 -0812 included a directive to the Division of Planning Staff to prepare, in cooperation with all jurisdictions in Spokane County, an interlocal agreement outlining administrative procedures for the Spokane County Regional Siting Process for Essential Public Facilities; and Page 1 of 4 3-0136 WHEREAS, pursuant to the above - referenced directive and the provisions of RCW 39.34 (Interlocal Cooperation Act), Spokane County, in cooperation with the City of Airway Heights, the City of Cheney, the Town of Deer Park, the Town of Fairfield, the Town of Latah, the City of Liberty Lake, the City of Medical Lake, the Town of Millwood, the Town of Rockford, the Town of Spangle, the City of Spokane, and the Town of Waverly, through staff assigned to the EPF Task Force, jointly prepared the Interlocal Agreement regarding Siting of Essential Public Facilities within Spokane County and its Attachment "A ", hereinafter collectively referred to as the "Interlocal Agreement for Siting EPFs" and which is attached hereto, incorporated herein by reference, and outlines particularly the administrative procedures for the Spokane County Regional Siting Process for Essential Public Facilities, and WHEREAS, it has been acknowledged by all parties to the Interlocal Agreement for Siting .EPFs that state and federal laws regarding siting requirements for certain types of essential public facilities will take precedence over the Spokane County Regional Siting Process for Essential Public Facilities; and WHEREAS, it is the intent of all parties to the Interlocal Agreement for Siting EPFs that a) housing for persons with handicaps as defined under the Federal Fair Housing Act and b) housing for children in the custody of the state, which housing includes "community facilities" as defined in RCW 72.05.020 and facilities licensed under chapter 74.15 RCW are exempt from the Spokane County Regional Siting Process for Essential Public Facilities; and WHEREAS, it is the intent of all parties to the Interlocal Agreement for Siting EPFs that housing for juveniles held in county detention facilities or state juvenile institutions as defined m RCW 13.40.020 is subject to the Spokane County Regional Siting Process for Essential Public Facilities; and WHEREAS, the City of Airway Heights, the City of Cheney, the Town of Deer Park, the Town of Fairfield, the City of Liberty Lake, the Town of Millwood, and the Town of Spangle have adopted the .Interlocal Agreement for Siting EPFs; and WHEREAS, the Town of Latah, the City of Medical Lake, the Town of Rockford, the City of Spokane, and the Town of Waverly are in the process of adopting the Interlocal Agreement far Siting EPFs; and WHEREAS, the Interlocal Agreement for Siting EPFs provides for the Board by Resolution to establish an application fee for applicants proposing to site an .EPF of statewide or regional/countywide nature within any jurisdiction in Spokane County; and WH.ER,EAS, as part of the preparation of the Interlocal Agreement for Siting E'PFs the EPF Task Force, recommended a unified Spokane County Regional Siting Process Administrative Fee of twelve hundred dollars (S1200) per applicant; and Page 2 of 4 3-0136 WHEREAS, on April 23, 1985 the Board adopted a Division of Building and Planning Fee Schedule for Land Use Actions, Application, and/or Permits (County Resolution No. 85- 0332) and on February 13, 1996 the Board amended said Fee Schedule (County Resolution No. 96- 0174); and WHEREAS, on November 19, 2002 the Board amended the above referenced Fee Schedule (County Resolution No, 2- 1098); and WHEREAS, included in the ,above referenced Fee Schedule is a provision for fees to be administratively adjusted annually based on the Consumer Price Index West B/C for population sizes of 1,500,000 and under; and WHEREAS, pursuant to WAC 197 -11- 800(20), the adoption of administrative procedures and a fee schedule relating solely to governmental procedures and containing no substantive standards respecting use or modification of the environment is procedural and therefore categorically exempt from threshold determination and EIS requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA); and WHEREAS, after providing ten (10) days public notice, on January 21, 2003 the Board held a public hearing to receive public testimony both for and against the Interlocal Agreement for Siting EPFs, including a unified Spokane County Regional Siting Process Administrative Fee; and WHEREAS, the Board, being desirous of giving the matter further consideration did determine to continue the public hearing to February 4, 2003, for decision only; and WHEREAS, the Board, after considering the recommendation of the EPF Task Force regarding a unified Spokane County Regional Siting Process Administrative Fee, the Interlocal Agreement for Siting EPFs, and the records of the Division of Planning relating to EPFs, concurs with the recommendation of the EPF Task Force regarding a unified Spokane County Regional Siting Process Administrative Fee and Interlocal Agreement for Siting EPFs and determines the best interest of the general public, as well as its health, safety and welfare, will be met by the Board adopting the Interlocal Agreement regarding Siting of Essential Public Facilities within Spokane County and its Attachment "A ", including the unified Spokane County Regional Siting Process Administrative Fee. