2004, 06-29 Study SessionTuesday, June 29, 2004
DISCUSSION LEADER
1 Cary Driskell (5 minutes)
2. Nina Regor (5 minutes)
3. Neil Kersten (10 minutes)
4. Cary Driskell/Cal Walker
(15 minutes)
5. Nina Regor (20 minutes)
6. Cary Drisicell (15 minutes)
7. Nina Regor (30 minutes)
8. Marina SukupfNcil Kersten
(30 minutes)
9. Neil Kersten (20 minutes)
10. Marina Sukup
12. Dave Mercier (5 minutes)
13. Dave Mercier (5 minutes)
Study Swoon Agenda, 06-2
AGENDA
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
CITY COUNCIL WORKSHEET
STUDY SESSION
CITY HALL AT REDWOOD PLAZA
11707 East Sprague Avenue, First Floor
Please Turn Off All Electronic Devices During the Meeting
SUBJECT/ACTIVITY
First Reading Proposed Ordinance Amending
Spokane Valley Municipal Code 5.15,010
Proposed Resolution Repealing and Replacing
Resolution 03 -022, Leave Sections
Motion Consideration: Approval to Proceed with
Valley Corridor Environmental Assessment with
Ccmsultant Jones & Stokes
Bicycle Helmet Safety Support
Library Facilities Update
Spalding Towing Contract
Clear View Triangles
Wastewater Issues
Public Input Procedure/Permitting Activities
11. Mayor DeVleming (5 minutes)Advance Agenda Additions
Council Check in
City Manager Comments
GOAL
Suspend Rules and
Approve Ordinance 04 -028
Approval of
Resolution 04-020
Approve Motion
6:00 p.m.
Discussion/Information
Discussion/information
July 13 Agenda for
Approval Consideration
Policy Issues Concerning Possible New City Hall Discussion/Information
Discussion/Information
Discussion/Information
Informational Memo
Discussion/Information
Discussion/Information
Discussion/Information
Note: At Council Study Sessions, there will be no public comments, except Council reserves the right to request information from the
public and staff as appropriate_
NOTICE indtvidoals plaunng so arisnd the mmnng who resiorm rpoul assistance t,t accumroodue physical, tscanng_ or other impairments, plume osttrtct
the City Cler1. at 15091921.1000 st; soon as possthle set IMO aartmucmcnts outy be made
Papa 1 of 1
Tuesday, June 29, 2004
DISCUSSION LEADER
1. Cary; Driskell (5 minutes)
2. Nina Rego (5 minutes)
1. Neil Karsten (10 minutes)
4. Cary Driskell/Cal Walker
(15 minutes)
5. Nina Regor (20 minutes)
6. Cary Driskcll (15 minutes)
7 Nina Regor (30 minutes)
8. Marina Sukup/Neil Kerstcn
(30 minutes)
9. Neil Kasten (20 minutes)
10. Marina Sukup
11. Mayor DeVleaning
(5 minutes)
12. Dave Mercier (5 minutes)
13. Dave Mercier (5 minutes)
Study Salim Ae:rtda, 06.01 -04
AGENDA
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
CITY COUNCIL WORKSHEET
STUDY SESSION
CITY HALL AT REDWOOD PLAZA
11707 East Sprague Avenue, First Floor
Please Turn Off All Electronic Devices During the Meeting
S1.BJECI' /ACTIV'IT \'
First Reading Proposed Ordinance Amending
Spokane Valley Municipal Code 5.15.010
Proposed Resolution Repealing and Replacing
Resolution 03 -022, Leave Sections
Motion Consideration: Approval to Proceed with
Valley Corridor Environmental Assessment with
Consultant Jones & Stokes
Bicycle Helmet Safcty Support
Library Facilities Update
Spalding Towing Contract
Policy Issues Concerning a Possible New
City Hall
Clear View Triangles
Wastewater Issues
Public Input Procedure/Permitting Activities
Advance Agenda Additions
Council Check in
City Manager Comments
GOAL
Approve Motion
6:00 p.m.
Suspend Rul and
Approve Ordinance 04-028
Approval of
Resolution 04 -020
Discussion/Information
Discussion/Information
July 13 Agenda for
Approval Consideration
Discussion/In formation
D i scu ss i an/l nform at i o n
Discussion/In formation
Informational Memo
Discussion/Information
Discussion/Information
Discussion/Information
N ate: Ai Council Study 5t ituty there will be no public cammenta, except Council reserves the nght to request information from the
public and staff as appropriate
NOTICE. indn Duals p:annotg to mend the rttetiuij who requite spe:inl ttw.tance to accommodate odate physical. hen: mL. or other tmparmrenu, pima contact
the City Clerk at (51141921.1000 as woo as possible ea that anangements map be auk
naec1ufI
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: City Manager Sign -off:
Item: Check an that apply: 0 consent ❑ all business X new business ❑ public hearing
❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Ordinance 04 -028 Amending SVMC 5.15.010, Re: Special Events
Permits
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Spokane Valley Municipal Code 5.15.010
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Adoption of Ordinance 03 -064, Codification into
SVIvle 5.15
BACKGROUND: In reviewing Spokane Valley Code Section 5.15.020, it became apparent that
consistency in a definition was needed. The current definition of who shall provide a special
events permit states in one place that it shall be the City Manager or designee. Several other
places simply state that the City Manager shall provide the permit. The Parks Department will
generally handle such requests, As such, it is appropriate to amend SVMC 5.15,010 to state
that by definition, any reference to City Manager means City Manager or designee.
OPTIONS: Not changing the language.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Motion to suspend the rules and move this to a
second reading for adoption tonight.
BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: NJA
STAFF CONTACT: Cary P. Driskell, Deputy City AttorneyrlMike Jackson, Parks Director
ATTACHMENTS: (1) Proposed Ordinance 04 -02$ Amending SVIV1C 5.15.010
DRAFT
F'I'
UREA, it is in the interests of the City of Spokane Valley to alloy' community organizations
and citizens to sponsor special events within the City.
W1- REREAS, the City of Spokane Valley, through Spokane Valley Code Title 5, Section 15,
:adopted reasonable guidelines and a permitting process to protect the public's health, safety and welfare
during special events_
WI- fE.R.>A., it is necessary to amend the provisions for the administration of the permitting
process as set forth below.
fol lows:
AN ORDEVANCE AMEN111ING SPOKANE VALLEY CODE TITLE S SECTION 1.5
PERTAINING TO REGULATIONS FOR SPECIAL EVENTS.
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Washington, do ordain as
Section 1. Amendment. title 5, Section 15, Subsection 010, is Hereby amended to add a
new definition, as follows:
"City Manager" shall mean the City Manager c his /her designee.
Section 2. Sevcrability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance should
be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or
unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or
phrase of this Ordinance.
Section 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five (5) days after
the date of publication of this Ordinance or a summary thereof in the official newspaper of the City.
ATTEST:
Approved As To Form:
PASSED by the City Council this
Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk
Cary P. Driskell, Deputy City Attorney
Date of Publication:
Effective Date:
0rdinoce 04 -028 Arnendinz 0rdinsirite 03 -064
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
. SPOKANE COUNTY, WASFINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. 04 -028
day of 2 004,
Mayor, Michael DeVleming
Meeting Date:
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
June 29, 2004 City Manager Sign -off:
Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ell new business ❑ public hearing
I❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending Legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Resolution No. 04 -020 Repealing and Replacing Resolution No.
03 -022, Specifying Various Employee Leave Provisions
GOVERNING LE=GISLATION: There are various state and federal laws and regulations
governing certain types of leave for employees, such as the federal and state Family and
Medical Leave Acts (FMLA).
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Council adopted Resolution No. 03 -022 on March
20, 2003, specifying employee leave benefit provisions; Council received an administrative
report on proposed changes to Resolution 03 -022 on June 22, 2004.
BACKGROUND: The attached draft Resolution 04 -020 clarifies three sections in Resolution
03 -022. Sections 6 and 7, governing employee leave without pay, are inconsistent with the
City's agreement with Association of Washington Cities, who administers the City's employee
insurance plan. Proposed changes would make the Resolution consistent with AWC's
provisions. Changes are also proposed to clarify the job reinstatement provision.
Section 8, which provides for family and medical leave, is inconsistent with 2003 changes to
state regulation implementing the Washington Act. Proposed revisions would remove those
inconsistencies and simply reference the state and federal laws and regulations. The City's
resolution would then not need to be amended each time the laws or regulations change.
OPTIONS: Leave Resolution No. 03 - 022 unchanged.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve Resolution No 04 -020_
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A
STAFF CONTACT: Nina Regor, Deputy City Manager
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution No 04 -020
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
RESOLUTION NO. 04-020
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY,
WASHINGTON, REPEALING AND REPLACING RESOLUTION NO. 03 -022,
SPECIFYING THE HOLIDAY, VACATION, AND LEAVE BENEFIT
PROVISIONS FOR CITY EMPLOYEES.
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to a adopt policies for city employees, including holidays,
vacation time and leave benefits afforded to City employees;
WHEREAS, the policies and benefits stated in this Resolution are subject to annual review by the
City Council for the purpose of clarifying, modifying or deleting the same in order to serve the best
interest of the City as solely determined by the City Council pursuant to RCW 35A.11.020; and
WHEREAS, the employee benefits provided in this Resolution shall be applied equally to all City
employees unless provided otherwise through contract or other action of the City Council or City
Manager.
NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane
County, Washington, as follows:
Section 1. Holidays.
A. Pursuant to City Ordinance No. 13, regular full -time and
part -time employees shall receive the following paid holidays:
New Year's Day
Martin Luther King
President's Day
Memorial Day
independence Day
Labor Day
Veteran's Day
Thanksgiving Day
Day After Thanksgiving
Christmas Day
- January 1
- 3rd Monday In January
- 3rd Monday of February
- Last Monday Of May
- July 4
- 1st Monday of September
- November 11
- 4th Thursday of November
- December 25
regular
B. In the event a holiday falls upon a Sunday, the following Monday shall
be deemed to be the legal holiday. In the event the legal holiday falls on a Saturday, the preceding Friday
shall be deemed to be the legal holiday.
C. Regular parr: -time employees shall receive a pro rata share of their
compensation for each approved holiday.
D. If an employee is required to work on a holiday, the employee shall be
granted another day off during the month in which the holiday was celebrated or the employee shall
receive holiday pay rather than equivalent time off.
Page I
C:IDocuments and Settingskbainbridge\Loe:al Settinggs \Temporary Internet Files401_K6AVtesolution 04 -020 Modifying Employee Leavcs2.doc
E. When a holiday falls within a period of paid leave, the holiday shall not
be counted as a leave day in computing the amount of leave debited.
F. Non - exempt employees required to work on any designated holiday shall
receive the overtime rate of pay.
Section 2. Vacation Benefits.
A. Vacation leave is established for the mutual benefit of the City and the
employee. The purpose of vacation leave is to provide employees with adequate time away from work
and to provide the City with well - rested and efficient employees, but no vested right to vacation leave is
hereby guaranteed by the City. Vacation leave may be used as soon as it is accrued.
B. Regular full -time employees shall accrue vacation at the following rate:
Initial hire through the fifth complete year of continuous employment - eight (8) hours per month; After
five (5) full years of continuous employment - ten (10) hours per month; After ten (10) full years of
continuous employment - twelve (12) hours per month.
C. Regular part -time. employees shall accrue vacation leave on a pro-rata
basis. For example, if an employee works twenty (20) hours per week, vacation accrual shall be fifty
percent (50 %) oldie above amounts.
D. The maximum vacation accrual that will be paid upon separation or
carried forward at year end (December 31) shall be 360 hours.
E. When required to induce a highly experienced employee to accept
employment with the City of Spokane Valley, the City Manager is authorized to credit a nmaximuni of
eighty (80) additional hours of vacation leave to a prospective employee who has at least ten (10) years of
prior successful experience in a similar position for which the employee is being hired. The City
Manager may further establish the vacation accrual schedule as set forth in Subsection B.
Section 3. Sick Leave Benefits.
A. Sick leave is granted to regular employees to be used in cases of illness,
accident or other conditions which require medical treatment or supervision and require an employee to
be absent from work. Sick leave may be used to care for an employee's own health condition, a spouse's
health condition or for a dependent child (including dependent step -child or foster child) under the age of'
eighteen (18) with a health condition that requires treatment or supervision as more particularly
established in WAC Chapter 296 -130. Sick leave may also be used for the care, treatment and
preventative health care of the employee and dependents.
B. Sick leave has been established for the benefit of both the employee and
the employer, but no vested right to sick leave is hereby guaranteed by the City. In the event that abuse of
sick leave is suspected, excessive absenteeism or tardiness occurs, or after three (3) consecutive days of
sick leave, an employee may be required to provide medical certification from his or her health care
provider. Abuse of sick leave or excessive absenteeism or tardiness may be grounds for disciplinary
action, up to and including termination.
C. Sick leave shall be accrued by regular full -time employees at the rate of
eight (8) hours per month. Regular part -time employees shall accrue sick leave on a pro -rata basis. Sick
leave may be carried forward at year end, provided no employee may accrue more than seven hundred
Page 2
C:1Documents and Scttingslcbainbridge \Local Settings\remporary Internet I i s1O1- K6AlResolution 04 -020 Modifying Employee Leaves2.doc
twenty (720) total hours of sick leave. After an employee has accrued 720 hours of sick leave, the
employee may convert up to ninety -six (96) hours of the sick leave to cash. For purposes of converting
sick leave to cash, each hour of accrued sick leave shall be paid out by valuing the same at 25% of the
employee's regular wage. For example, 96 hours of sick leave may be converted to 24 hours of regular
pay. Any payout will be included in the last pay period of the year.
D. An employee may use up to 24 hours of sick leave as bereavement leave
in the case of a death to a member of the employee's immediate family. "Immediate family" shall be
defined as spouse, mother, father, mother -in -law, father -in -law, children, sister, brother, daughter -in -law,
son - - law, sister -in -law, brother -in -law, grandparents and grandchildren.
Section 4. Military Leave. A. In accordance with RCW 38.40.060 any employee who is a
member of the Washington National Guard or a federal reserve unit shall be entitled to time off with pay
for up to fifteen days during each calendar year while participating in officially ordered military duty. A
copy of the employee's orders shall be placed in the employee's personnel file. Military leave shall not
be deducted from vacation or sick leave.
A. Any military leave time required in excess of the fifteen days paid leave
authorized in paragraph A of Section 23 above shall be in conformace with the Uniformed Services
Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA).
Section 5. Jury or Court Duty. A regular employee who is required to serve on a jury or as a
result of official city duties is required to appear before a court, legislative committee or quasi-judicial
body as a witness in response to a subpoena or other directive, shall be ranted paid leave for the time that
the employee needs to be released from regular duties; provided, that the supervisor is promptly notified
of the conflict or if the employee is excused from the appearance such as for an afternoon. The employee
shall be entitled to his or her regular pay; provided, that the employee shall pay to the city any fee or
reimbursement received for such court or jury duty, up to the amount paid as paid leave.
Section 6. Leave without Pay. Upon approval by the City Manager leave without pay may
be granted for a period not to exceed fifteen ten working days for illness, injury, educational purposes, or
additional vacation. Leave without pay may not be taken until an employee has exhausted existing
his /her accrued paid leave balances -; provided however that at the sole discretion of the City Manager.
paid leave balances may be used in conjunction with leave without pay in order to minimize temporary
impacts to employee's insurance coverage.
Section 7. Leave of Absence Without Pay. At the sole discretion of the City Manager, 14-pen
the -cf•uc b 'Mean employcc, ''•^ manager may be granted a leave of absence without pay for a
period of not less than three (3)two (2) weeks- weeks and not more than twenty -six (26). Approval of such
leave shall be in writing and signed by the City Manager. No vacation or sick leave benefits or other
fringe benefits shall accrue while an employee is on leave of absence. The employee's anniversary date
will be adjusted by the length of the leave granted. Upon expiration of the leave of absence, the City may
at its discretion reinstate the employee in the position held at the time the leave was
granted, offer the. employee another available position, or take other appropriate action. Any- en'rpleyee -en
ci i a d v a n c e f r eaeth— rxenth The employee's insurance coverage may be
impacted. `Germs of coverage shall be in accordance with the City's insurance plan sponsor. A leave of
absence without pay may not be taken until an employee has exhausted existing his /her accrued paid
leave balances-: provided however that at the sole discretion of the City Manager, paid leave balances
may he used in conjunction with leave of absence without pay in order to minimize temporary impacts to
employee's insurance coverage.
Page 3
C: DoCnments and SettinskbainbiidgelLocal Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK6A1Resolution 04 -020 Modifying Employee L.enves2.doc
Section S. Fain ily and Medical Leave. Eames- shah -bz' ti ted -ami ct- rrteflieti• -leave
4+ a der►ee -with -the- provisions of the Sta e- Paleiay-4 eave Aot, Chap defa4
eave- Acct -e • • -' Nted- FHldet- eitheP- c melt -AetS shal
tO -eate fe r un-e
as required under the applicable state and federal laws.
Section 9. No Vested Rights. Nothing in this Resolution shall be deemed to vest a right or
interest in the benefits hereby granted by the City, and the City Council retains the right to change any
benefits or provisions of this ordinance at any time.