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board, alter considering all of the above, that the Interlocal Agreement regarding Siting of Essential .Public Facilities within Spokane County and its Attachment "A ", including the unified Spokane County Regional Siting Process Administrative Fee, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, be adopted; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board does hereby adopt as Findings of Fact all recitals herein as well as the .Board's Decision dated August 13, 2002 as set forth in County Resolution No. 2 -0812. Page 3 of 4 . 3 0136 • APPROVED THIS 4TH DAY RUARY 2003. ..: ATTEST: Vicky M. Dalton Clerk e Board BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SFO •UNTY, WASHINGTON Daniela Erickson, Deputy M. te Mc s. Commissioner 3 -0136 INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT regarding Siting of Essential Public Facilities within Spokane County WHEREAS, the Growth Management Act (GMA), RCW 36.70A.200, requires that no local comprehensive plan or development regulation may preclude the siting of essential public facilities; and WHEREAS, the GMA was amended in 2001 to expand the definition of essential public facilities to include secure community transition facilities for civilly committed sexual offenders; and WHEREAS, the GMA was also amended in 2002 to include a September 1, 2002 deadline for all cities and counties planning under RCW 36.70A.040 to establish a process, or amend their existing process, for identifying and siting essential public facilities and adopt or amend development regulations as necessary to provide for the siting of secure community transition facilities; and WHEREAS, the Countywide Planning Policies for Spokane County require the Steering Committee of Elected Officials to identify or establish siting and service delivery criteria for locating essential public facilities (CWPP 6.2) and implement a process for the equitable distribution of essential public facilities (CWPP 6.3); and WHEREAS, on October 6, 1995, the Steering Committee of Elected Officials adopted the Essential Public Facilities Technical Conunittee's recommended equitable distribution philosophy, a more detailed Countywide Planning Policy definition of an essential public facility and a definition of public service obligation; and WHEREAS, on May 3, 1996, the Steering Committee of Elected Officials approved the Essential Public Facilities Technical Committee's reconunendation for the Model Project Review Process for the Siting of Essential Public Facilities, Interjurisdictional Consistency Review Process, and Inventory; and WHEREAS, in 2001 -2002, the Essential Public Facilities Task Force, with assistance from the Office of Community Development (OCD), the Department of Social and Health Services (DSHS), and technical staff from the jurisdictions, developed a regional siting process for essential public facilities titled Spokane County Regional Siting Process for Essential Public Facilities: and WHEREAS, the Spokane County Regional Siting Process for Essential Public Facilities is based on the recommendations in the Growth Management Essential Public Facilities Technical Committee Report approved by the GMA Steering Committee of Elected Officials on May 3, 1996; and WHEREAS, the Spokane County Regional Siting Process for Essential Public Facilities is the product of a concerted effort on the part of the Spokane County Essential Public Facilities Task Force and all jurisdictions within the county to respond to recent amendments to the GMA; and 12Z2r32 — . '!;�ii�Lca f. E. ;t to n& t t:;• cc County �iaz .- i:,rai Siti7Q, Rocess for ES^er7;.��'i fir `. -t .- f LiG�' Pkge 1 of 16 3 -0136 WHEREAS, the Essential Public Facilities Task Force and all jurisdictions within Spokane County have continually sought consultation from affected agencies and provided them with opportunities for input throughout the course of creating the Spokane County Regional Siting Process for Essential Public Facilities; and WHEREAS, the Spokane County Regional Siting Process for Essential Public Facilities will adequately provide for an objective location analysis, equitable distribution of essential public facilities throughout the county, and opportunities for input from affected agencies, jurisdictions and the general public; and WHEREAS, all parties hereto acknowledge that state and federal laws regarding siting requirements for certain types of essential public facilities will take precedence over the Spokane County Regional Siting Process for Essential Public Facilities; and WHEREAS all parties hereto acknowledge that state and federal laws providing protections for housing for children in custody of the state or for persons with handicaps as defined under the Federal Fair Housing Act will take precedence over the Spokane County Regional Siting Process for Essential Public Facilities; THEREFORE, Spokane County and the other signatory jurisdictions hereto hereby agree to the following regarding siting essential public facilities of a statewide or regional/ countywide significance: (1) Unless it is otherwise preempted by state or federal laws, the Spokane County Regional Siting Process for Essential Public Facilities ( "Regional Siting Process ") will apply to any and all future efforts to site an essential public facility of statewide or regional /coun significance within Spokane County. (2) All jurisdictions will filly participate and cooperate in the implementation of the Regional Siting Process. (3) The Regional Siting Process shall be implemented according to the administrative procedures outlined in Attachment "A" hereto, which is incorporated herein by this reference. (4) Both the Regional Siting Process and this l.nterlocal Agreement are hereby endorsed in their current form with the understanding that they may also be amended frotn time to time, as need be. Amendment procedures shall include opportunities for public input, as required. Adoption and attest pages follow, in alphabetical order, for all jurisdictions involved. • . N:Le`c_5 fr.S e . 3 0136 DATED: CV 00.5 Board Of County Commissioners Of Spokane County, Washington -a ley, Chair 0 John R. '' i1 ip H s, Vice-Chair Al 'EST: Vicky M. Dalton Clerk of the Board By: Daniela Erickson, Deputy :?* 2 . ::•'••• ' c' 3 -0136 Interlocal Agreement regarding Siting of Essential Public Facilities within Spokane County ATTACHMENT "A ": Administrative Procedures The following is an outline of administrative procedures that apply to the Spokane County Regional Siting Process for Essential Public Facilities, hereinafter referred to as "Regional Siting Process." State and federal law containing procedural, hearing, notification, or other administrative requirements for siting a particular type of essential public facility, will take precedence over the following requirements. In addition, the following requirements shall not apply to the extent they would duplicate similar requirements in state law. I. GENERAL INFORMATION A. Lead Time: There is nothing in the Regional Siting Process that would inherently require the process to take more than 180 days. However, because essential public facilities (EPFs) include those facilities that are typically difficult to site, a legitimate public participation process must make allowances for the extended comment periods, additional workshops, and continued hearings necessary to fully address the public's concerns. The process for siting controversial facilities should allow enough lead time to accommodate any unforeseen delays. B. Public Involvement: It is the applicant's responsibility to conduct an appropriate public participation program for the Regional Siting Process. Public involvement is a key part of the siting and decision process. While answers to some of the site selection criteria will be fairly straightforward and objective, assessment of other criteria may require a subjective judgment based on public opinion and community values. Some facilities are more controversial than others. To a large extent, the nature of the proposed facility will determine the appropriate level and type of citizen participation in the siting process. Public comment may be submitted in response to any one of the published notices regarding an EPF proposal. Review periods of thirty (30) days allow for comments on the respective Functional and Qualitative Analysis. The Weighted Analysis requires a major and multi- faceted public participation component. The Board of County Commissioners of Spokane, Washington (hereinafter referred to as "Board ") hearing(s) on the Preferred Site List provides the final opportunity for public input Af...MJnl 1 i:.._...•ii ._ ,.d ?i, "•; l�rli:,: _° ,:'. I�•'1 � .. �.'