Section 10. Administration. The City Manager is authorized, directed and empowered to
develop and promulgate administrative policies, procedures, rules, forms and materials as needed to
implement the leave provisions adopted herein, and consistent with all related state and Federal laws, as
well as City ordinances and resolutions.
ATTEST:
Section 11. Repeal of Resolution. The Council hereby repeals Resolution No. 03 -022.
Section 12. Effective Date. This Resolution will take effect upon adoption.
Adopted this day of June, 2004.
Approved as to Form:
er-wts - ! - ea•v -rr - • - -
diesel -be
lirterim City Clerk, Ruth le rChristine Bainbridge
1 leter -i+m- Deputy City Attorney, Stanley M. sohw•artzCary P. Driskell
s-heolth eendli c
The City shall provide family and medical leave
City of Spokane Valley
Mayor Michael DeVleming
Page 4
C:IDocuments and Scttingslcbainbridge \Local SettingsVremporary Internet Fitcs1OLK6A\Rcsolution 04 -020 Modifying Employee Leaves2,doc
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: June 29, 2004 City Manager Sign -off:
Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent X old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing
❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Approval to Proceed with Valley Corridor Environmental Assessment
with consultant Jones & Stokes.
GOVERNING LEGISLATION:
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: At the joint City Council /Planning Commission
meeting on 2/23/2004 Public Works staff presented five options for completing the couplet
project. After discussing each option and based on a suggestion from one Councilmember a
sixth option (2A) was added. The options were as follows:
Opt 1. Transition existing Appleway back to Sprague (2 -way) east of University
Opt 2. Extend existing Couplet (Appleway eastbound, Sprague westbound) to Sullivan
Opt 3. Extend Appleway 2 -way east of University, leave Sprague 2 -way
Opt 4. Return Sprague tot -way, change /extend Appleway to 2 -way with limited access
Opt 5. Extend Appleway 1 -way east to Sullivan, existing couplet and Sprague as -is
Opt 2A Extend Appleway 1 -way east to Sullivan, Sprague 1 -way west w/ frontage road east
At the meeting it was recommended to study options 2, option 5 and option 2A. At the April 6,
2004 the Public Works Department presented several concerns and engineering challenges
associated with option 2A. The City Council decided at that meeting to drop option 2A from
further consideration.
BACKGROUND: The City has received significant public comment on the proposed options.
There is overall strong public support for proceeding with a Valley Corridor project. Staff has
met with SRTC and the Federal Highway Administration to discuss proceeding with analysis of
the project. Based on those meeting we have requested a scope of work and cost proposal
from Jones & Stokes, the consultant who developed the draft Environmental Assessment for
Spokane County. Their proposal is attached for your review.
OPTIONS: Proceed with recommended Environmental Assessment (EA). Eliminate the EA
work. Seek an alternate method or provider to derive the data.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Motion to approve completing the Environmental
Assessment of the Valley Corridor Project with Jones & Stokes in the amount of $143,007
through the Spokane County Engineering Interlocal Contract.
Motion to approve using an additional $4,337 from the Street Capital Projects Fund to provide
additional matching funds for the SRTC and TIB grant funds.
BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Jones & Stokes est. - $143,007
• Remaining Grant Funds - $ 43,170
• SRTC Additional Funds - $ 40,250
• TIB Funds - $ 40,250
• Existing City match in 2004 budget - $ 15,000
• Additional City match needed - $ 4,337
STAFF CONTACT: Neil Kersten
ATTACHMENT: Jones and Stokes proposal
Jones and Stokes Associates (Consultant), under the direction of the City of Spokane Valley
(City), will revise, update and complete the City's Environmental Assessment (EA) for the
Valley Corridor, referenced in previous documents as the Valley Couplet. The .EA will be
consistent with the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) and Federal
Highway .Administration (FHWA) NEPA procedures and rules.
The Consultant will provide professional planning services for the completion of the \Talley
Corridor. EA as outlined below.
Task 1: PROJECT INITIATION and MANAGEMENT
Task 1.1. Project Start Up and Contract Documents
In consultation with City staff, finalize the scope of work, project budget, project schedule
and execute contract documents. The Consultant will provide monthly invoices, updates on
the status of the project, percent complete and supporting documentation as requested by
the City of. Spokane Valley. Additionally, the Consultant will provide copies of the Draft EA
to FFFIWA and WSDOT to utilize as a reference document to the new EA that will be
completed for this contract.
Task 1.2 Review and Collection of New Documentation and Studies
City staff, in coordination with the Consultant team, will assemble and provide recent plans,
newly adopted City documents and studies that will be the basis of updates in the EA. The
Consultant will maintain the data collected as a resource for use by the project team.
Information to be provided includes, but is not limited to:
A. Current City Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Codes. Specifically, if there have been
amendments or changes to the interim Comprehensive Plan or Zoning Code.
(Including newly created City maps, related plans, studies, staff reports, etc);
6. Inventory of applicable GIS files and maps, AutoCAD maps, and /or other city maps
available in digital format.;
C. Drainage or surface water management plans;
D. Current land use inventory information and a summary of land use and building
permit activity levels;
E. City Environmental documents utilized in conjunction with prior significant project
and non- project actions;
Spokane Valley
Valley Corridor EA
Draft Scope of Work
May 23, 2004
EXHIBIT A
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Valley Corridor Environmental Assessment
Draft Scope of Work
oSCSfi
Jones & Stokes
Page 1 of7
F. Special district plans, community surveys or similar information;
G. Any documentation on public process and community input from recent surveys and
meetings relating to the prior Couplet review process;
H. State and Federal resource agency plans, maps and .related studies; and
I. Current TIv9odcl files from SRTC.
Task 1.3 EA Assessment - Identification of Updating or New Sections
Based on prior review and review of the new background information, the Consultant will
prepare the following memorandum:
A. A new Purpose and Need Statement;
B. An assessment of the draft EA document that identifies elements that require
updates, sections that are affected by new information, and opportunities to clar
the purpose and need statement; and
C. Identifies key issues, areas of impacts, and potential range of mitigations.
This memorandum will be provided to the City to utilize for their records and to use for
discussion purposes during the Kick Off meeting with WSDOT and FHWA (Task 1.4).
Task 1.4 Intergovernmental Coordination
The Consultant will participate in up to four (4) coordination meetings with the City,
Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC), WSDOT, and FHWA for discussion and
review of the EA format, findings, and conclusion. These meetings will facilitate the review
and the approval of the EA by WSDOT and FHWA.
The first meeting will be a FHWA /WSDOT Kick -Off Meeting, with the objective of
negotiating an agency - review time line and identification of cooperating agencies for early
involvement and analysis review.
Task 1.5 EA Scoping Notice and Workshop
A new scoping notice will be prepared for review and approval. The Scoping notice, through
coordination with City staff and FHWA staff, will be published in the local paper and the
federal register. The consultant will provide a summary of past comments of record, review
of the EA process, the EA elements, range of alternatives and conduct a scoping hearing.
Based on the scoping hearing, a summary of the comments will be generated based on past
public comments and additional comments provided by the County staff, City staff and
participating agencies. The summary of comments and significant environmental issues
identified will be integrated into the EA. The EA assessment memorandum, generated in
Task 1.3, may be revised or updated based on the results from the Scoping Process.
Task 1 [fork Products:
A. Overall Project scope of work, budget, and schedules;
B. EA Assessment memorandum;
Spokane Volley
Valley Corridor EA
Draft Scope of Work
May 23, 2004
Jones & Stokes
Page 2 of7
C. NEP.A Scoping Notice and Determination of Significance; and
D. Coordination with agencies and tribes on intergovernmental participation.
City Subtasks:
A. Review, comments, and approval on project scope, budget, and schedule;
13. Compile and provide all relevant background data;
C. Coordinate with SRTC, WSDOT and FF-1WA on intergovernmental review; and
D. The City will be responsible for all community meeting logistics, including noticing,
reserving meeting space, etc.
This task has four objectives:
Task 2: Draft Environmental Assessment
1) Redefine the Alternatives;
2) Incorporate new information into EA;
3) Generate new sections as needed; and
4) Provide an updated, accurate., factual Draft EA for the City, WSDOT and FH\VA
staff review.
The initial draft of the EA included the standard range of natural and built resources;
however, several resources potentially could be adversely impacted by the proposed action.
Therefore, beyond the standard resources (soils, stream, water quality, wildlife, etc.), NEPA
rules require. an in- depth analysis of the resources that could be potentially impacted. The
EA will focus on updating or generating new analysis of the key resources listed below.
Task 2.1 Land Use
The Consultant, in coordination with City staff, will confirm the existing and projected land
use designations in the City of Spokane Valley and along the corridor alignment alternatives.
The location, proximity, and overall effects of the alignment alternatives will determine the
level of impacts to the land use. The land use information will be utilized in the
Transportation Modeling tasks (2.2).
Task 2.2 Transportation
The Consultant, in coordination with the City staff, will revise and update the current
Transportation Element based on the TModel provided by SRTC. The analysis will include:
existing conditions, traffic forecast, future conditions based on 4 alternatives scenarios, Level
of Service (LOS) analysis at sixteen (16) intersections and the average daily traffic during PM
peak hours.
Task 2.3 Air Quality
The Consultant, in coordination with City staff, will review the updated transportation
modeling results and revise the Air Quality section of the EA.
Spokane Valley
Valley Corridor EA
Draft Scope of Work
May 23, 2004
Jones & Stokes
Page 3 of 7
Task 2.4 Noise
The Consultant, in coordination with City staff, will review the updated transportation
modeling results and revise the Noise section of the EA. Field investigations and new
baseline noise monitor, wall. analysis, and a complete Noise Discipline Report will be
required. This level of effort is required due to the proximity of sensitive noise receptors
(apart7nent(s) and single family homes).
Task 2.5 Economic Development
The Consultant, in coordination with City staff and the City's -Economic Consultant, will
summarize and integrate the findings of the Valley Couplet E.•conornic soon to be underway.
Task 2.6 Historic and Cultural Resources
The Consultant, in coordination with City staff, will review existing records and determine if
prior survey results and findings are sufficient. Additionally, a search of the State and Local
databases will be conducted to update the assessment of any historic or cultural resources
that may be in the corridor alignment.
Task 2.7 Socio - economics
The Consultant, in coordination with City staff, will create a socio - economic section that is a
combination of land use, census data, and community make -up along the corridor. alignment.
This section will identify potential impacts to the community from a racial, income, or
overall socioeconomic situation.
Task 2.8 Indirect and Cumulative Effects
The Consultant will prepare indirect and cumulative effect sections of the EA, based on an
analysis of the various resources. This section will document the overall indirect and
cumulative effects the project may have on the community in association with other relevant
projects.
Task 2.9 Conclusions
The Consultant will prepare a general conclusion section on the potential range of
substantial or adverse impacts that can or cannot be mitigated within the context of the
project.
Spokane Valley
Valley Corridor 6A
Drat Scope of Work
May 23, 2004
Jones & Stokes
Page 4 of 7
Task 3 Environmental Assessment Production
Task 3.1 Compile Administrative Draft EA
The consultant will prepare an administrative EA that is consistent with WSDOT, FHWA,
and NEPA procedures. The EA will include the applicable sections pursuant to NEPA, the
Purpose and Need statement and public comments.
Task 4 Agency and Public Review
Task 4.1 Revisions based on City Review of Administrative Draft EA
The Consultant will provide an adminiistrative draft of the EA to the City for their review
and editorial approval. The City will provide written comments to the Consultant concerning
revisions and comments. The Consultant will revise and update the EA, based on City
comments and prepare an agency administrative Draft EA. One round Of review is assumed.
Task 4.2 Revisions based on Agencies Review of Administrative Draft EA
(SRTC, WSDOT, & FHWA)
The Consultant will provide an agency administrative draft to the City for submittal to
WSDOT, SRTC and FHWA. WSDOT local programs (Eastern Region and Olympia) will
coordinate the agency review with SRTC and FHWA. WSDOT will return written
comments to the Consultant in regards to revisions and comments. The Consultant will
revise and update the EA, based on the agency comments, and prepare a Draft EA for
publication and public review. One round of review is assumed.
Task 4.3 Editorial and QA /QC Review
The Cotnsultant will finalize the Draft EA and provide a camera -ready copy to the City. The
Consultant will coordinate with the City and FHWA on the notice of availability of the EA
in the Federal Register. The local notification process will be pursuant to the City's public
notification process.
Task 4.4 Notice of Availability
The consultant will coordinate with WSDOT and 1z 1 -[WA on the draft Notice of Availability
(NOA). The NOA will be published in the Federal Register, through F1d4X process.
Spokane Valley
Valley Corridor EA
Draft Scope of Work
May 23, 2004
Jones & Stokes
Page 5 of 7
Task 4.5 Public Hearing
During the public comment period, one (1) workshop will be held, in conjunction with a
City Council Meeting. The objective of the workshop will be to present the Draft IAA to the
citizens and stakeholders. A presentation will cover the key elements of the EA, range of
alternatives and the NEPA - EA process. Following the presentation, a public comment
session will be conducted. City staff and consultants will be available for one -on -one
discussion with citizens and stakeholders to obtain additional comments.
Task 4.6 City and Agency Comment Response Matrix
The consultant will prepare a matrix of the comments received in writing and at the
workshop. The matrix will be provided to the City, WSDOT, and FI-IWA for review, and to
provide a basis of discussion for the Finding of No Significance Impact (FONSI) statement.
It is assumed that the number of comments would not exceed 30.
If the comments raise an issue that has not been addressed in the EA, the Consultant, City
staff, WSDOT, and FHWA will review to determine the level of response needed in the
FONSI.
Task 4 Work Products:
A. Ad.ministrat i re EA for City and agency review;
B. Draft EA for publication and public review;
C. Draft Notice of .Availability;
D. One (1) Workshops; and
E. Public /Agency Comment Response Matrix.
City Subtasks:
A. Review and provide comments on administrative Draft EA;
B. Prepare copies of camera -ready EA for public distribution;
C. Coordination on the Issuance of Notice of Availability for EA; and
D. Arrange workshop date and location.
Task 5: Issuance of FONSI and adoption of EA for SEPA
Task 5.1 Draft Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)
Lased on public comments received on the draft document, during the public comment
period, the Consultant will generate a draft FONSI that documents the findings of the EA,
the public comments, and the mitigation measures that will be elements of the project.
Spokane Volley
Valley Corridor EA
Draft Scope of Work
May 23, 2004
Jones & Stokes
Page 6 of 7
Task 5.2 Coordination of FONSI based on City and Agency Review
The consultant will coordinate with the City staff, WSDOT, and FHW.A on the FONSI
statement. This will include review of the draft FONSI, revisions, and final copy for. the
PH publication of the FONSI in the Federal Register.
Task 5.3 Adoption of EA for SEPA
The City will issue a notice of a Public SEPA Hearing, at which time the City Council can
adopt the approved EA through a Notice of Action. The notification process will. be
pursuant to the City's public notification process. The Consultant will attend the meeting to
provide support to City Staff.
Task 5.4 Final Copy of EA
The Consultant will provide City Staff with an electronic copy (format to be determined) and
a bard copy of the final EA. and FONSI. As noted under Task 3, the City is responsible for
preparation of final maps and graphics.
Task 5 Work Products:
• Draft Adoption Ordinance
• Findings of Fact
• Final EA and FONSI .
City Subtasks:
• The County is responsible for all final document(s) production.
A. The consultant retains the right and flexibility to shift hours between tasks to ensure
efficiencies.
B. The budget assumes that there will be no changes to the alternatives between the
Draft and Final EA.
C. Spokane Valley will be responsible for providing base maps and existing graphics
related to corridor alignment, natural resources, land use, utilities, housing,
transportation, and maps as needed for use in the EA.
D. Spokane Valley will be responsible for the printing and distribution of the draft and
final editions of the EA docuunent(s).
E. Spokane Valley will be responsible for all community meeting logistics, including
noticing, and reserving meeting space.
Spokane Valley
Valley Corridor EA
Draft Scope of Work
May 23, 2004
Overall Scope Assumptions
Jones & Stokes
Page 7 of 7
Task
Consulting Staff ProdueIlen Staff Hour.
Labor
Total
p .. ✓ -
...t?:c. 4
. .....
Direct
Ercoenses
5500
$3,530
5150
55
5306
5500
5200
5537
Total
Price
Levels 5 Booth Al Loewen R KuoX
Pro ect Director Env Sc l Ern Sci Sr. Env 5•ec 11
Cooper J Brush .1 Wider
Erw S oc I1 Ern 5 oc IN Env Sd Sr,
'.N�'_ <-'.. .i -'..i .: 4'.K s . ' { . 'X . r:t."}.�,X
Sc. ?%. \�, v }?
. � .e«4. f..::I.l S, i `. ,•...w
: I
_ �
I I t . ... .• 1 B ' 0
i E
EcM'ard9 R
Env Sd
} 4. ?v :n {
_ .......... .:..A:..
Eames J
Env Set
.4 }: -
`S'��: ":$'S•..
�.:x.:3.
s
, , ,..�.
Su atal
+ o i4•n {., . cy;
4 _
'-.P :�::.>., •{}.
..[ ' - � -
Tech Ooinin
Editor Spec
, ...
X._
, �t. Niel..
.....
L
?
AnrnIn
Tech
SX C.
:0....:. ✓...
.......
:H..
- -
Subtotal
'!C .. 'it
:.2:....�::
:2
yc. .S
53 390
aw9[^�'*8
:.U:
324:.< h.
'«"'
�••• 1i•
50
52,960
d;i Isla n � yt 'o o IS IR tb% e'r'r': ?o 0
.
:..�.. e _,;. -- . , . .. .. .; .. ....:• :. :.: ..: :...:n ...
v.:.: {.:.. L ...v.. J ✓ Ft- 'i iri .. . . .. .. : .:.. ..
?'.. 4x`.4.. . ?+ 'F.. . S:. X4: �Li}{.. . }� �b. . .a �:. 4 �}.,..M
G:S.: -. }- ' -... }.>
- 4::2 ' ' a 1.
.. .-•vv..
.. .: : Y
GL2Y.Ni.>:.
..4 s 24. • ...�.x.LR,<2uN:
.. ......_. . .
,.
}.i S: .;. ..:
``o TA'
f 161
6
2
_ 24
20
•:•.:2:::. %::.
.s:u�s:.r..._.._'i''3"
� ..e.t�
- -•- <
; 4
,_ _ 4
. 10
i 4
1 W.. «• B
E 10
; 16
or:
LSO :�:4Si�wn+.n«:.I..r
i...�..
• 30
•,
477r"--- r. ,j
.. 4.
.,;5
..
..�...
€"p
? 16
.: v : �.. >.. yy..
% . %': '.S .,y
• .- ._.._.._.. :.
!
i 8 3 IO
E
. M .a .
... d,. ._...,_.. .....e n t
1, Pro)e•ra Inp1a11on and management
f 1
57 170
5J4�
f6,4aA
53 230
? '2:1. •4. ..}
d�kri...,...._..''
- x.300
it Pre ec Start U� eno Contract Dacum/en.
�F,�•.
-- Tr'
•� -_
;
•.v.: n-m -:.: :.. :..
-. ..: ::.., .,. R ..:
._...._: s �_.. ^ X3}:3
_-
51 846'
57 170
..
- 55.400
54
`7`Q':�%i:;Y:f:
,,.........
X1.100
Sd 1,520
SD 640
t
54,040
54,380
S 630
- 13, �
52.460
.: ;
� :1%
anon:
•f 11,)!
:07•71-1'.-
.... ».. «..:�r
•••••bs1� t0
53 180
-- r ,
1,2•R6allett)on Ol New Ocarrnenta:bn and Studies
(
(� ••
- -�
« « -
• _-
{6
{. }p.�NiL.
}:Y: r;i`.:7�s. �
}s.....J :_. } Si:
. v f �•
r 1
•
1.3 EA Assessment - Idcrt hcT a at Gpduted or New S U0I19
1,41nter Coordhecbn�e n1c tnys? .�.
L e
I. !1 Sco?sir Mace and Workshy? � Euriic amments�
... :.... -.., :: -. r:: -..:. •.v sw...v :.. .,.. . . ... ,... :. s,
:. <. {. ,.. �. �:.,: ✓�.. -.: .. }. ,., .p +`.,4: :. �,�.%�., :�.
.3�._.3.:.'.a?a.•.3.�d::�x}6s^ ^.:.6x{.1. �..,- w..r z._: ?•:: 3. ?:i: :r�,s
2. Draft Envlronmontal Assessment
_ _ .. o .� .... _. Y «... «...
2.i land Us
,. :4 : •Y K -0:�
-. - 2�.ti.
• : �ix
!A E 208
u.-Y
X`�` �'•`.3?: �: �+;� Y " ? >k�' p
.)f`:� $:y.:3�.: c�: k:: i' Q: t' �,.` �: �.:...:.r.:�:-
fi - 14.:> }';!
.r
�._"G•:... > ..:...
}' :3:�:
!
t
:..... • ..« 1 ...............�e.,
: : 0
'-
4
a
1 ---- T
1 4
i 4
..�..... « ...
2.1�`ransFortnt jlndudha M.odellrtA
3 Air DuaS[X
2.4 Noise ...... ..�... «..«
2.0 fmnnmrc Uevelopanent
£ ?t)atcric and Cultural Resouroos
SOCbegortomics •�
2.8 Indirect and Cumubn. e TIfects
] �•
.._
10
..•�
viD
4
1 80
•.... _•• ^-- -__ -••
540 630
12 €
_
40
..._ , 60
40
..._... d0
58 320
ef1d•
54,040
54, 380
8 1
6 ;
-
-
F:97: .
'�'Y.2
8
•. +•^..'•
i4:. �4,
9
1
I 1--•-
t _ 20 1 15
4: 8
�
;
1 d
3-
I E
53,650
33
i
f 10
•.W. E
'.•„
>, �)�
iirvt: i'}. S:: Y: tt:::t�_.'_:�:R-
1 ._
6 1 8
1-- :)LD .' > :'
"}• 1.. 't':S 2 2 T'
.«.... -:«.-
2.9Conctusrans
;
52460
.
:.t ..4v }4;'.
vL.`Z.C3i:
Kai
} tX.f A '0":i..5':
tt«p`fi3A:.Sr
i• 0 0
53 180
#g,dbb
t _.W.
S . }} t �� ..}��•...,�Y...
.4e Lh:4ti'Q•.4i.
,.2n�fnw�i.M: 3 §%
. _r
30 i 16
T .
• � ..: �•.
}. X 2C . .t'ru
::�t,..i..X'...,��+«aw iC.��
t I
j
24 15
{. ,l.Tv°. -, ': ..r.
r J r..: V } _ •.4 •.vS:.; d. t •Y }` :4 �4. •r. fi:: A: 4: H:
� . 2: Y' s; �S�-:• 6,; hq,,; y;. .x'��7..4i•- ^:i::L: rr::d:rcS & }: &Ki6" .. ..
'4 y•
::
i.n�i4wq:`� ��''
,. ••T•.•t ••� 6
.:. .. ..
�.>,
,E.u,
_•••_•• -`__
. _ i • �•
-�- mm 2
W. %4::X'. �N
: 16
i
�,• •rr
r ..: C >.:)..
.a. �: >.S.i{�2 v
{a`3f�.,r. «x:a. «,. «. « �«
r�
I
E 4
C. y:l,.. y
i,' 4N -.. ,
d....r. :. r. Y: a•} n�: Sr:ui�` ���r,
1.
y q m•. , ., .,.}�..�., .
:O"...
A: d:`4 :.X:.:Y`•
. «
«,.«,.... ,-.":. �:. z«:.«>: S�t`
j .. ..«.....®..�... «. «............g
h "'iSi': .
r., �i}.. �N..
» .
::r.: 4J:
�.. A...,...2.'°p,:°r.+,rti.;a......
3. EA Produclion M .4`i..r'>i
111 tom IIe ddmTru°LratT+c .,...„ • Grachits, Ap G�s TOC:
` b . . .'R7
..; .
✓. :: f'�"•;': "^C;'. r:ib .: .L .: � rap
a3 :•rta . . rt .. . . +4•• ! K +m�n fi :• x � ; .•, -
::. ,...<. :'{t: ;2!:
.�:>}.} .,F.v,. :Ah}Y'. .: #- :,.•a•i..?"..: »., ?..,- ::.C: n.:2v..2d...3C..:. , a,:f3. k . : ,,h
. ,? a- :. � ....r. Y... «...._.....,.. «,. «. .... }:�,•,;,
...;b «i��w.` «:...�
4 Ayer and Public Re
�.. ,. •• .
'4.1 Rev^ ns based on bay Review• of Aemlrtstra:Mve Draft A
"4,1�R!nL91on9 based On At�OrtC Revie'.v cYAifml LYt�''' Ue1Ne Draft EA (SRTC w5001:
1 1
8 .
e 1
- Jr
4.3 Final I:dnoriaf an ' Ewac Review
20
.,�� -•_
._� -
�$$:'s0: ,2 4-,
«:........... « :`�:5;
».._._._._
2
11 Ti
d
a
10
• ..10
:.;yJv. { ".S.i�V"•f:.
«, .«ct...«..a...,.ce�.'.:_.: �•�
8
8
d
� - • o
1 1
4 4 f�wtice of M'ailab5 Issuanco _ ,,,,�
i
4.5 Puh.C.c Hc. nn
4, and.tge Comment Ri ngtsnsc AlaImI ��
ca..: :'..: .. :.. .. 41.. .:. r Ring :me y. • ..., i . �,:.N,:: ... :..: . :,:
< :}.N
�1h.., ¢. .} . { ...: 4 ,:.. ✓ ' . r . } >{ >{).[: v:$ •H s }. Y.i. ..{
;a :.r:.uk : �- h J .. ;L:.,,,..:.�..�'" f EA X S=P � {,..t�.:...:.•fw� «;. �C;..
5. Issuance of t-' and Adoption o for A Cocnpllance
ri waft ldF1.0o
1
1 4 1
,.o, :b..
; .:y: .: 3 ..�
..V•:4 2b'. >`
- .
• ' .... ___
- - - --
f
t
i F
1 i
>..
` +$5F�''. }: }vrtwi0'
`. 2. .$:: '<S.�'i
r: X»}. ..x.....,�) »h »x » # »hcx�..:
1 « • .....
5929
S 11!0
51 950
4
4 •..�
,..r..;,:.w: <e:.:.••
` L
I
'-- i
i �� _
4..
� 4.•::.:
IA iii A
5710
SI 150
51 050
Y P:�:4r .
..L2 }}{
«:rt.:.f........
5920
f 1,°1
5320
51070
1 %� ' . y : i ">'.
?. «.
� ~��
-
-�-
.� "'�.:..�a:.r:�x�:W:
« « « mmm
•" '
._ J�
--
C4.:'
t.
'> :��4
z p
..K.1 .5....N'.
1 : .. �c��.t.:i:
5920
«,
.«...._..
5.2 Coordhetbn on FONSI rC. - ens
.... _.....�._... .._..... ..� .....e- .._............__
5.3 Put Gc Hcarirt� far �A SEPA nd�l nn
p. 4 F"'iia n o r EA
51 231
5428
i
a
. .......
5600
4 ?
'Total hours
Billing rates (2004 9e11e11Ie)
90 252 72 422 40 48 70 60 88
8158 5115 5125 585 585 5110 5125 5115 5115
98 32 30
570 5M 550
Subtotals
513,9"50 $32.450 $9,000 532870 53 , 400 55.280 59,750 55,9011 510,120
€120,700
56,850 51.7 51,5130
€10,120
1136,820
Direct Expenses
521.00 Meals, and Lodging
522,00 Airfares
5231 Computer/Faxes
523,02 Reprodvctbrts
523,04 Postage and Delivery
523,05 Travel, Auto, Incld, Mileage
523,07 Surveys and Reports
Mark up of 9.5% on all non-tahnr costa and subnontraetors
0toc1 ourcnse subtotal
56.197
Yotal pace 5143.00;
Palo print. `. , '.4 1029 AM
Spokane Valley Corridor Ewtrorlmontal Assessment
Approved,•,. . - e
512052 cc .13PW.Cenidcc Cott l" '.'a. C
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: June 29, 2004 City Manager Sign -off:
Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing
❑ information X admin. report ❑ pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Bicycle Helmet Safety Support
GOVERNING LEGISLATION:
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Received power point presentation from Spokane
Regional Health District on issues relating to helmet safety.
BACKGROUND: After receiving the SRHD presentation, which focused only on the potential
positive results of adopting a helmet ordinance, several City Council members expressed a
desire to analyze potential negatives if the proposed helmet safety ordinance were to be
adopted. Staff has been provided with a working draft proposal that the City of Spokane and
the SRHD have been collaborating on in the past several weeks. The comments contained
herein, as well as in our power point presentation, relate to that working draft proposed
ordinance being considered by the City of Spokane.
OPTIONS: Request staff to perform additional research, draft a proposed ordinance for further
discussion and possible adoption, or to instruct staff to not pursue the issue further.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: NA
BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None at this time.
STAFF CONTACT: Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney/ Cal Walker, Police Chief.
ATTACHMENTS:
ISSUES Rla:A TO THE
PROPOSED HELMET LAW
Legal issues discussed by Cary
Driskell, Deputy City Attomey
- Policing issues discussed by Cal
Walker, Chief of Police
:Legal issues with proposed helmet law:
°'Enforcement discretionary rat:her than
mandatory.
° Opens door to allegation of
discriminatory enforcement.
° Opens door to allegation of
arbitrary and capricious enforcement..
Legal issues with proposed helmet law:
° l)efininon of "guardian" is problemari
• ° "means a parent; legal guardian,
adult with custody, or temporary
guardian, who maintains
responsibility, whet:her voluntary or
otherwise, for the safety and welfare
of a person under the age of 16
years."
1
1 -kg:►1 issues with proposed helmet. late:
° laetluuxernent that parent or guardian
snake sure chinstrap is "fastened securely."
° open to interpretation.
° relies on judgment of young
children as to adequacy of "securely."
t Legal issues with proposed helmet law:
° - Issuing citations to children.
° Does not provide minimum ►gc for
citation.
° Question whether child would turn
over citation to parent or guardian.
° If unpaid and goes to collection,
action would be against parent, who
is responsible for debts of child.
2
ISSUES RELATING TO
THE PROPOSED HELMET
LAW
Policing Issues — Discussed by Cal Walker,
Chief of Police
Policing Issues
o THERE IS A COMMUNITY NEED FOR HELMET
USE, AWARENESS, SAFETY, AND
REGULATION.
o OUR AGENCY WORKS AS AN ACTIVE
PARTNER IN EDUCATIONAL AND REWARD -
DRIVEN AWARENESS PROGRAMS.
o ANY CONSIDERED ORDINANCE NEE..DS TO
BE COMPLETELY CLEAR, CONCISE AND
MUST NOT BE AMBIGUOUS, VAGUE, OR
OPEN TO MISUNDERSTANDING BECAUSE OF
TOO MANY VARIABLES.
Policing Issues
a VERBIAGE NIiFDS TO DEFINE A CLEAR.
REASONABLE STANDARD OF CULPABILITY FOR
WHO IS RESPONSIBLE,. AND FLOW TI IAT
RESPONSIBIL IS FOLLOWED 'THROUGH IN A
CIVIL INFRACTION PROCESS. (FINANCIALLY /
DEFENSIBLY 1 AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES)
o PAST PRESENTATION OF INFORMATION TO
COUNCIL INCLUDED STATEMENTS THAT THERE
MIGHT BE NO REAL INTENTION 10 CFIE OR
ENFORCE, BUT 111E ORDNANCE WOULD BE USED
AS A TOOL TO STOP AND TALK TO PEOPLE AND TO
ENHANCE. EDUCATION.
1
Policing lssues
GENUINE CONCERN THAT LIS TYPEOFMESSAGE.
MAY FEED A MISCONCEPTION THAT WE MIGHT USE
LAWS LIKE THESE TO CONDUCT PRE.TEXTIJAI.
STOPS, OUR AGENCY DOES NOT OPERATE UNDER
THIS PREMISE., ALL OFFICERS ARE FREE TO STOP
AND TALK TO ANYONE, AND THE PUBLIC IS
CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED TO CHOOSE
WHETHER THEY STOP AND TALK WTITI US, UNLESS
WE CAN ARTICULATE A SPECIFIC REASON TO
DETAIN THEM FOR INVESTIGATIVE. MATTERS, WE
WILL NOT USE ANY LAW OR ORDINANCE IN A
PRETEXTUAL MANNER,
Policing Issues
o EVEN WELL WRITTEN LAW CAN RESULT IN
BAD CASE LAW (i.e., SUSPENDED DRIVER
RULINGS)_ WE NEED TO CONSIDER COURT
INTERPRE'T'ATION LN ORDINANCE DESIGN.
❑ MAY BE A NEED FOR LEGISLATION.
COUNCIL MIGHT CONSIDER LOOKING AT
OTHER APPROACHES IN DEFINING
RESPONSIBILITY, CULPABILITY, AND
DEV1CFS COVERED BY ANY PENDING
LEGISLATIVE ACTION.
2
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: June 29, 2004 City Manager Sign -off:
Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing
® information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE : Library Advisory Committee Update
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: N/A
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: In February 2004, Council approved a library service
agreement with the Spokane County Library District (SCLD). On May 11, 2004, staff provided
an update on the work of the Library Capital Facilities Advisory Committee.
BACKGROUND: The 2004 Library services agreement with SCLD included the formation of a
Library Capital Facilities Advisory Committee. The Committee held its third meeting on June 10.
Deputy Mayor Diana Wilhite is the Council representative on the committee.
This agenda item provides an update on the work of the committee. An open house was held at
the Valley Library branch on May 27, with approximately 75 people attending. The attached
powerpoint presentation provides highlights of the open house.
OPTIONS: N/A
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: N/A
BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None at this time, though any capital improvements would
require a financial investment.