�Uh'S L.1...ilri ! �F "� 3 -0136 during the Regional Siting Process. Appendix "13" to the Regional Siting Proccss (sec jurisdictions' adopted amendments) provides further guidelines and options for a public involvement strategy. C. Notification: It is the applicant's responsibility to ensure that all notices are published in a timely manner and to provide written verification, in the form of an affidavit, that the notification has been properly given. Publication is triggered by the completion of each stage of the Location Analysis. Notices shall be published in the legal newspaper of general circulation as noted in each subsection of this document. While the time frames may vary from one proposal to another, each newspaper notice must be published at least fourteen (14) days in advance of any hearing or public meeting. Following publication of each notice, the applicant must provide the Spokane County Division of Planning with a completed affidavit of publication. The applicant shall publish the following Notices using forms for public notice included in the application packet: 1. Notice of Application regarding EPF Proposal; 2. Notice of Availability of Functional Analysis regarding EPF Proposal; 3. Notice of Availability of Qualitative Analysis regarding EPF Proposal; 4. Notice of Availability of Weighted Analysis regarding EPF Proposal; 5. Notice of Hearing on EPF Proposal; and 6. Notice of Final Site Selection regarding EPF Proposal. II. PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS A. Determination of Appropriate Siting Process: The Regional Siting Process outlined herein applies only to siting EPFs of statewide or regional / countywide significance. EPFs of local significance will be sited according to the process in place for each local jurisdiction. Although group homes are listed as EPFs, siting of housing for children in custody of the state (not including juveniles held in county criminal detention facilities or state juvenile institutions as defined in RCW 13.40.020), or for persons with handicaps as defined under the Federal Fair Housing Act, is exempt from the Regional Siting Process. If a proposed facility is not included on an officially adopted state, regional, county or local community essential public facilities list, a proponent or local jurisdiction should request in writing that the Board determine whether or not it is an essential public facility that is subject to the Regional Siting Process. jznl lnter.1nca . c ec`.v e.nt 2 1'ePardi1 r P12bLiZ ('oti:'t t; 3 -0136 The Request for Determination of Appropriate Siting Process shall provide the following information: 1. The nature or function of the proposed facility; 2. Whether the facility is publicly or privately owned; 3. Whether the facility is provided by or substantially funded by the government; 4. Probable impacts of the proposed facility; 5. The potential geographic area of adverse impact and public benefit; 6. The extent of public need for the services involved; 7. Whether the facility is necessary in order to meet a public service obligation; and 8. Whether the facility is listed on an officially adopted state, regional, county or local community essential public facilities list. The Board will issue its written Determination of Appropriate Siting Process within a reasonable amount of time, but no longer than thirty (30) days after receiving a written Request for Determination of Appropriate Siting Process. Both the Request and the Determination shall become part of Spokane County Planning's record on this EPF proposal. The Board's decision may be appealed to Spokane County Superior Court or the Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board; whichever is applicable, within the appropriate appeal time period as set forth in the applicable statute. B. Application: if the Regional Siting Process applies, the next step is for the proponent to contact the Spokane County Division of Planning for an application packet. The application packet includes a General Application, a copy of the Regional Siting Process, a procedural checklist, appropriate forms to use for public notice, and affidavits of publication. An application fee, as established by resolution of the Board, (to cover processing and staff review) shall be submitted along with a completed application. It is the applicant's responsibility to determine the time needed to conduct required studies, provide additional information, and make revisions. The next step is for the applicant to publish the Notice of Application regarding EPF Proposal. If the applicant substantially modifies the proposal after the Notice of Application has been published, the proposal shall be treated as a new application and required to Start again from the first step in the Regional Siting Process (Determination of Appropriate Siting Process). However, this requirement does not apply to changes made to the _: 9r�'£. _ -.-_ .. _..ti!t�.iC .._ ..�L "iti '. '?'.. ... : T'� .11 ";�, ).T'•.t'jJ �,;.;. 't'. �i .:: f.` '�.'Ji ,'I ice:.. .�.I ...._.qtr }1_:�..; f[�! �..�t•....�l�t ."'l1bJic •n`:.eP�ll:z ;f„ �� f,, 3 3 -0136 proposal as a direct result of comments on the proposal received during the Regional Siting Process. C. Notice of Application regarding EPE Proposal: Opportunity for public comments begins with publication of the Notice of Application regarding EPF Proposal. This notice contains the name of the proponent, type of facility, who to contact with questions and how to get copies of the proposal. It also restates the information found in the Request for Determination, and advises the public of upcoming opportunities to comment; namely during the Functional, Qualitative, and Weighted Analysis stages, as well as the Board's final public hearing(s). This notice must be published in The Spokesman Review. D. Location Analysis: 1. 