STAFF CONTACT: Nina Regor, Deputy City Manager
ATTACHMENTS
1. Powerpoint Presentation
LIBRARY CAPITAL
ADVISORY COMMITTEE
UPDATE
Nina Regor, Deputy City Manager June 29, 2004
Library Open House
o Open House held May 27, 2004
e Approximately 75 people attended
o 55 placed pins on the residency map
o 41 inside city limits; 14 outside
G 62 surveys were completed and returned
o 36 inside city limits; 24 outside; 2 didn't know
June 29, 2004 2
1
Summary of Open House
Survey Results
e 90% very satisfied with convenience of
location
97% very satisfied with hours opened
99% very satisfied with customer service
June 29, 2004
3
Options Proposed for
Library Facilities
a Leave three branches as -is (88% favor /4% oppose)
O Replace Valley branch with a new, larger main
library; leave Argonne & Otis Orchards as -is
(66 %/26 %)
o Leave three branches as -is; add one or two
branches in Spokane Valley (46%/31%)
O Replace Valley branch with a new, larger main
library; add one or two branches in SV; leave
Argonne & Otis Orchards as -is (22 %165 %)
June 29, 2004 4
2
Support for Tax Increase
(Bonds)
• New main library (25% favor /70% oppose)
New main library + 1 branch (11%/79%)
O New main library + 2 branches (11%/82%)
G Retain Valley branch + 1 branch (62 %/22 %)
Retain Valley branch + 2 branches
(57 %/30 %)
Juno 29, 2004 5
3
C
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: June 29, 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: Draft Junk Vehicle Towing Contract with Spalding Auto Parts, Inc.
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: SVMC 7.10 and SVMC 9.10
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Staff has discussed towing - related issues with the
Council on numerous occasions over the past months on issues relating to the police tow list
and on junk vehicles.
BACKGROUND:
Staff has discussed with Council the issues relating to having a business handle all of the tows
arising from Judicial Abatement Orders issued by a judge pursuant to the Junk Vehicle
Ordinance.
This has been a long, complicated process in finding a way to remove junk vehicles under the
Ordinance for as low to no cost to the City as possible. Nearly all such tows will be voluntary in
the sense that once we ask the owner to remove the vehicle, and the owner understands the
ramifications of not removing the vehicle at our request, the owner will call one of the vehicle
hulkers (recyclers), which will arrange with a tow operator to have the vehicle removed and
towed to the hulker's facility. To the best of my knowledge, the only hulkers in our area are
Spalding and AA, in south Spokane. Most of that has already been dealt with. The remaining
part that still needs resolution is those tows where the vehicle owner refuses to remove the
vehicle(s).
In that instance, staff would go through the Notice of Violation process and seek a Judicial
Abatement Order in Spokane County Superior Court. That Order would authorize the removal
of the vehicle by court order (along with court costs and attorney fees). We would then turn that
paperwork over to a contractor (proposed to be Spalding) for removal. That process is outlined
in the proposed contract.
This contract is anticipated to have limited application, and would hopefully be utilized in no
more than 10 -20 vehicles per year. The parties recognize there may be more in the first year
due to the current backlog of junk vehicles in the City.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Consensus to place the proposed contract on the
next regular session for approval consideration.
BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None anticipated.
STAFF CONTACT: Cary P. Driskell, Deputy City Attorney
ATTACHMENTS: (1) Copy of proposed draft Agreement.
Title: "Junk Vehicle Tow Contract Resulting from Judicial Abatement Orders" between
City of Spokane Valley and Spalding Auto Parts, Inc.; Contract number "Junk
Vehicle Tow Contract (JVTC) 04 -01.
Term: This Contract expires (two years from date of signing). Either
party may terminate this Agreement by sixty (60) days written notice to the other
ply.
CITY:
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON
JUNK VEHICLE TOW CONTRACT RESULTING FROM JUDICIAL
ABATEMENT ORDERS, ARISING FROM SPOKANE VALLEY'S JUNK
VEHICLE ORDINANCE, SVMC 7.10
City of Spokane Valley, Washington
Office of City Attorney
11707 East Sprague, Suite 106
Spokane Valley, WA 99206
Contact: Cary P. Driskell, Deputy City Attorney
Phone: (509) 688 -0029
Fax: (509) 921 -1008
e -mail:
cdriskell@spokanevalley.org
CONTRACTOR:
Spalding Auto Parts, Inc.
2210 North University Road
Spokane Valley, WA 99206 -4782
Contact: Russ Spalding
Phone: 924 -3300
Fax: 928 -2454
e -mail: russs @spaldings.com
DEPARTMENT:
City of Spokane Valley Police Department
12710 East Sprague
Spokane Valley, WA 99216
Contact: Sergeant Martin O'Leary
Phone: (509) 477 — 3300
Fax: (509) 477 -3333
e -mail: molearv(spokanesheriff.org
1
WHEREAS, this Contract is entered into on
Spokane Valley ( "City "), and Spalding Auto Parts, Inc.,
sometimes jointly referred to as "parties "; and
WHEREAS, the parties mutually recognize the
vehicles from private property due to the negative health,
by the continued existence of said junk vehicles; and
WHEREAS the City desires to contract with one entity on tows arising from
judicial abatement orders under the SVMC 7.10,080.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual promises set forth
herein, the parties do mutually agree as follows:
SECTION ONE: SUBJECT AND PURPOSE.
This contract will be used for the performance of tows after obtaining a judicial
abatement order pursuant to Spokane Valley Municipal Code 7.10, as adopted or
hereafter amended.
SECTION TWO: DURATION OF CONTRACT
Unless otherwise agreed by the parties, the contract is for two years from the date
of acceptance by the City.
SECTION THREE: RESPONSIBILITIES OF CONTRACTOR
2004, between the City of
( "Spalding" or "Contractor "),
necessity for removing junk
safety welfare impacts caused
3.1 Once City has obtained a judicial abatement order from Spokane County
Superior Court, which provides full legal authority for City to abate a specified nuisance
in a lawful manner, City shall transfer all appropriate paperwork to Spalding so that
Spalding, or a subcontractor thereof, can carry out the abatement pursuant to the Judicial
Abatement Order. Spalding, or any subcontractor used by Spalding in carrying out the
requirements of this Agreement, shall conform to the liability insurance requirements set
forth in SVMC 9.10.050.
3.2 Spalding shall be required to arrange for abatement no later than 72 hours
after receiving the Judicial Abatement Order from the City.
3.3 All vehicles removed under this Agreement shall be hauled to Spalding
Auto Parts, Inc., located at 2210 North University Road, Spokane Valley, WA 99206.
Spalding further agrees to receive all vehicles subject to Judicial Abatement Orders for
the term of this Agreement.
3.4 All vehicles received by Spalding pursuant to this A.greement shall be
crushed, recycled for parts, or otherwise reduced to scrap.
2
SECTION FOUR: RESPONSIBILITIES OF CITY
City shall be responsible for obtaining and providing the Judicial Abatement
Order to Spalding, which provides the authority for Spalding to conduct the abatement.
SECTION FIVE: COMPENSATION
There will be no monetary compensation provided by either City or Contractor
under this contract. The consideration for Spalding is the opportunity to receive the scrap
value of the vehicle for disposal pursuant to Section 3.4 of this Contract. The
consideration for City is that Spalding will assist in the removal of junk vehicles in
furtherance. of the health safety and welfare of the citizens of the City.
SECTION SIX: MAINTENANCE OF RECORDS
Spalding shall make available to the City Police Department, at any time during
their normal operating hours, all records, books or pertinent information which the
Contractor shall have kept in conjunction with this Agreement for a period of not less
than three years.
SECTION SEVEN: COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS
Contractor, in the performance of this agreement, agrees to comply with all
applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances and regulations.
SECTION EIGHT: MODIFICATION
No modification or amendment to this agreement shall be valid until the same is
reduced to writing and signed by a duly authorized representative for Contractor and
City.
SECTION NINE: HOLD I- IA.RMLESS
Each party shall indemnify and hold the other, its officers, employees, agents and
volunteers harmless from and against any and all claims, demands, orders, decrees or
judgments for injuries, death or damage to any person or property arising or resulting
from any act or omission on the part of said party or its agents, employees or volunteers
in the performance of this Agreement.
SECTION TEN: RELATIONSHIP OF THE PARTIES
It is intended that an independent relationship will be created by this Agreement.
The City is interested only in the results to be achieved, and the conduct and control of all
services or work will lie solely with the Contractor. No agent, employee, servant or
otherwise of the Contractor shall be or shall be deemed to be an employee, agent, servant
3
or otherwise of the City for any purpose, and the employees of the Contractor are not
entitled to any of the benefits that the City provides for City employees. The Contractor
shall be solely and entirely responsible for its acts and for the acts of its agents,
employees, servants, subcontractor, or otherwise during the performance of this
Agreement.
SECTION ELEVEN: SEVERABILITY
In the event any term or condition of this Agreement or application thereof to any
person or circumstances is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other terms,
conditions, or applications of this Agreement which can be given effect without the
invalid term, condition, or application. To this end, the terms and conditions of this
Agreement are declared severable.
SECTION TWELVE: INTEGRATION
This Agreement contains all the terms and conditions agreed upon by the parties.
No other understanding, oral or otherwise regarding the subject matter of the Agreement
shall be deemed to exist or to bind any of the parties. The parties have read and
understand the Agreement and now state that no representations, promises, or agreements
not expressed by the contract have been made to induce the other to execute the same.
EXECUTED this day of , 20
SPALDING AUTO PARTS, INC. CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
By: 13y:
4
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: June 29, 2004 City Manager Sign -off:
Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing
® information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: POLICY ISSUES CONCERNING A POSSIBLE NEW CITY HALL
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: N/A
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: N/A
BACKGROUND: One of the projects on the 2004 work plan is to develop and evaluate options
for a City Hall. The attached powerpoint presentation describes some decision points
concerning the project. Feedback from Council on these topics during the meeting will help
refine the options.
OPTIONS: Build a new facility; retrofit an existing building; continue to lease at current or other
location.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Provide feedback to staff
BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Financial impacts of a new City Hall will be determined once
options are better defined.
STAFF CONTACT: Nina Regor, Deputy City Manager
ATTACHMENTS
1. Powerpoint presentation
Policy Issues
Concerning a
New City Hall
Nina Regor, Deputy City Manager
June 29, 2004
sow /
_ 1ler
r •:: aa.rc+srifffe
1
City Hall Decision Points
• City Hall as a public investment in the
community vs an office building housing City
Departments
• Type of building (new vs retrofit)
• Location preference
• Other amenities and considerations
3
City Hall as an office building
• Houses City Departments
• May be a stand alone location
• May be less expensive
4
2
l
City Hall as a public investment
• May spur redevelopment
• May help define City identity
• May be natural co- location partners
• May be more expensive
5
Type of Building
• Design and build a new building
• Retrofit an existing building
• Continue to lease here or elsewhere
6
3
• Sprague Corridor
• Mirabeau / CenterPlace
• U -City
• Other arterial
Other amenities and considerations
• Public Art
• Public Plaza or other community gathering
place
• Public Transportation
• Accessible by Tight rail (if it is approved)
• Others?
B
4
Financial Considerations
• Land purchase
• Building construction
• Retrofitting costs
• Subleasing /Phase -in of move
• Furnishings /Fixtures
• Identify options based on feedback
• Complete cost benefit analysis of options
• Present to Council for consideration
5
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: June 29, 2004 City Manager Sign -off:
Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ® old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing
® information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Administrative Report. Clear View Triangles
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Spokane Valley Ordinance 03 -53 and 03 -83.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: None.
BACKGROUND: Ordinance No. 03 -83 (the "Nuisance Ordinance) provides that the Public
Works Director will promulgate policies relative to "clear view triangles ". A "Clear View Triangle"
is intended to assure adequate visibility at the intersection of public streets with other streets,
alleys and commercial driveways to protect motorists and pedestrians. Different standards are
applicable to "uncontrolled" and "stop controlled intersections ". Section 14.810.020 of the
Interim Zoning Regulations provides measuring standards for "clear view" triangles and
regulates the placement of fences and vegetative screens, including hedges and shrubbery,
although the provisions have never been enforced and may be more appropriate to rural
systems than urban areas. The provision also regulates the fencing around swimming pools
which will be superseded by the International Codes on July 1, 2004.
The Public Works Department proposes to establish the requirements for "Clear View Triangles"
by ordinance, within the Spokane Valley Uniform Development Code, to be enforced by the
Community Development Department. The proposed standards will also relax the fencing
requirements along flanking streets to permit six foot fences, provided they do not encroach on
the 'clear view triangle ". The current standards only allow a 36 inch opaque fence or a 48 inch
cyclone fence in front or flanking street yards, although rear and other side yards are permitted
a six -foot opaque fence. The change will permit property owners a fence of uniform height
along rear and side property lines, provided the "clear view triangle" is maintained.
The proposed standards measure the triangle from the curb or edge of pavement, rather than
from the centerline of the street, as is presently the case. The proposed provisions correct the
problems of varying right -of -way widths and is more clearly understood by property owners.
The City presently has a significant number of problem intersections which will require
remediation as a result of existing fences as well as vegetative growth. The City may wish to
consider requiring fence permits to control the location of new fences and to avoid future
visibility issues.
A determination of Non - Significance was issued on May 26, 2004 and a draft proposal was
submitted to CTED and other agencies for their review. A public hearing will be held before the
Planning Commission prior to any consideration by the City Council.
OPTIONS: To recommend continuation of the process, to provide additional direction to staff,
or to recommend that the process be discontinued.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: None required.
BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Not applicable.
STAFF CONTACT: Marina Sukup, AICP, Community Development Director
Neil Kersten, Public Works Director
ATTACHMENTS:
Presentation
Memorandum Intersection Sight Triangles
Splikane
VaIley
Memorandum
To: Marina Sukup, Community Development Director
Through: Neil Kersten, Public Works Director
From: Don Ramsey, Traffic Engineer
CC: John Hohman, Senior Engineer
Date: June 15, 2004
Re: Intersection Sight Triangles
11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 • Spokane Valley WA 99206
509.921.1000 • Fax: 509.921.1008 • cityhall•spokanevalley.org
Ordinance 03 -83 requires the Public Works Director to promulgate standards for sight
triangles at intersections. The City's Zoning Code in section 14.810.020(2) establishes clear
view triangles for fences, vegetation and other sight obstructions. In case of conflict between
administrative standards and adopted ordinances, the adopted ordinance must prevail.
The clear view triangles specified in the zoning code appear to be intended for rural county
areas and road designs. The sizes of the triangles are suitable for higher speeds, narrower
roadways and larger actual building setbacks than are typical in urban areas.
The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASPITO) has
provided guidelines for determining clear sight triangles based on specific design speeds,
design vehicles and roadway width, alignment, markings, traffic controls and grades.
AASHTO procedures require a specific engineering study at each location to determine the
recommended sight triangle. AASHTO procedures would be dif'f'icult to effectively use.
I have reviewed clear zone requirements in several cities. Most cities have adopted specific
clear view triangles based on traffic controls and speeds. I have also studied the AASHTO
sight triangles for typical intersections using the current adopted street standards. Attached is
a study of a typical uncontrolled intersection with streets conforming to current standards.
I recommend that we closely follow the clear view triangle requirements used by the City of
Spokane. These standards have been used with success for many years locally.
The proposed standards are attached. It should be noted that the proposed uncontrolled
intersection case provides an AASHTO design speed of between 15 and 20 mph. The
standards for stop controlled intersections are based on AASTHO procedures with the design
speed equal to the speed limit.
The standards will cover most cases within the city and are in a format that could be directly
enforced by the Code Enforcement section. The traffic engineer can make the occasional
detennination for exceptional cases. Note the position and authority of the traffic engineer
has been established in the adopted traffic code.
The dimensional standards for sight triangles and clearances relative to walkway including
the size of the triangle, maximum object height and minimum tree branch height are split
between the nuisance ordinance and the zoning ordinance. The dimensional standards should
be consolidated into only one section of city code.
Attachments — Sight Distance Triangles, - Uncontrolled Intersections
Sight Distance Triangles, Various Intersections
.
'
,
-
•
•
.
:
%�
•
. •
'• •
� •
�.
SPOKANE
ZONING CODE
.•
, , ,,
, %
,• • ,�,
• 9 .• ♦
' '�
, . ,.4 :
, , ,
CITY OF
' •. .
. -, •.
.
. -,
.
• -,
. .
- • •
0
- ,
•,
��_
_; -
. • .,
., . •.
._ .
+ ,
,, ,
. -
. ,• .
. . .
.,� ,�. 1
% /
, , ,.
, `. . ,
,
.
•, -,
• . . • •
.,
•, • • •
• •
•
.,
`• .
` •
.'
• •
'
,%
I,
.
• 9
,
,.' ,
. , ,
, .
I ,
„
, . -
. - •
,
, ,
% •'
' FACE OF CURB OR EDGE
/- OF PAVEMENT (TYP)
AASHTO 20MPH
, . ,
. ,
, ��••
•
� .'
4
.
3Q
SCALE: 1 " =40'
nn ce
Spokane
401111011111 Valley
UNCONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS
SIGHT DISTANCE TRIANGLES
REV. DATE:
FILE: SD05.DWG
DRAWING NO.: 0405
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
THROUGH STREET
SEE TABLE A
In
w
w
L
o
\
64,
CURB OR 5'
FROM EDGE OF
PAVEMENT (TYP)
— STOP SIGN
TABLE A
POSTED SPEED
(IN MPH)
DISTANCE
(IN FT)
25
70
30
95
35
110
STOP CONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS
LOCAL ACCESS STREET
50'
w
w
w
1-
v)
ID
w in
0
0
Q
-J
Q
IF
CURB OR 5'
\___ FROM EDGE OF
PAVEMENT (TYP)
0
0
J
UNCONTROLLED INTERSECTIONS
SCALE: 1",=30'
c�ri �
SPOk ine
j Valley
VARIOUS INTERSECTIONS
SIGHT DISTANCE TRIANGLES
REV. DATE:
FILE: SD05.DWG
1 DRAWING NO.: 0405
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
j Val ley
View' View T'rriang Iles
'Community lDeyetapmenl Departme t
;Public W s Departmant S
- Juno 20, 2004
• Brief the City Council on issues associated with 'Clear
View Triangles'
Background
• The Nuisance Ordinance No. 03-83 on October 23,
2003 provides that the Public Works Director will
promulgate policies on 'Clear View Triangles'
• The Zoning regulations (Ordinance 03-53) regulates
the,pfacement.o fences and shrubbery which is
prohibited within the 'Clear View Triangle
• As written, the . standards ere diffcutt o enforce
w, • The iom p regulaf os 5,atso,regulate' e` 1'nees around ti
pools ru es . Scord ct
imml g
4f; _ . IAternat o al
c riy'1GUgiArfb,4;r
:[ot:lUCky
1
Clear View Triangle
N'egettdinn within deur- ilew triangle
Gramd
2
UNCONTROLLED
F , j INTERSECTION
e': • CURRENT
Center line of the road
110'x110'
3
CONTROLLED
INTERSECTION
• CURRENT
Center line of the road I.
32' x 400'
• PROPOSED
Curb/Edge Pavement
16 x varies wlspocd
(up to 110;)
Stop Controlled Intersection
Proposed
Special Cases
• May be established by the Traffic
Engineer in special cases, including but
not limited to: .
• arterials with posted speeds in excess of 35
m.p.h.
• one -way streets
• ',steep a e
pgradesand •
• sharp
oym
4
Fences
• Fences represent a considerable investment by the
property owner
• Side and rear privacy fences, especially for property
along arterials and residential collectors, may afford
the owner a better use of his/her properly
• BUT, it is much easier to inform the property owners
BEFORE they build the fence, rather than having'them
remove/relocate the fence because it intrudes on■the
dear view triangle'
This can only be. ao rnplished if a permit is required
Proposed Amendments
• Establish Section 7.06 of the Spokane Valley Uniform
Development Cods
• Amend Ordinance 03-83 to reference Section 7.06
SVUDC
• Delete provisions in the Interim Zoning Regulation
Section 14:810.020 Fences to detete,provisions in
conflict with SVUDC and Intonational Codes
Planning
hirwa :d
•
Comm ion
Ne 't >Steps <r
Heanng and
riecomvnendaticn
'heir a Public
5
36" Opaque
48" Cyclone
"Flanking" Street
Meeting Date: June 29, 2004 City Manager Sign -off:
Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing
❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation
X information
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Wastewater Issues
GOVERNING LEGISLATION:
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN:
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
BACKGROUND: Update on Wastewater issues.
1. Playfair EIS
• Spokane County Commission public hearing to adopt Draft Facilities Plan and select
a preferred site is scheduled for July 20, 2004.
• Spokane County letter to the City of Spokane requesting confirmation on use of the
site for the wastewater treatment plant. (see attached letter dated June 10, 2004)
2. SRF Loan
• Loan expires on August 16, 2004
• County is completing necessary loan submittal documents by the deadline.
3. UAAITMDL
• Draft UAA report to be submitted to DOE by September.
• The schedule for completion of the TMDL study by DOE is still unclear. If DOE
considers the UAA study and needs to revise their rules, it could take until 2007.
• DOE issued a Draft TMDL Implementation Strategy on June 21, 2004, see attached
document.
4. Regional Goverance Committee
• Committee reviewed draft proposal to study various regional governance structures
on June. The June 7, 2004 Draft is attached for your review.
• Committee will continue to review revised proposal in July.
• No decisions or recommendations at this time.
5. Treatment Plant Capacity
• County is evaluating extension of STEP program to 2012/2013.
• County is considering a hearing on July 20 to amend the code to allow suspension
of the 1 -year connection requirement.
• County's estimates this would extend capacity to 2014.
6. Interlocal Agreement
• We received the revised interlocal from the County on June 11, 2004.
• The interlocal has a number of changes made by the Commissioners and has been
reformatted by
• A cover memo from Bruce Rawls outlining the changes and a copy of the proposed
interlocal is attached for your review.
• Staff will review the interlocal and bring it back to the Council in the next several
weeks.
OPTIONS:
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION:
BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS:
STAFF CONTACT: Neil Kersten
ATTACHMENT:
lab t'
Y ,,•✓
O U N 7 Y
UTILITIES DIVISION
N. Bruce Rawls, PE., Utilities Director
June 10, 2004
Dale Arnold, Director of Wastewater
City of Spokane
East 909 Sprague Avenue
Spokane, WA 99201
Dear Dale:
A DIVISION OP THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT: NEW REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
Within the next month, I anticipate completion of a SEIS and draft Facilities Plan
Amendment to consider placing the new treatment plant on Playfair Racetrack
and including additional capacity in Phase I to accommodate 2.5 mgd of
wastewater from the City of Spokane. In addition, by the end of July, Spokane
County intends to finalize all documents necessary to secure the SRF loan offer
from the Department of Ecology for the project.
A key step in completion of these documents is a Board of County
Commissioners public hearing to adopt the draft Facilities Plan Amendment, and
to choose the preferred site for the new treatment plant. As you know, the Board
has previously approved the Stockyards as the preferred site for the new
treatment plant, and Ecology has approved the Facilities Plan for construction of
the new treatment plant on that site. However, those actions did not include any
provisions for wastewater flows from the City of Spokane.
The Board has informed me that before they will consider scheduling the public
hearing to review the Playfair Racetrack site, they will need a formal response
from the Mayor's office regarding the City's intentions. The points of interest
include:
• An indication that the City of Spokane has a continued interest to
participate in Phase I of the new treatment plant
• A commitment that sufficient land on the Playfair Racetrack site will be
available for purchase by Spokane County. The treatment plant could be
located on the Playfair site at either a) approximately 30 acres west of the
extended east right of way line of Lacey Street, along with a 36 foot
perpetual easement for access and for underground utilities along the
south property line of the Playfair properties to Haven Street; or b) 20
acres at the east side of the Playfair properties, lying next to Haven Street
Located at: 1026 W. Broadway, 4th Floor
1026 W. (Broadway • Spokane, WA 99260 -0430
(509) 477 -3604 • FAX: (509) 477 -4715 • TDD: (509) 477 -7133
• A commitment that the purchase price for the transfer of the property to
Spokane County will be at the same net cost when acquired by the City,
which price can be used to offset the proportionate share of the new
treatment plant costs to be born by the City of Spokane or can be in the
form of a warrant
I realize that your final decision on participation in this new treatment plant may
be based on which site is selected, as well as the cost projections included in the
draft Facilities Plan Amendment. I anticipate that you will receive a copy of the
draft before June 30
In order for me to complete all of the documents necessary to receive approval
of Ecology on the SRF loan, I need to have a hearing no later than July 20 A
hearing notice will need to be approved by the Board of County Commissioners
on June 29 Therefore, to keep Playfair under consideration for the new
regional wastewater treatment plant, we will need to receive the formal response
from the Mayor's office by June 28
understand and appreciate that the City of Spokane has continued to develop
ideas for the overall beneficial use of the Playfair Racetrack site. I also realize
that you may not have completed your review of the possibilities, nor involved the
citizens of the City in the review of the ideas. Unfortunately, we need to move
forward in the process of implementing the new regional wastewater treatment •
plant.
As you may remember, Spokane County made an inquiry back in March
regarding many of the same points raised in this letter. The City's response to
the inquiry did not provide specific answers to the Board of County
Commissioner's concerns. We hope that by now, enough progress has been
made by the City regarding uses for Playfair to provide the level of specificity
desired by the Board.
If you have any questions on this subject, please call me.
Sincerely,
rctA,
N. Bruce Rawls, P.E.
CC: Neil Kersten, City of Spokane Valley
Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County
— 2 — June 10, 2004
June 20, 2004
MEMORANDUM
Department of Ecology
Water Quality Program
To: TMDL Advisory Group for Spokane River Dissolved Oxygen (DO)
From: Ken Merrill
Subject: Draft proposal for DO TMDL and Implementation Strategy
Dear Advisory Group Members,
Consistent with Ecology's decision to not further delay the TMDL development, a draft
proposal for the basis of an approvable TMDL and implementation strategy has been
developed (attachment #1). In part, this proposal was made in response to a strategy
presented to Ecology on May 16, 2004, by representatives of the permitted dischargers to the
Spokane River (attachment #2).
Ecology's draft proposal was developed in consultation with EPA but it is not a final plan and
will need more detail with many opportunities for discussions and consideration of other
solutions. Please review the proposals provided and be prepared to come to the next TMDL
Advisory Group meeting on Tuesday, June 22 ", to attempt to find common ground and a long
term solution for managing the regions infrastructure needs and protecting the Spokane River.
Portion Of Study Area
Classification
Dissolved Oxygen Criterion
Lake Spokane (from Lake
Spokane Dam to Nine Mile
Bridge)
Lake Class
No measurable decrease from natural conditions.
(> 0.2 mg/L DO is considered measurable)
Spokane River (from Nine Mile
Bridge to the Idaho border)
Class A
Dissolved oxygen shall exceed 8.0 mg /L.
If "natural conditions" are less than the criteria, the
natural conditions shall constitute the water quality
criteria.
Attachment #1 — DRAFT - Ecology proposed TMDL and Summary Implementation Strategy
Spokane R. TMDL to Protect Dissolved Oxygen (DO)
Proposed Implementation Strategy (June -4 -04)
TMDL Goal — Meet WA water quality criteria for DO at the end of 10 -year compliance
schedule with significant interim DO improvements
Current Water Quality Impacts
• DO criteria in Lake Spokane and portions of the Spokane River are not met during the critical
conditions.
• Lake Spokane suffers from algae blooms during the critical periods of warm weather and low
flow. Along with contributing to oxygen demand, algae blooms also adversely affect aesthetics,
boating, and other recreational uses of the Lake.
• Low DO conditions in the Lake contribute to violations of the Spokane Indian Tribe's water
quality standards.
WQ Modeling Conclusions
• Algal production causes DO depletions beyond criterion during critical conditions in the River and
Lake.
• Phosphorus has the most significant impact on algal production in the Lake and River, but DO is
also impacted by BOD and ammonia.
• Both point source and nonpoint sources of pollutant loading contribute to violations of WQ
criterion ( "nonpoint sources of pollutant" do not include natural background phosphorus loads
from surface and groundwater sources).
• Current nonpoint pollutant loading alone, contributes nutrients in excess of the level needed to
meet DO criteria.
• Managing pollutant loads as proposed to protect Lake DO will also protect the river DO.
• Reducing BOD and phosphorus loads will reduce sediment oxygen demand over time allowing for
improved DO in the hypolimnion of the lake.
Assumptions for WLA and LA to meet TM
• Sensitivity of the Lake to nutrient loading and existing nonpoint loads allow no assimilative
capacity for point source phosphorus loading during critical conditions.
• There is no certainty that significant reduction of nutrient loading from nonpoint sources will
occur. An adaptive management approach will likely be required with follow -up monitoring after
large -scale watershed programs have become effective.
• Reduction in the Lake's sediment oxygen demand (SOD) from reduced algal productivity is
likely, but it will require further water quality monitoring over several years to quantify the effect.
Attachment #1 — DRAFT - Ecology proposed TMDL and Summary Implementation Strategy
Proposed implementation Strategy (see chart attached)
Phase 1 - Maximum Nutrient Reduction by 2009
• Submit TMDL to EPA for approval in December 2004.
• Reduce interim point source phosphorus loading by > 90% no later than 2009 using state-of-
science phosphorus removal ( <50 ug/L effluent TP).
• Interim allowable point source loading for total phosphorus CAPPED at existing flows using
state -of- science treatment.
• Significant reductions in CSO and Stormwater discharges completed.
• Any new or expanded discharger must share from existing interim allowable phosphorus loading
with a compliance schedule to eliminate the load or meet the natural background concentration by
2016.
• Dischargers of point source load must develop options for alternatives to river - disposal of
wastewater effluent and begin implementation for any expansion in flow during the critical season
and/or be capable of meeting natural background concentrations (10 ug/L TP).
• Nonppoint TMDLs must he completed for tributaries with detailed implementation plans and begin
implementation of best management practices (BMPs)
Phase 2 — Natural Background Phosphorus Loading by 2016
• Continue implementing nonpoint BMPs and monitoring - adapt plan based on monitoring results
and/or new information.
• Complete development and implementation of seasonal alternatives to river disposal using
reclaimed water reuse options and/or meet natural background concentrations for total phosphorus
(10 ug/L TP). Note — .discharge concentrations of total phosphorus meet natural background,
there is no need to limit the loading because the discharge will not increase the in- stream
concentration regardless of discharge volume.
• Perform Lake monitoring to confirm DO response to reduced nutrients and SOD reductions.
• If necessary, complete UAA and modify criteria / TMDL where appropriate.
• If monitoring and new information confirms that decreases in nonpoint loads will result in a DO
depletion of less than 0 2 mg/L DO, then adjustment to the point source WLA may be made.
YR
2004 I 2005 2006 2007 ' 2008 I 2009 2010 2011 2012 2113 2014 2015
t
TMDL Schedule ' TMDL -
w/ existing bV0 Exit eiia
Appraral Phase l - ,Interim •Nutient Removal � Phase 2 - Final TMDL Goal - Meet D.O. Criteria
• � 0.2 mg4_ DO decrease from natural condition by primarily phosphorus control
Point Sources
Planning for. Max TP removal . - b1AX TP
and reuse :Construction • removal in-
place
Meet natural background conc or Imp Reuse - Lake Monitor - Complete UM
I I
I I
Nonpoint Sources
1
"I'nbutary rMDLs completed with Imp Plan. :Begin Implement B+VIPs � Complete implement BMPew1 monitoring and adaptive approach
1
Point Source Phosphorus Loading Reduction
Existln f 1 Av t TP load •
Summer 2003
-
Max TP removal Load
(a75U uq/L -ail to river
If effluent TP meets natural background
concentration - then no need to 6rnd TP loading
Lord at TP
r? 10 our
Final goal
L to River
Drucheroer
f# /day
23.6
??
9.9
18.9 - .
-0.2
-17.0 -
159,4 .-
- NA
NA
Flow Intl
3.2 -
??
- 2.1'
..0.7.
. 0.1
4.8'
36.5
RA
NA
Miry
FlewMGD
kid fly
Flow NI GI)
CDA
Hayden
Post Falls
Liberty Lake
Kaiscr
IEP
City - Spokane
Spokane Co.
NPS Pollutant
_ .13
??
02
0.3
0.0
12 •
11.1
• 42
NA
3.2
??
2.1
0.7
0.1
2.8
26S
10.0
NA
0.3
??
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.2
2.2
0.8
??
32
??
2.1
02
0.1
2.8
23.5
10.0
7?
Tot. PS Load
229.0
18.9
3.8
DRAFT - Spokane River Proposed TMDL and Point Source Loading Reduction Strategy- DRAFT
* Includes 2 mg noncontact cooing wale from groundwater excluded from future calculations
Pt Sic compliance schedule implemented via common Administrative Order then rolled into all individual permits within 2 years
A
co
0'
0-3
n
O
O
cra
'C
0
it
0.
f
9
5)
Q
z
rn
ec
Attachment #1 — DRAFT - Ecology proposed TMDL and Summary Implementation Strategy
Attachment #2 — UAA Sponsor's proposed TMDL and Implementation Strategy — May 16, 2004
Spokane River Total Maximum Daily Load and Use Attainability Analysis
Discussion Session, May 17, 2004
• Washington Dept. of Ecology and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington
Operations Office
• City of Spokane and. Spokane County
Proposal:
I. TMDL Water Clean -up Plan
A. Phased implementation of a progressive phosphorous reduction program through an
integrated program
1. Pont source reduction
2 Non -point source reduction /
C. Plan relies on existing studies conducted by. Ecology and UAA Sponsors Group
N a
1. Value of AKART in reducing point sources -i ,."
2. Value of non -point source reduction
3. UAA completed and incorporated in water quality standards
4. Integrated approach to watershed control of point an non -point sources
B. Intended to achieve Dissolved Oxygen (DO) water quality standards
1. TMDL studies
2. UAA Sponsors study
A. AKART at RRP
A. AKART at remaining plants.
B. B. Implementation of non -point sources
II. Phase I achieves net reduction in P loading to river
A. Regional plant is authorized .to achieve net reduction in P loading to river
B. Current phosphorous TIvfDL allocation is revised
III. Phase U achieves additional reduction in phosphorous loading from Riverside Reclamation
Plant (RRP) and industrial sources
B. Joint development of comprehensive non -point sources control plan with Ecology and
appropriate jurisdictions
IV. Phase III achieves additional reduction in phosphorous loading from remaining point and
non -point sources
Point Source
Current
TMDL
2003
Phase I
Phase II
Phase III
Current: TMDL
loading; June
through
October
(see total)
Growing
Season,
effluent
loading
Proposed
"P ":
kg /day,
June
through
October
Proposed
"P ":
k da June
g/ y J
through
October
Proposed
"P ":
kg /day,
June
through
October
Regional Plant
NA
NA
AKART .