2i .' �•. S - � ': ^ 1, � �.lit'r�7::41 !j: •iii �'...:c`, "'ltl: fr' 1: -.bt lli1_ 'LtKI?le . ...,:i`.ri'�° ,. ithill 4r ". ' Functional Analysis: a) The applicant is responsible for performing a Functional Analysis as the first step in determining potential locations within Spokane County for the proposed facility. As part of the Functional Analysis, the applicant shall consider the siting requirements, legal requirements, and service delivery criteria for the proposed facility. The Regional Siting Process contains a list of additional objective criteria that the applicant may feel is relevant. Comments addressed to the applicant from members of the public and affected agencies and jurisdictions may identify other factors that need to be addressed in the Functional Analysis. b) The applicant shall detail the assumptions and reasons for identifying objective criteria to be applied to the proposed facility and the methodology for evaluating and scoring the proposed facility with respect to those criteria, Functional Analysis ( nn entire Gwntvl Qualitative Analysis (an 10 sites) Weighted Analysis (on 3 silts) Site clretcd by Ap plil:ant l•lcav'ing on 'Preferred Sik' JAM ��i :111;41 3 Stages of Location Analysis 4 3 -0136 and shall include this information as part of the initial submittal. The applicant may employ resources needed to assist in site analysis, such as Geographic Information Systems (GIS) information or equivalent geographic and demographic data. However, a site assessment must be performed in order to confirm the accuracy of such data, assess the potential for negative impacts and identify possible mitigation strategies. c) The purpose of the Functional Analysis is to assist the applicant in identifying ten (10) potential sites for the proposed EPF. Further analysis shall focus on these selected sites rather than the county as a whole. d) Once the applicant feels the Functional Analysis is complete, it shall publish a Notice of Availability of Functional Analysis regarding EPF Proposal. This notice shall recite the main findings of the Functional Analysis, summarizing the evaluation criteria and identifying the selected semi- finalist sites and how they ranked. It will also provide notice of the beginning and ending dates for a comment period of thirty (30) days, indicating that copies of the. Functional Analysis are available to the public and have been distributed to all jurisdictions within Spokane County, as well as all relevant agencies, affected special purpose districts, and other interested parties. This notice must be published in The Spokesman Review. e) Requests for further study, arbitration: Within fourteen (14) days of receipt, the applicant will respond in writing to any requests for further study or analysis of additional factors. In this written response, the applicant will indicate whether or not it intends to honor the request for additional study, the reasoning behind its intention, and the avenues available to the entity requesting further study if it is not satisfied with the applicant's response. The applicant will provide the Board and the Spokane County Division of Planning with copies of both the initial request and its response. ii. If the entity making request for further study is not satisfied with the applicant's response, it must notify the applicant, the Spokane County Division of Planning, and the Board, in writing, that it requests the Board to make a determination on the need for further study. Requests for Board determination must be made within ten (10) days of the date the applicant's response was received by the entity requesting further study. iii. The Board will arbitrate in the event an applicant is unwilling to comply with a public, agency or departmental request for further study or analysis of additional factors. The Board will consult with -._=.'' ; i� - . z'1 : :6 . , :.Laiii11= :'r<t ': i , .. ;. l.' :' ! r r i :c i . "_`� �l C: :rr..' _ i;: ..I E,.._ y' . .... s 10. �_sc•r:.._.....,.. w_ ..0 :; ;ithii, Sno ::- :.:2 5 3 -0136 the applicant and the entity requesting further study, and make a determination on the need for further study within ten (10) days of the applicant, or entity, making formal written request for such determination. Said determination shall be binding on the applicant, but may be appealed to the Spokane County Superior Court or the Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Board, whichever is applicable, within the appropriate appeal time period as set forth in the applicable statute. iv. If the Board determines that further study is required, the applicant may not proceed to the Qualitative Analysis stage until that requirement has been met. 2. Qualitative