Riverside
Reclamation Plant
72.42
.. .
, "P" loading
reduced by
equivalent
a.mou.nt
treated at
Regional
Plant
Coeur d'Alene
10.71
AKART
Liberty Lake
-
8.56
AKART
Post Falls
4.5
AKART
Hayden Regional
NA
Land
apply /flow
based
Kaiser Aluminum
0.11
BPT
Inland Empire ..
Paper Co.
25kg /day
, ,
shared "bubble"
with all
industrial
dischargers;
contingent, I3AT
for industrial
park reduces P
loading further
7.72
BPT
Non -point
Sources
Attachment #2 — UAA Sponsor's proposed TMDL and Implementation Strategy — May 16, 2004
Spokane River Water Clean -up Concept Plan*
Lake CDA
63.07
Stormwater
1.40
Non -point
source
program
Hangman Cr
5.64
Non -point
source
program
CSO /Strm
6.83
Non -point
source
program
Little Spokane R.
35.74
.
Non -point
Source
program
Aquifer
Discharge
38.71
i'
Non -point
source
program
Total
255.41
'
N
Attenuated:
203.72
\`
Attachment #2 — UAA Sponsor's proposed TMDL and Implementation Strategy — Ma) 16, 2004
• See written narrative
• Relies upon TMDL studies and UAA
• Hydraulic loading handledseparately and independently from "P" loading
DRAFT
First Draft
Scope of Work and Budget Proposal
Spokane Regional Wastewater Alliance
Background
June 7, 2004
In a recent meeting of the Spokane Regional Wastewater Governance Committee, various
alternative governance structures were examined for the provision of wastewater treatment and
disposal throughout the Spokane regional area. The committee expressed interest in examining
these alternatives in greater detail, and more specifically, determining the interest or concerns of
each jurisdiction in further pursuit of a regional approach.
This scope of work and budget is presented to examine the key items cited above.
Task 1 — Define Project Objectives and Desired Outcomes
Task Goal: Define the following critical items:
• Definition of regional alliance
• Anticipated achievements of an alliance
CD • Level of interest in pursuit of a regional alliance
• Key objectives and outcomes desired by each jurisdiction
• Any "deal breaker" elements
• Common and conflicting parameters
• Schedule sensitivities for regional activities
• Threshold decision to proceed or not
Approach: This effort will be accomplished by meeting with public works, management, and
elected officials from each of the five jurisdictions, i.e., City of Spokane, City of Spokane
Valley, City of Liberty Lake, Liberty Lake Sewer and Water District, and Spokane County. in
addition, meetings will be held with key regional groups to solicit their input on the above goals.
Examples of the key groups may include the Spokane Regional Chamber of Commerce, Spokane
Valley Chamber of Commerce, Economic Development Council, Homebuilders Association, and
environmental and tribal representatives. In addition, meetings and discussions with the
Washington State Department of Ecology and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will also
occur to determine the regulatory perspective on regionalization. It is unclear precisely how
many meetings will be required to accomplish this task until a more exact number of entities and
representatives are established. however, for the purposes of drafting a range of budget
expectations, it has been assumed that there will be three meetings initially with each entity.
This includes initial discussions and subsequent follow - up meetings for clarification. in all
likelihood, there may be more meetings with the municipal jurisdictions and fewer with some
key interest groups. Forty meeting events including time for preparation, meeting, and follow -up
are preliminarily being used for budgeting purposes. The logistics of these meetings will be
Scope of Work and Budget Proposal 1
Spokane Regional Wastewater Alliance
DRAFT
coordinated to avoid separate trips or days for each meeting. A summary memo and meeting
with the Committee will present the findings of Task 1.
If it is determined that the process should proceed to Task 2, then a Letter of Intent will be
prepared for endorsement by the five jurisdictions that captures the regional definition,
anticipated benefits, and commitment of each jurisdiction to earnestly pursue a regional
wastewater alliance alternative.
Client Role: Accessible and active participation in meetings along with frank dialogue reflecting
the position of the jurisdiction as well as individual opinions.
Deliverables:
• Forty meetings with representatives of all entities
• Summary memorandum outlining the findings
• Committee meeting to discuss findings
• Threshold determination to proceed to Task 2, or stop.
Task 2 — Evaluate Alternatives
Task Goal: The purposes of this task are:
• Evaluate governance alternatives
• Evaluate solutions to conflicted parameters defined in Task 1
Approach: Economic and Engineering Services, Inc. (EES) will meet with the Committee to
concur, add, delete, or modify the governance alternatives already presented for consideration.
Using this list, EES will contact outside jurisdictions having implemented each of the
governance alternatives. These discussions will target information regarding their satisfaction
with its structure, effectiveness, representation, sustainability, management, financial vitality,
and other key items of interest. Of particular note will be features that have been modified and
why in their current governance system. In addition, these jurisdictions will be questioned to
determine if they experienced the same or similar "deal breaker" issues and, if so, how those
were dealt with effectively.
Client's Role: Active participation in meetings and effort to resolve or compromise on "deal
breaker" issues.
Deliverables:
• List of governance alternatives used for contact
• Summary of key elements of governance programs
• Potential solutions for "deal breakers"
Task 3 — Select Preferred Alternative
Task Goal: The primary goals of this task are:
June 7, 2004
Scope of Work and Budget Proposal 2
Spokane Regional Wastewater Alliance
`J
DRAFT June 7, 2004
• Conduct thorough review of governance alternatives
• Compare alternatives
• Select preferred alternatives
Approach:
Client's Role: Active participation in all meetings and decision process. The best opportunity
for a successful project hinges on a serious effort by each entity to cooperate in the spirit of due
diligence, perseverance, compromise, and regional benefit.
Deliverables: Preferred alternative.
Task 4 — Develop Implementation Strategy
Task Goal: This task will:
• identify the governance, personnel, technical, financial, and managerial aspects of
implementation
• Establish a sequence of activities leading to implementation
• Examine a pragmatic schedule of these activities
Approach: Evaluate these items in the committee forum.
Client's Role: Active participation in all meetings and decision process. The best opportunity
for a successful project hinges on a serious effort by each entity to cooperate in the spirit of due
diligence, perseverance, compromise, and regional benefit.
Deliverables: Written description of implementation strategy events and schedule milestones.
Task 5 — Implementation
Scope activities will be defined during Task 4.
Task 6 — Facilitation Services (Optional)
If the Regional Governance Committee desires to select EES for it facilitation services, then
John Maxwell will be the representative to provide these services at the monthly meetings of the
committee. This role and schedule will be jointly defined with the committee.
Budget
Pending
Scope of Work and Budget Proposal 3
Spokane Regional Wastewater Allianco
Memorandum
Date: June 11, 2004
To: Neil Kersten
From: N. Bruce Rawls
RE: Wastewater Agreement for Wastewater Management -
Spokane Valley
The attached Agreement has been substantially reorganized and edited. This
memorandum attempts to summarize the significant changes that have been made
since the previous draft Agreement. Any person reviewing this version of the draft
Agreement is encouraged to read all of the Sections, to ensure that the reader is
satisfied with the content and terms of the Agreement.
The County requested Steve DiJulio to reorganize the agreement into a more
concise format, and to eliminate inconsistencies within the document. Steve DiJulio
prepared the revised Agreement, including revisions to the provisions as directed by
the Board of County Commissioners and County Staff.
1. 'Whereas" clauses have been changed to Recitals and Findings.
2. Definitions have been consolidated into new Section 2.
3. Section 1 -2 of previous draft now included in Section 3.2, but language for
recovering franchise fees has been changed from may be recovered from the
CITY ratepayers to "shall be ".
4. Provisions for gross revenues tax, as included in Section 1 -3 of previous draft
has been deleted.
5. Section 1 -9 of the previous draft is now included in Section 3.4.2, and includes
provision for the City's Public Works Director to participate in consultant
selection for Rates Studies, and in the Rates Studies.
5/2512004 Memorandum: Wastewater Agreement for Wastewater
Management- Spokane Valley
2
6. Section 1 -13 of the previous draft has been removed from the draft
Agreement. This clause related to reimbursement to the City for work
performed on wastewater planning and development of treatment facility
capacity.
7. In Section 2 -7 of the previous draft, suggested insert relating to City approval
of uses of Sewer Reserve Fund has been deleted.
8. Section 3 -1 of the previous draft relating to treatment plant capacity has been
consolidated and revised into Section 7.1 of the new draft
9. Sections 3 -2 and 3 -3 of the previous draft have been consolidated to eliminate
speculative verbiage, and are included in Sections 7.2 through 7.4 of the new
draft.
10. Section 3.4.3 -the word "substantially" has been deleted with regards to when
differential rates might occur under a cost of service analysis
11. Section 4 of the previous draft relating to Industrial Pretreatment Program is
replaced with Section 8.3 of the new draft, and significantly condensed.
12. Section 5.3 -The first sentence regarding provision of available capacity for
sewer service has been edited.
13. Sections 11 and 12 of the previous draft are consolidated into Section 12 of
the new draft, relating to the Term and Duration of the Agreement, including a
process for termination or amendment of the Agreement.
14. If there are any questions or comments, please call me at 477 -7289.
Attachments -Draft Valley Agreement 5 -24 -04
Return to:
Board of County Commissioners
Clerk of the Board
1116 W. Broadway
Spokane, Washington 99206
Interlocal Agreement
Between the
City of Spokane Valley
and
Spokane County
Regarding
Wastewater Management
Valley Agreement 6 -1 1 -04
SECTION 1: RECITALS AND FINDINGS 1
SECTION 2: DEFINITIONS 2
2.1 Agreement
2.2 Aquifer Protection Area
2.3 Approved Industrial Pretreatment Program 2
2.4 Capital Facilities Rates
2.5 City 2
2.6 City Ratepayers 2
2.7 Department of Ecology
2.8 Effective Date 3
2.9 Franchise Fee 3
2.10 General Facility Charge or GFC 3
2.11 Party 3
2.12 Plan 3
2.13 Rates 3
2.14 SAWTP 3
2.15 Service Area 3
2.16 Sewer Code 3
2.17 Sewer Reserve Funds 3
2.18 Spokane County Code Or SCC 3
2.19 System 3
2.20 Termination Agreement 3
2.21 Utilities Division 3
2.22 Unincorporated Areas 4
2.23 Uncontrollable Circumstances 4
SECTION 3: OWNERSHIP, OPERATION, MAINTENANCE AND
ADMINISTRATION 4
3.1 County System 4
3.2 Franchise 4
3.3 Permits and Connections 4
3.4 Rates 5
3.5 City System 5
SECTION 4: PLANNING 6
4.1 Coordinated Comprehensive Planning 6
SECTION 5: DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF SEWERS 6
5.1 STEP Program 6
5.2 CIF' Planning 6
5.3 Sewer Extensions 6
5.4 Restoration of Right -of -Way 6
SECTION 6: FINANCE 7
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Valley Agreement 6 -11 -04
6.1 System Support 7
6.2 Financial Assistance 7
6.3 APA Reauthorization 7
6.4 Sewer Reserve Funds 7
SECTION 7: WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT CAPACITY 7
7.1 Current Capacity 7
7.2 New Capacity 7
7.3 Coordination 8
7.4 New Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant 8
SECTION 8: SEWER CODE AND REGULATORY CONTROLS 8
8.1 Sewer Code 8
8.2 Enforcement Delegation 8
8.3 Industrial Pretreatment 9
8.4 Assistance 9
SECTION 9: NOTICE 9
9.1 Notice 9
9.2 Addresses 9
SECTION 10: LIABILITY 9
10.1. County Indemnification 9
10.2 City Indemnification 10
1.0.3 Waiver of Immunity 10
10.4 Insurance 10
SECTION 11: GENERAL 10
11.1 Relationship Of The Parties 10
11.2 Modification 10
11.3 All Writings Contained Herein /Binding Effect 10
11.4 Jurisdiction And Venue 10
11.5 Records 11
11.6 Headings 11
1.1.7 Stationary 11
11.8 Time Essence Of Agreement 1 I
11.9 Assignment 11
11.10 Uncontrollable Circumstances/Impossibility 11
11.11 Filing 11
SECTION 12: TERM AND DURATION 12
SECTION 13: SEVERABILITY 12
SECTION 14: EFFECTIVE DATE 12
SECTION 15: EXECUTION AND APPROVAL 13
50433022.2
Valley Agreement 6 -11 -04
Valley Agreement 6 -11 -04
THIS INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF SPOKANE
VALLEY AND SPOKANE COUNTY REGARDING WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT
( "AGREEMENT ") is between the CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, a Washington municipal
corporation ( "CITY"), and SPOKANE COUNTY ( "COUNTY") a political subdivision,
generally hereinafl.er referred to as the PARTIES. The City and County agree as follows:
SECTION l: RECITALS AND FINDINGS
1.1 The CITY is located in the Aquifer Protection Area established by the COUNTY
by Ordinance 85 -061 dated July 30, 1985.
1.2 Prior to the incorporation of the CiTY, the COUNTY had, with the direction and
approval of the State of Washington Department of Ecology, begun the extension of sanitary
sewers within the Aquifer Protection Area, which area includes that area now incorporated as the
City of Spokane Valley, in accordance with a plan developed by the COUNTY.
1.3 The COUNTY has created, operates and maintains a sanitary sewer system under
chapter 36.94 RCW and other authority. The COUNTY maintains a Utilities Division within its
Public Works Department capable of implementing the completion of the sanitary sewer
program to standards acceptable to the CITY.
1.4 The COUNTY has prepared and adopted the Spokane County 2001
Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan for implementation of a sewer program for the
Urban Growth Areas within the Aquifer Protection Area.
1.5 The CITY wishes to see the completion of the sanitary sewer system to protect
and serve the CITY's residents, businesses, and the aquifer.
1.6 The COUNTY has received an Extended Grant from the State of Washington
Centennial Clean Water Fund to be used to reduce cost impacts of sewer construction in the
Aquifer Protection Area.
1.7 Pursuant to the provisions of chapter 36.36 RCW, the citizens of the COUNTY
voted to implement an APA Fee to provide a financing method to preserve, protect, and
rehabilitate the Spokane Rathdrum Aquifer, which Fee will sunset in year 2005 unless it is
reauthorized by the voters.
1.8 The COUNTY, prior to November 4, 2003, had historically allocated one - eighth
of 1% local option sales tax revenues collected pursuant to RCW 82.14.030(2) to the sewer
utility to subsidize the cost of sewers. The COUNTY has accumulated substantial fund balances
in the sewer utility fund(s) from connection fees, wastewater treatment charges, sales tax
allocations and APA Fees. A substantial portion of the APA Fees, sales tax revenues, connection
fees, and wastewater treatment charges were contributed from within the area of the CITY. The
COUNTY has had a policy of assisting property owners in the unincorporated areas, which
- -� included the CITY, by reducing the net cost of the Capital Facilities Charge Rate (CFR) paid by
each property within the sewer program.
Valley Agreement 6 -11 -04
1.9 Pursuant to the provisions of RCW 36.94.180, in the event of an incorporation of
an area in which a county is operating a sewerage system, the property, facilities, and equipment
of such sewerage system lying within the incorporated area may be transferred to a city if such
transfer will not materially affect the operation of any of the remaining county system, subject to
the assumption by the city of the county's obligations relating to such property, facilities, and
equipment, under the procedures specified in and pursuant to the authority contained in chapter
35.13A RCW.
1.10 The COUNTY and CITY are obligated to complete the elimination of septic tanks
in the Urban Growth Area by extending sewer service to all properties to the extent practicable.
1.11 The COUNTY owns, operates, and maintains the existing public sewer System
within the CITY and public sewer systems in other areas of the County.
1.12 The purpose of this Agreement is to provide for the ongoing operation of the
COUNTY System within the CITY and to provide integrated planning and development of the
System to provide capacity for planned growth and development within the CITY.
SECTION 2: DEFINITIONS
2.1 Agreement. "Agreement" means this Interlocal Agreement between the City and
County regarding Wastewater Management.
2.2 Aquifer Protection Area. "Aquifer Protection Area" or "APA" means that
program and area established by County Ordinance 85 -061, and as it may be extended, renewed,
or reauthorized from time to time pursuant to law.
2.3 Approved Industrial Pretreatment Program. "Approved Industrial Pretreatment
Program" or "AIPP" means that program, law and policies approved by Ecology June 5, 1988,
including Chapter 8.03, Article 4000 of the Spokane County Code, as may be amended from
time to time.
2.4 Capital Facilities Rates. "Capital Facilities Rate" or "CFR" has the definition set
forth in SCC 8.03.1135.
50433 42
2.5 City. "City" means the City of Spokane Valley.
2.6 City Ra "City Ratepayers" means those properties within the City
connected to or within Service Area of System.
2.7 Department of Ecology. "Ecology" means the Department of Ecology of the
State of Washington.
-2-
2.8 Effective Date. "Effective Date" means June 1, 2004.
Valley Agreement 6 -11 -04
2.9 Franchise Fee. "Franchise Fee" means such fee, tax (including utility tax) or
other levy, charge or imposition made by City on the receipts by County from System operation
within the City.
2.10 General Facility Charee or GFC. "General Facility Charge or "GFC" has that
definition set forth in SCC 8.03.1249.
2.11 Party. "Party" means City or County. "Parties" mean City and County.
2.12 Plan. "Plan" means the Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan of the
County as it may be amended from time to time.
2.13 Rates. "Rates" means all fees, rates, charges or other costs and impositions for
System service to System users, including but not limited to CFRs and GFCs.
2.1.4 SAWTP. "SAWTP" means the City of Spokane Advanced Wastewater
Treatment Plant.
2.15 Service Area. "Service Area" means City, Unincorporated Areas, or other areas
identified in the Plan for wastewater service.
2.16 Sewer Code. "Sewer Code" means Chapter 8.03 SCC.
2.17 Sewer Reserve Funds. "Sewer Reserve Funds" shall mean those monies reflected
in County Budget Funds 403, 436, and 438, indicated as Beginning and End Fund Balances.
2.18 Spokane County Code Or SCC. "Spokane County Code" or "SCC" means the
enacted laws of general application in the County.
2.19 System. "System" shall mean the County's system of sewerage, including all
publicly owned sewers, manholes, appurtenances, and pumping stations within public rights of
way or within public easements within the CITY. For purposes of this Agreement, the "System"
shall not include the County's system of sewerage, which services unincorporated areas outside
of the CITY, such as North Spokane. If the County implements a new regional wastewater
treatment plant, as referenced in Section 7 of this Agreement, the new regional wastewater
treatment plant shall become a part of the "System ".
2.20 Termination Agreement. "Termination Agreement" shall mean that agreement or
agreements that terminate or modify this Agreement.
2.21 Utilities Division. "Utilities Division" means that division of County government
assigned to manage the System.
SO633DZ2.02
-3-
2.22 Unincorporated Areas. "Unincorporated Areas" means these areas within the
County that are now, or in the future, identified in the Plan for wastewater service, but are not
located within a city or town.
2/3 Uncontrollable Circumstances. "Uncontrollable Circumstances" means only the
following and no other events: riots, wars, civil disturbances, insurrections, acts of terrorism,
external fires and floods, volcanic eruptions, lightning or earthquakes at or near any of the
System and/or that directly affect the operation of the System.
SECTION 3: OWNERSHIP, OPERATION, MAINTENANCE AND
ADMINISTRATION
3.1 County System. The CITY authorizes the COUNTY to own, operate and
maintain the System within the CITY. The ownership of all property and equipment utilized by
the COUNTY under the terms of this Agreement shall remain with the COUNTY.
3.2 Franchise.
3.3 Permits and Connections.
Valley Agreement 6 -11 -04
3.2.1 This Agreement is the CITY's grant of franchise to the COUNTY for use
of CITY public right of way for the System.
3.2.2 The CITY may charge a franchise fee to the COUNTY for said franchise.
If the CITY chooses to charge or adjust a franchise fee, the CITY shall notify the COUNTY in
writing not later than September 1st of the preceding year, effective as of January l`` for the
following year, of the intent to charge or adjust the franchise fee, including the new amount to be
charged. The franchise fee shall be limited to the CITY costs incurred in the granting and
administration of the franchise. Any franchise fee charged by the CITY shall be recovered in
total from the CITY ratepayers through the process set forth hereinafter for differential fees,
rates, and charges.
3.3.1 All permits issued by the COUNTY for connection to the System shall be
reported to the CITY. The COUNTY will direct sewer installers to the CITY for permits to work
in the CITY rights of way. CITY shall retain all fees for right of way permits.
3.3.2 Each year in January, the COUNTY will report to the CITY (i) System
extensions completed for the previous calendar year, (ii) the number of actual connections (ERU)
completed the previous year; and, (iii) the total EIU count for the System within the CITY. The
COUNTY will maintain record drawings and electronic data files showing the location of the
System. The COUNTY will provide regular updates to the CITY of the electronic data files
showing the location of the System. If the CITY assumes ownership and operations of the
System within the CITY, the COUNTY will provide to the CITY record drawings for the System
within the CITY.
3.33 The COUNTY is hereby delegated the authority to administer and enforce
connection requirements to the System in accordance with the Sewer Code. COUNTY shall
submit to CITY an annual report in January of each year listing the number and address of all
properties where sewer service is available but which have not completed the connections to the
System.
3.4 Rates.
Valley Agreement 6 -11 -04
3.4.1 The COUNTY, through its Board of County Commissioners, will
establish, set, and adopt all Rates for the System pursuant to RCW 36.94.140 and RCW
35.67.020. To the maximum extent possible,. Rates will be based on cost of service. Prior to
setting Rates for the following year, the COUNTY shall: (i) present its proposal to the CITY for
a 30 day review and comment period and (ii) consider the comments of the CITY. The
COUNTY will endeavor to maintain the cost of sewer construction and treatment plant capacity
to serve both CITY and COUNTY customers at the lowest practicable cost.
3.4.2 To further increase ratepayer confidence in the COUNTY'S pursuit of the
lowest practicable costs, the COUNTY will include the CITY'S Public Works Director, or
designee, on any selection committee that evaluates and selects a consulting firm that will
prepare the analysis of Rates. The CITY'S Public Works Director, or designee, will be invited to
participate in project meetings and workshops with the COUNTY during the analysis of rates.
3.4.3 Provided that the cost of service is equal, the Rates for customers inside
the CITY will be equal to those outside the CITY. If a Franchise Fee is charged by the CITY, or
if the cost of service varies for a class of customers inside the CITY compared to outside, or if
new subsidy revenues are provided to the sewer program by either the CITY or COUNTY,
differential fees, rates, or charges may be adopted. The COUNTY will meet with the CITY at
least thirty (30) calendar days before adopting differential fees, rates, or charges to present and
discuss the proposal by the COUNTY.
3.4.4 In the event that the parties do not agree on a proposed differential in
Rates they agree to submit the issues to mediation. The Parties will meet within seven (7)
calendar days of a written request by either of the Parties for mediation. The mediator selected
shall be a qualified and experienced wastewater economist and be mutually acceptable to both
Parties. if the Parties are unable to jointly select a mediator, each Party shall nominate two (2)
mediators. A list will then be created. Once the list is created, and after a flip of the coin to
determine who will proceed first, each party will delete a name from the list until one name is
left. Once the Mediator is selected, the Parties agree to meet and in good faith attempt to resolve
any differences in proposed differential fee, rates, or charges. If mediation is unsuccessful, the
COUNTY may adopt its Rates, but shall not make them effective for a thirty (30) calendar day
period. This period will afford the CITY an opportunity to determine whether it desires to
legally challenge the COUNTY'S differential Rates.
3.5 City System. Nothing in this Agreement shall preclude the CITY from exercising
its lawful authority to create a system of sewerage, wastewater utility or to otherwise act for the
public health, safety and welfare of the CITY so long as it is not inconsistent with the provisions
504 3022.02
-5-
SECTION 4: PLANNING
SECTION 5: DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF SEWERS
so-Ono21.O2
-6-
Valley Agreement 6 -11 -04
of this Agreement. In the event that the CiTY seeks to acquire all or part of the System, it shall
seek a Termination Agreement with the COUNTY, following the provisions of Article 12.
4.1 Coordinated Comprehensive Planning. To the extent legally permissible, the
COUNTY will update the Plan consistent with the Growth Management Act and in consultation
with CITY regarding the CITY'S Comprehensive Plan. The Parties agree to coordinate and
collaborate on the development of the CITY'S Comprehensive Plan with future updates of the
COUNTY'S Plan, and with development of additional regional wastewater treatment plant
capacity.
5.1 STEP Program. The COUNTY shall be responsible for diligently pursuing the
completion of the sanitary sewer system and septic tank elimination program (STEP) in
accordance with the Plan and the adopted Six Year Sewer Construction Capital Improvement
Plan (CIP), as amended annually. This responsibility shall include the planning, design, and
construction of new sewers, as identified in the Plan, within the System through the life of this
Agreement. The COUNTY shall not commence the annual sewer construction program within
the CITY until written approval of the proposed annual sewer construction program within the
CITY is received from the CITY Public `Yorks Director.
5.2 CIP Planning. Annually, at least thirty (30) calendar days prior to submission to
the Board of County Commissioners for adoption, the COUNTY will provide the CITY with the
proposed CIP and proposed CFR's for the annual sewer construction program within the CITY.
The COUNTY will consider any comments from the CITY in the adoption hearing.
5.3 Sewer Extensions. The COUNTY will endeavor to maintain adequate capacity in
the trunk and interceptor sewers within the System to serve properties within the Service Areas,
as amended, including areas within the CITY. Extension of sewer service outside of the CITY
shall not cause additional costs to accrue to CITY sewer users.
5.4 Restoration of Right -of -Way. The COUNTY shall restore all CITY streets in
which sewer construction takes place with full width reconstruction of the street base, surface
and drainage to standards approved by the CITY, which standards shall not be less than the
standards adopted and applied by the COUNTY prior to CITY incorporation. The CITY shall
pay for all additional costs to provide full width pavement, beyond the normal trench width
pavement replacement. The methods used to establish the scope and budget for full width
paving shall be generally consistent with the methods established in Attachment ''A ". At the
beginning of each construction season, COUNTY staff in collaboration with CITY staff will
evaluate the condition of streets and roads within the CITY, and determine the scope and cost for
full width pavement in that year's projects. Full width pavement will not be included in the
construction projects until the CITY and COUNTY staffs' agree in writing to the scope and
budget for full width paving. During the construction period, COUNTY will provide monthly
invoices to the CITY for the full width paving completed, and CITY shall provide payment to
the COUNTY within thirty (30) calendar days. Any late payment will be subject to a penalty
based upon lost interest earnings had the payment been timely paid and invested in the Spokane
County Treasurer's Investment Pool.
SECTION 6: FINANCE
6.1 System Support. CITY and COUNTY agree that the future revenues for new
treatment plant capacity, upgrades of the SAWTP, interceptors and pumping stations will be
generated through a combination of CFCs and Wastewater Treatment Plant Charges. CITY
agrees that Rates should be set at a level to generate adequate revenues to pay for new treatment
plant capacity. COUNTY agrees that surplus revenues (above the amount necessary to subsidize
CFR's) in the Sewer Reserve Funds will be used to offset the cost of new wastewater treatment
plant capacity.
6.2 Financial Assistance. The COUNTY shall continue to actively pursue grants and
low interest loans to offset costs of the System. Grants and loans shall be applied, when
applicable, proportionally to COUNTY sewer customers outside and inside of the CITY. CITY
agrees to cooperate with and support the COUNTY in pursuing grants and loans.
63 APA Reauthorization. The COUNTY will pursue the reauthorization of the
Aquifer Protection Area Fees as provided for in chapter 36.36 RCW to reduce the cost of sewers
to users of the System. The CITY, through the City Council, will consider a resolution to support
this effort to obtain additional funds to reduce the cost of sewers to CITY residents and
properties agreeing that its boundaries be included within the Aquifer Protection Area.
6.4 Sewer Reserve Funds. The COUNTY shall continue to provide a subsidy to the
cost of CFR's using the computational method currently in effect, within the limits of the
County's Sewer Reserve Fund available for the subsidy. A copy of that method is attached
hereto as Attachment `B" and incorporated herein by reference. Sewer Reserve Funds are for
authorized System uses and APA program uses, and are not solely for the subsidy of Capital
Facilities Rates. Neither the COUNTY nor CITY will be obligated to contribute any additional
funding to support this subsidy.
SECTION 7: WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT CAPACITY
Valley Agreement 6 -11 -04
7.1 Current Capacity. Currently, wastewater treatment is provided at the SAWTP.
The COUNTY has a contract with the City of Spokane for up to 10 million gallons per day of
capacity ( "Current Capacity ") at SAWTP. The COUNTY acknowledges that a portion of the
Current Capacity has been acquired with funds paid by the CITY properties connected to the
System.
7.2 New Capacity. The CITY agrees that the COUNTY will be the lead agency for
implementation of a new regional wastewater treatment plant in the western part of the Spokane
Valley area. The new regional wastewater treatment plant will be capable of providing
wastewater treatment capacity to customers in the CITY, unincorporated areas of Spokane
County, and may provide capacity to other cities or towns. The COUNTY will make the final
50431022.112
-7-
SECTION 8: SEWER CODE AND REGULATORY CONTROLS
50433012.02
-8-
Valley Agreement 6 -1 1 -04
decision on the location and size of the new regional wastewater treatment plant in consultation
with the CITY.
7.3 Coordination. As the lead agency for implementation of the new regional
wastewater treatment plant, the COUNTY will coordinate closely with the CITY. For purposes
of this paragraph, the terminology "coordinate" shall mean formation of a technical review
group, including representatives from the public works departments of the COUNTY and CITY,
which will meet on a regular basis to review the progress of work, and to discuss issues related to
the technical aspects of the new regional wastewater treatment plant and to the project
implementation process.
7.4 New Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant. A new regional wastewater
treatment plant may be designed, constructed and operated using the Design- Build - Operate
( "DBO ") delivery method, pursuant to chapter 70.150 R.CW and this Agreement. Prior to
entering into an agreement with a service provider under RCW 70.150.030, the COUNTY shall
form a DBO Procurement Committee under RCW 70.150.040(3). The DBO Procurement
Committee utilized by the COUNTY shall include at least one representative appointed by the
City Council of the City of Spokane Valley who shall participate in the DBO procurement
process. The COUNTY shall make the final 080 selection following the requirements of
chapter 70.150 RCW, and considering the DBO Procurement Committee recommendation. In
the event that the COUNTY determines that it is not in its best interests to use the DBO method
to design, construct and operate the new regional wastewater treatment plant, the COUNTY
agrees to include at least one representative appointed by the City Council of the City of Spokane
Valley to be on the selection committee appointed to make a recommendation to the Board of
County Commissioners on the most highly qualified firm to design the treatment plant, as
provided for under chapter 39.80 RCW. Additionally, in the event the COUNTY does not
operate the new regional wastewater treatment plant under 0130, or with its own forces, the
COUNTY will similarly involve the CITY in any process used to select a firm to operate the
treatment plant.
8.1 Sewer Code. The CITY shall within ninety (90) calendar days of the Agreement
Effective Date adopt the provisions of Chapter 8.03 SCC in its entirety. The CITY may adopt
future revisions made by the COUNTY to the Sewer Code within ninety (90) calendar days of
the date of adoption by the COUNTY. Nothing contained herein shall prevent the City Council
from exercising its legislative discretion to amend, modify or repeal the Sewer Code as deemed
reasonably necessary to serve the best interests of the CITY, provided the City shall not enact
legislation that detrimentally impacts or unreasonably interferes with the COUNTY'S ability to
administer, operate, and maintain the System, and state or federal permits issued to operate the
System. The CITY shall notify the COUNTY if it chooses not to adopt subsequent revisions
requested by the COUNTY, or if the CITY elects to amend, modify or repeal the Sewer Code.
8.2 Enforcement Delegation. The CITY delegates authority to the COUNTY to
enforce the provisions of the Sewer Code within the CITY. COUNTY shall administer, bill,
collect and account for all charges and service fees related to the System. The COUNTY shall
Valley Agreement 6 -11 -04
be the primary party responsible for initiating any civil and /or criminal enforcement through its
own legal counsel. The COUNTY shall be the primary party responsible for inspection
activities, engineering services, legal or other actions necessary to enforce compliance with the
Sewer Code. In the event the COUNTY requests assistance from the CITY, and the CITY takes
action to benefit the System, including but not limited to civil and/or criminal enforcement,
surveys, studies or property acquisition, the COUNTY Sewer Utility shall compensate the CITY
for its reasonable costs, expenses and obligations actually incurred. Except as provided in
Section 8.4, requests for assistance shall be in writing, shall specify the scope of services
requested and amount of compensation to be provided, and shall be acknowledged by the CITY.
8.3 industrial Pretreatment. The CITY's delegation set forth in Section 8.2 includes
the grant of authority to the COUNTY to implement and administer the COUNTY'S AIPP in
accordance with County, State, and Federal laws, regulations and requirements.
8.4 Assistance. The CITY agrees, upon request of the COUNTY, to make available
any of its staff, to include law enforcement, which may be necessary in conjunction with
COUNTY enforcement actions.
SECTION 9: NOTICE
9.1 Notice. All notices or other communications given hereunder shall be deemed
given on: (i) the day such notices or other communications are received when sent by personal
delivery; or (ii) the third day following the day on which the same have been mailed by first class
delivery, postage prepaid.
9.2 Addresses. The address set forth below for each Party may be changed from time
to time designate by notice in writing to the other PARTIES.