Analysis: a) Once the Functional Analysis stage has been satisfactorily completed, the applicant is responsible for conducting a Qualitative Analysis regarding suitability of the semi- finalist sites. This stage of analysis will address the political, economic, legal and social impacts of the facility, balanced against the extent of public need for the facility and any reasons why the proposed facility needs to be in a particular location. The analysis will assess the relative impacts associated with the proposed facility at each of the semi- finalist sites, with consideration given to the Qualitative Analysis factors listed in the Regional Siting Process and other relevant concepts raised in comments addressed to the applicant from members of the public and affected agencies and jurisdictions. b) Public participation is a key tool for identifying factors that are important to consider at this stage. Opportunities for input should also provide an avenue for dialogue between the applicant and the public, agencies and affected jurisdictions regarding mitigation strategies to address potential adverse impacts. c) The Qualitative Analysis will narrow down the semi - finalist list to three (3) finalist sites that pose the least potential for negative impacts or unmet needs. All finalist sites must be available for lease for the anticipated use period or for purchase, with the consent of the owner. d) Once the applicant considers the Qualitative Analysis complete, it shall publish a Notice of Availability of Qualitative Analysis regarding EPF Proposal. This notice shall recite the main findings of the Qualitative Analysis, summarizing the evaluation criteria and identifying the selected finalist sites. It will also provide the beginning and ending dates for a comment period of thirty (30) days, indicating that copies of the Qualitative Analysis are available to the public and have been distributed to all 2:' (12: ' d'L_Lt22'(it li L( " dt i..'•Si:_? Pl`:i:i:`a4 7d�1 'ESS∎7T1G'tlt PLitjli 6 3 -0136 jurisdictions within Spokane County, as well as relevant agencies, affected special purpose districts, and other interested parties. This notice must be published in The Spokesman Review and the legal newspaper of each jurisdiction where a semi - finalist site is located. e) Requests for further study, arbitration: See procedures outlined under Functional Analysis, (lT)(D)(1)(e) above. 3. Weighted Analysis: a) This stage uses a scoring matrix to rank the three (3) finalist sites in order of preference. First, the applicant develops a scoring matrix that outlines criteria used to evaluate the three (3) finalist sites. The outcome of the public participation program then adds scores to the matrix. The scores in the matrix reflect weighted values that are assigned to the various functional and qualitative criteria based on how important each criterion is to the community. Consensus on weighted values is desirable; however, the final score may also represent an average of the weighted values assigned by various segments of the community. A description of this scoring system is provided in Appendix C to the Regional Siting Process. b) The applicant is responsible for conducting the public participation program necessary to accomplish the Weighted Analysis. A variety of participation techniques may be appropriate at this stage including public workshops, interviews, surveys, and other input instruments including direct written communication from members of the public, related agencies or affected jurisdictions. c) Once the Weighted Analysis is completed, the applicant shall publish a Notice of Availability of Weighted Analysis regarding the EPF Proposal. This notice shall identify the factors or criteria considered in evaluating the finalist sites, the weighted values assigned by the public to those factors, and the final score for each site. The Notice of Availability of Weighted Analysis shall have a minimum comment period of fourteen (14) days. This notice must be published in The Spokesman Review and the legal newspaper of each jurisdiction where a finalist site is located. E. Preferred Site Review: 1. Satisfactory completion of the Weighted Analysis results in a Preferred Site List that provides an initial ranking of the three (3) finalist sites. Final ranking of these sites is accomplished through additional consideration by the Board of such factors as the likely urban impacts of the proposed facility, site development criteria, and the possibility of cost sharing agreements that would mitigate any disproportionate financial burden that may fall on the affected jurisdiction(s), as _ .., ' .:r Ct:1 ' 7, l: .1t 7 3-0136 set forth in Step Nos. 5 through 7 of The 1996 Growth Management Essential Public Facilities Technical Committee Report. These additional factors are described more fully in the Regional Siting Process itself. 2. The Spokane County Division of Planning will prepare a written staff report prior to the notice of the Board's public hearing. Among other things, this report will summarize findings from the Location Analysis, recite the site rankings from each of the three (3) stages of the Location Analysis, and summarize comments received from the public, agencies and affected jurisdictions through the end of the cornment period on the Weighted Analysis. Copies of the report shall be mailed to the applicant, the jurisdictions where the three (3) finalist sites are located, and made available to any interested person for the cost of reproduction. 3. The Board will conduct at least one (1) public hearing on the Preferred Site List, soliciting testimony on the factors mentioned in paragraph 11.E.1 above. The hearing may be continued, as needed, in order to hear all relevant testimony. Notice of Public Hearing must be published at least fourteen (14) days in advance of the hearing date in The Spokesman Review and the legal newspaper of each jurisdiction where a finalist site is located. 4. Based on the record and testimony received at the hearing, the Board's recommendation will outline strategies identified to address any issues associated with particular sites, and rank the finalist sites in order of preference. The Board's recommendation will be issued within fourteen (14) days of the final hearing. 5. The Board's ranking is advisory and not binding on the applicant. 6. Any applicable interlocal agreements (for services such as fire protection, sewer service, etc.) shall be in place prior to final site selection. Once the final site is selected, the applicant shall publish a Notice of Final Site Selection regarding EPF Proposal in The Spokesman Review and in the legal newspaper where the final site is located. This notice shall indicate the specific location of the site, the host jurisdiction whose local siting process will apply to actually siting the facility, and where this site ranked in the Board's recommendation on the Regional Siting Process. Host jurisdictions must cooperate with the applicant in processing the application if the site finally selected is one of the three (3) finalist sites. 12.Cr?•f(12 i17£:c�r t ie4lr ° ..'�i.:Y�lpa i`r "' _i c PL.O;'J! !r 1 tLrio: i A nr • ocei,c ff i t'. :.scnti Jl'Ctb f cilll9 ::� t:'�el ?in v J : ;i ' 8 Analysis Stage Basis Product Applicant's Responsibility Defines applicable criteria and methodology. Provides assessment and scoring. Publishes results. Functional Countywide 10 sites Qualitative 10 sites 3 sites Public participation. Provides assessment and scoring. Details methodology. Publishes results. Weighted 3 sites 3 sites ranked Public participation. Provides evaluation and weighting. Publishes results. 13OCC hearing 3 sites ranked Board recommendation Publishes hearing notice. Publishes final site selection notice. 3 -0136 F. Process Summary: G. Local Siting Process: 1. Following final site selection, the applicant will work directly with the local jurisdiction and its regulatory requirements to permit the construction and operation of the facility under the plans and regulations that were in effect at the time of initial application under the Regional Siting Process. 2. Following selection of a final site through the R.egional Siting Process, the applicant is not required to perform further alternative site analysis at the local level. 3. To facilitate siting, the local jurisdiction's conditional use or special use criteria should rely as much as possible on the findings from the Regional Siting Process Location Analysis. To ensure that a jurisdiction's unique concerns are addressed during the Regional Siting Process Location Analysis, a jurisdiction should raise those issues during the Functional and Qualitative Analysis comment periods, the Weighted Analysis, or at the Board's hearing. r; i�'�... .�. L . :: _ .. 1' 1!.i . . _: a.ili .. ti•J. X1;,'1 +t':. �:`i;..: 9 Spokane Valley Planning Commission Approved Minutes Council Chambers — City Hall 11707 E. Sprague Ave. March 11, 2004 1. CALL TO ORDER Bill Gothmann, Planning Commission Chair, called the meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Commission, audience, and staff recited the Pledge of Allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Fred Beaulac — Present Bill Gothmann — Present Bob Blum — Present Ian Robertson — Present David Crosby — Present John G. Carroll — Present Gail Kogle — Present IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Beaulac moved that the March 11, 2004 agenda be approved as presented. Commissioner. Robertson seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES It was moved by Commissioner Beaulac and seconded by Commissioner Kogle that the minutes of the February 26, 2004 Planning Commission meeting be approved as presented. Motion passed unanimously. VI. PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. VII. COMMISSION REPORTS Commissioner Gothmann attended the March 2 City Council meeting. The proposed International Building Code had its second reading and was passed. Chapter II of the Unified Development Code was read for the first time and moved to its second reading. There was also a discussion regarding hours of operation for Adult Entertainment businesses in the Valley. One of the ways this can be handled is to amend the Zoning Code, and if that is done this issue will come before the Planning Commission before Council approval. Commissioner Crosby had an opportunity to discuss development on the south side of Appleway with a reporter from the Spokesman - Review recently. A recent land use request and public hearing for a lot on the southeast corner of Appleway and Farr was the topic of discussion. VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS Mr. McCormick reminded Commissioners that their next joint meeting with the City Council will be Monday, March 15 Dinner will be served at 5:00 in the meeting room upstairs. Commissioners Blum and Carroll will be unable to attend the dinner or meeting. Commissioners Gothmann, Robertson, Kogle, Crosby and Beaulac will be in attendance for both the dinner and the meeting. The joint group will discuss a vision statement for the Valley, potential city planning processes (RUDAT and Charrette), and the Comp Plan Citizen Participation element. The next Planning Commission meeting will be held at Redeemer Lutheran Church, the site of the City's first Comp Plan Community Meeting. The Open House will begin at 6:30 p.m., and the formal meeting will start at 7:00 p.m. Commissioners Gothmann and Beaulac would like to distribute flyers throughout the community before this meeting is held. Mr. McCormick has designed some simple flyers, and will print out a hundred copies to begin with. If the flyer supply diminishes quickly, he will print more as needed. The Rotary Club Public Presentation date was changed to Tuesday, March 23 " at noon. It will be held at the Mirabeau Park 1- lotel, on the northeast corner of Mission and Sullivan. Commissioners are welcome to attend if their schedules allow. Staff is hoping that more Community Meetings and Public Presentations can be scheduled during the months of April and May. Mr. Kuhta announced that the City of Spokane Valley's new website has been launched. He encouraged Commissioners to browse through it, paying close attention to the Community Development .Department pages. The website address is www.spokanevalley.org. Commissioners asked Mr. McCormick about the City's choice for the Comp Plan Community Survey. Mr. McCormick explained that the Boise firm provided a competitive bid, a list of good references, and a commitment to the City's budget and timeline for completion of the work. The results of the survey will be made available to the Commission as soon as they are submitted. City Council plans to hold a study session in late April or early May, at which time representatives from the Boise firm will give a brief presentation on the results of the survey. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS A. OLD BUSINESS: There was no Old Business. 2 I3. NEW BUSINESS: Discussion of Comprehensive Plan introduction Chapter Draft Mr. McCormick explained that the draft of the Comp Plans first chapter is missing a Community Profile with demographics of the area. He and Mr. Kuhta are working on sorting through the Year 2000 Census data to complete this section. It was agreed that the entire Comp Plan will need to be edited by a professional for consistency in format and language, so the Commissioners decided that any comments provided at tonight's meeting would relate only to substantive material. Commissioner Gothmann recommended several books which would be helpful to staff in their research of the Valley's history. He provided Mr. McCormick with a copy of his "Vision" which contains the names of several very prominent Spokane Valley settlers whom he believes should be included in the City's introduction. Commissioner Blum complimented staff on this first draft, he believes it is an excellent overview. Some important business endeavors of a young Spokane Valley were suggested for inclusion in this section of the Comp Plan: export of the "Hearts of Gold" cantaloupe, American Sign & Indicator Corporation, Keytronic, and Maxey's Feed and Seed. It was suggested that historical photos be included in this chapter to enhance the Valley's historical significance. Other draft chapters of the Comp Plan will be discussed by the Planning Commission between now and the end of August. X. FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER Mr. McCormick will discuss the change of location for the next Planning Commission meeting with Ms. Sukup and confirm it with Com.missione.rs next week. XI. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 7:05 p.m. SUBMITTED: APPROVED: Debi Alley, Administrative Assistant William H. Gothmann, Chairman