COUNTY: Spokane County Chief Executive Officer or his/her authorized representative
1116 West Broadway Avenue
Spokane, Washington 99260
CITY:
SECTION 10: LIABILITY
City of Spokane Valley City Manager or his/her authorized representative
Redwood Plaza
11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 106
Spokane Valley, Washington 99206
10.1 County Indemnification. COUNTY shall indemnify and hold harmless CITY and
its officers, agents, and employees, or any of them from any and all claims, actions, suits,
liability, loss, costs, expenses, and damages of any nature whatsoever, by any reason of or arising
out of any negligent act or omission of COUNTY, its officers, agents and employees, or any of
them relating to or arising out of performing services pursuant to this Agreement. In the event
that any suit based upon such claim, action, loss, or damages is brought against CITY, COUNTY
shall defend the same at its sole cost and expense; provided that CITY reserves the right to
� 1
0
SECTION 11: GENERAL
:0413022.02
-10-
Valley Agreement 6 -11 -04
participate in said suit if any principle of governmental or public law is involved; and if final
judgment in said suit be rendered against CITY, and its officers, agents, and employees, or any
of them, or jointly against CiTY and COUNTY and their respective officers, agents, and
employees, COUNTY shall satisfy the same.
10.2 City indemnification. CITY shall indemnify and hold harmless COUNTY and its
officers, agents, and employees, or any of them from any and all claims, actions, suits, liability,
loss, costs, expenses, and damages of any nature whatsoever, by any reason of or arising out of
any negligent act or omission of CITY, its officers, agents and employees, or any of them
relating to or arising out of performing services pursuant to this Agreement. In the event that any
suit based upon such claim, action, loss, or damages is brought against COUNTY, CITY shall
defend the same at its sole cost and expense; provided that COUNTY reserves the right to
participate in said suit if any principle of governmental or public law is involved; and if final
judgment in said suit be rendered against COUNTY, and its officers, agents, and employees, or
any of them, or jointly against COUNTY and CITY and their respective officers, agents, and
employees, CITY shall satisfy the same.
10.3 Waiver of Immunity The foregoing indemnity is specifically intended to
constitute a waiver of each party's immunity under Washington's industrial insurance Act,
chapter 51 RCW, respecting the other party only, and only to the extent necessary to provide the
indemnified party with a full and complete indemnity of claims made by the indemnitor's
employees. The PARTIES acknowledge that these provisions were specifically negotiated and
agreed upon by them.
10.4 Insurance. COUNTY and CITY agree to either self insure or purchase polices of
insurance covering the matters contained in this Agreement with coverage of not less than
$5,000,000 per occurrence with $5,000,000 aggregate limits including for ENGINEERS
professional liability and auto liability coverage.
11.1 Relationship Of The Parties. The PARTIES intend that an independent contractor
relationship will be created by this Agreement. No agent, employee, servant or representative of
COUNTY shall be deemed to be an employee, agent, servant or representative of CITY for any
purpose. Likewise, no agent, employee, servant or representative of CITY shall be deemed to be
an employee, agent, servant or representative of COUNTY for any purpose.
11.2 Modification. This Agreement may be modified in writing by mutual written
agreement of the PARTIES.
11.3 All Writings Contained Herein /Binding Effect This Agreement contains terms
and conditions agreed upon by the PARTIES. The PARTIES agree that there arc no other
understandings, oral or otherwise, regarding the subject matter of this Agreement.
11.4 Jurisdiction And Venue. This Agreement has been and shall be construed as
having been made and delivered within the State of Washington and it is mutually understood
and agreed by each party that this Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of
Washington both as to interpretation and performance. Any action at law, suit in equity or
judicial proceeding for the enforcement of this Agreement, or any provision hereto, shall be
instituted only in courts of competent jurisdiction within Spokane County, Washington.
11.5 Records. All public records prepared, owned, used or retained by COUNTY in
conjunction with this Agreement shall be deemed CITY property and shall be made available to
CITY upon request by the City Manager. COUNTY will notify CITY of any public disclosure
request under chapter 42.17 RCW for copies or viewing of such records as well as the
PROSECUTOR'S response thereto.
11..6 Headings. The section headings appearing in this Agreement have been inserted
solely for the purpose of convenience and ready reference. In no way do they purport to, and
shall not be deemed to define, limit or extend the scope or intent of the sections to which they
pertain.
11.7 Stationary. CITY agrees COUNTY will use COUNTY'S stationary in
conjunction with meeting its responsibilities under the terms of this Agreement.
11.8 Time Essence Of Agreement. Time is of the essence of this Agreement and in
case either Party fails to perform the agreements on its part to be performed at the time fixed for
the performance of the respective agreements by the terms of this Agreement, the other Party
may, at its election, hold the other Party liable for all costs and damages caused by such delay.
11.9 Assignment. This Agreement shall be binding upon the PARTIES hereto, their
successors and assigns. No party may assign in whole or part its interest in this Agreement
without the written approval of all other PARTIES.
11.10 Uncontrollable Circumstances /Impossibility.
11.11 Filing. This Agreement shall be filed by the County with such offices or agencies
as required by chapter 39.34 RCW.
11.10.1 A delay or interruption in or failure of performance of all or any part of
this Agreement resulting from Uncontrollable Circumstances shall be deemed not a default under
this Agreement.
11.10.2 A delay or interruption in or failure of performance of all or any part of
this Agreement resulting from any change in or new law, order, rule or regulation of any nature
which renders construction of a new regional wastewater treatment plant in accordance with the
terms of this Agreement legally impossible, and any other circumstances beyond the control of
the County which render legally impossible the performance by the County of its obligations
under this Agreement shall be deemed not a default under this Agreement.
Valley Agreement 6 -11 -04
SECTION 12: TERM AND DURATION
Valley Agreement 6 -11 -04
12.1 This Agreement shall be effective as of the Effective Date and shall continue until
terminated pursuant to this Section.
12.2 The CiTY or COUNTY may terminate this Agreement for any reason whatsoever
upon twelve (12) months written notice, sent by certified mail, provided that termination of this
Agreement shall not occur during the period of time between the date of execution by the
COUNTY of a contract with a DBO firm for a new regional wastewater treatment plant and the
completion date of acceptance testing for the new regional wastewater treatment plant.
Termination during this timeframe could have a significant adverse effect on the contractual
obligations for delivery of the new regional wastewater treatment plant.
12.3 Within fifteen (15) calendar days after receipt of the written notice of termination,
and at least once every two weeks thereafter, the parties shall meet to negotiate the terms and
conditions of a Termination Agreement. The negotiation of the Termination Agreement shall
address transfer of assets, transfer of employees, transfer of fund balance reserves, transfer of
contractual obligations, transfer of indebtedness obligations, establishment of system value,
transfer of the ownership of the new regional wastewater treatment plant regardless of its
location, a determination whether the transfer of any elements of the System located within the
CITY will materially affect the operation of any of the remaining COUNTY system, payments to
the COUNTY, and all other aspects of an equitable termination of this Agreement, as referenced
in RCW 36.94.180.
12.4 If the Parties are unable to reach final agreement on the terms and conditions of a
Termination Agreement within six (6) months from the date of receipt of the notice, non - binding
mediation shall occur. The Mediator will be selected using the same procedures provided in
Agreement Section 3.4.4. Mediation shall be concluded within twelve (12) months from the date
of receipt of the notice, unless mutually agreed otherwise by the Parties.
12.5 The Agreement shall remain in effect until the Parties negotiate, or mediate to
mutual acceptance a Termination Agreement.
SECTION 13: SEVE RABILITY
It is understood and agreed among the PARTIES that if any parts, terms or provisions of
this Agreement are held by the courts to be illegal, the validity of the remaining portions or
provisions shall not be affected and the rights and obligations of the PARTIES shall not be
affected in regard to the remainder of the Agreement. If it should appear that any part, term or
provision of this Agreement is in conflict with any statutory provision of the State of
Washington, then the part, term or provision thereof that may be in conflict shall be deemed
inoperative and null and void insofar as it may be in conflict therewith and this Agreement shall
be deemed to modify to conform to such statutory provision.
SECTION 14: EFFECTIVE DATE. This Agreement is effective July 20, 2004.
50
-12-
SECTION 15: EXECUTION AND APPROVAL
15.1 The Parties warrant that the officers executing below have been duly authorized to
act for and on behalf of the Party for purposes of confirming this Agreement.
15.2 This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which,
when so executed and delivered, shall be an original, but such counterparts shall together
constitute but one and the same.
5O433072..02
-13-
Valley Agreement 6 -11 -04
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement. on the date
and year opposite their respective signatures.
DATED:
ATTEST:
VICKY M. DALTON
CLERK OF THE BOARD
BY:
Daniela Erickson, Deputy
DATED:
ATTEST:
BY:
Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk
Valley Agreement 6 -1 1 -04
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
SPOKANE, COUNTY, WASHINGTON
PHIL LIP D. HARRIS, Chair
M. KATE MCCASLIN, Vice Chair
JOHN ROSKELLEY, Commissioner
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY:
By:
DAVID R. MERCIER
Its: City Manager
Pavement Removal and Replacement Limits for Sewer Construction
so477U22.02
a) Width: 15 feet
Attachment A - 1
Valley Agreement 6 -11 -04
ATTACHMENT NT A
TO THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY AND SPOKANE COUNTY
REGARDING WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT
Spokane County will include in its annual sewer construction budget the costs to restore the
paving that is required to be removed for sewer construction, including mainline sewer,
manholes, and side sewers.
The City of Spokane Valley may elect to add to the scope of the paving work associated with
County sewer projects. For example, the City may request additional pavement replacement to
accomplish full -width paving, additional road pavement width, and/or extended paving beyond
the termination of the sewer main. The following guidelines shall be used as the underlying
basis for determining the County's share of the asphalt concrete pavement (ACP) removal and
replacement costs:
1. The quantity of ACP removed and replaced to construct a section of sewer main
between two manholes shall be determined using the following dimensions:
a) Width: The lesser of 1.8 times the average depth of the sewer along the
section of sewer main, or the existing road width.
b) Length: Manhole center to manhole center, plus an additional fifteen feet
beyond each terminal manhole.
2. The quantity of ACP removed and replaced to excavate the trench for a sewer
service stub shall be determined using the following dimensions:
b) Length: Distance from edge of existing pavement to calculated limit of
sewer main trench as determined in 1.a) above.
3. In those locations where ACP removal for the sewer main to the width described in 1.a)
above would leave a strip of existing ACP less than six (6) feet in width, removal and
replacement of that strip of existing ACP will be included in the cost of the sewer project,
and shall become part of the County's share of the cost.
4. In those locations where ACP removal for the sewer main and service stubs, as described
in paragraphs 1 and 2, would leave an area of existing ACP less than 50 square yards in
size, removal and replacement of that area of existing ACP will be included in the cost of
the sewer project, and shall become part of the County's share of the cost.
1
Total Cost of Projects
$12,000,000
+
2
Interim Financing Costs
Estimated at 2%
$240,000
3
Subtotal
=
$12,240,000
4
Grant Funding From WDOE
$3,750,000
5
Subtotal
=
$8.490,000
+
6
General Facilities Charges (GFC)
$4,294.610
7
Subtotal
=
$12,784,610
8
Subsidy Funding
@ 25 %
$3,196,152
9
Subtotal
=
$9,588,458
/
10
Estimated Number of ERU's
1 711
11
Capital Facilities Rate (CFR) per ERU
=
$5,604
CALCULATION OF MONTHLY CFR
1
Estimated Bond Interest Rate
6 %
2
CFR per ER.0
$5,604.00
3
Bond Issuance Costs
@ 1.3 %
$72.85
4
Total Amount Financed
=
$5,676.85
5
Resulting Monthly CFR Payment
=
$40.67
This Attachment illustrates the historical methodology used to calculate and establish the Capital
Facilities Rates (CFR) to be applied for projects within the COUNTY's Septic Tank Elimination
Program (STEP). The numbers used in this illustration are hypothetical and do not relate to any
specific data or year of construction. This illustration does not imply what CFR amount will be
established in future years.
NOTES:
1. ERU denotes Equivalent Residential Unit
2. The General Facilities Charge, at the unsubsidized rate, is $2,510 per ERU in this illustration
3. Monthly CFR Payment amounts are computed based on 240 payments
4. For Line 8, the subsidy funding is provided from Reserves in Fund 403 and Fund 436
56433622_02
Attachment B - 1
Valley Agreement 6 -1 1 -04
ATTACHMENT B
TO THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY AND SPOKANE COUNTY
REGARDING WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT
c) *Wane
Valley
Memorandum
Jf
l _1
To: Dave Mercier, City Manager, and Members of City Council
Thru: Marina Sukup, AICP, Community Development Director
Greg McCormick, AICP, Planning manager
From: Micki Hamois, Associate Planner
Date: June 24, 2004
Re: SEPA Review Process for Project Actions
11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 • Spokane Valley WA 99206
(509) 921 -1000 • Fax: (509) 688 - 0037.1008 • cityhall @spokanevalley.org
When the Planning Division is initially given a site plan for a proposed commercial building or use for
approval, Section 11.10.070 (Flexible thresholds for categorical exemptions) of the Spokane Environmental
Ordinance, Interim Spokane Valley Critical Areas Ordinance and the Spokane County Shoreline Master
Plan are scrutinized to determine if the proposal must go through the SEPA Review process. The following
thresholds trigger SEPA review:
1. Multi family construction of 20 or more units;
2. Commercial, office, industrial construction of 12,000 square feet or more;
3. Any parking area for 40 or more vehicles.
If these thresholds are exceeded, the city requires the applicant to complete an environmental checklist on
the project. The City of Spokane Valley Department of Community Development becomes the lead agency
for the environmental review and distributes the submitted environmental checklist and site plan to the
reviewing agencies.
A comment period of fourteen (14) days is given to the reviewing agencies to complete their review and
provide the City with comments. After this review and comment period, the City staff will issue a threshold
determination. The City will determine if the proposal has a probable significant adverse impact on the
environment. If so, City staff will determine what mitigating measures should be stipulated or if an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is required. This determination is sent to the reviewing agencies with
a comment period of fourteen (14) days and published as a legal notice in the Spokane Valley Herald
newspaper. (This is the time that the public is notified and can either comment on or appeal the SEPA
determination.) At the end of the comment period, the building permit review process will continue through
to issuance.
Any member of the public may comment on the environmental issues raised on the SEPA checklist. An
appeal of a Determination of Non - Significance (DNS) or Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance
(MDNS) is based on the existence of any factors which were overlooked or omitted during the review and
which would warrant mitigation, or any proposed measures that are inadequate to provide mitigation.
Appeals to a DNS or MDNS are heard by the City Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner accepts verbal
and written testimony, and will determine whether testimony is germane to the appeal.
PLEASE NOTE:
1. Commercial Building Permits also refer to permits for facilities such as churches, schools, three
(3) or more dwelling unit complexes, wireless communication support towers, wireless
communication antenna array and structures associated with public utilities.
2. If a Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance is issued, the mitigating measures become
conditions of approval for the building permit.
To: Council & Staff
From: City Manager
Re: Draft Schedule for Upcoming Council Meetings
July 6, 2004 No Study Session
July 1.3, 2004, Regular Meeting, 6:00 p.m. [due date July 21
1. Second Reading Proposed Vacation Ordinance STVO1 -04 — Marina Sukup [5 minutes]
2. Second Reading Proposed Vacation Ordinance, STV02 -04 — Marina Sukup [5 minutes]
3. Second Reading Ordinance 04 -022 (CPA 03 -02) — Greg McCormick [5 minutes]
4. Proposed Resolution Amending Fee Schedule — Marina Sukup [ 10 minutes]
5. Motion Consideration: Approval of Spalding Towing Contract — Cary Driskell [5 minutes]
6. Administrative Reports:
a. Panhandling Regulations — Cary Driskell [15 minutes]
b. Cost Recovery Studies —Ken Thompson [20 minutes]
c. Precinct Lease Agreement Report — Cal Walker [10 minutes]
d. Memorandum Regarding Interim Zoning Issues — Marina Sukup (et.al.) [20 minutes]
e. Chamber of Commerce Request Regarding Ownership of Wastewater Assets —Neil Kersten [ 15 min]
7. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Personnel Matter: Employee Performance
[estimated meeting time: 110 minutes* ]
July 14, 2004, 6:00 p.m., Conversation with the Community, Mirabeau Point Park
July 20, 2004, No Study Session
DRAFT
ADVANCE AGENDA
For Planning Discussion Purposes Only
as of June 24, 2004 11:30 a.m.
Please note this is a work in progress; items are tentative
July 27, 2004 Regular Meeting 6:00 p.m. [due date July 16]
1. First Reading Proposed Ordinance Regarding Clear View Triangles — Marina Sukup
2. First Reading Proposed Ordinance Interim Zoning Estate Lots — Marina Sukup
3. First Reading Proposed Ordinance Regarding Setbacks — Marina Sukup
4. First Reading: Proposed Ordinance Amending SVMC Title 5, Section 05 Business
Registrations — Ken Thompson
5. Motion Consideration: Precinct Lease Agreement — Cal Walker
6. Administrative Reports: [no public comment]
a, Ad Hoc Sign Committee Report — Marina Sukup
7. Information Only: [no public comment]
a. Departmental Monthly Reports
b. Minutes of Planning Commission
[10 minutes]
[10 minutes]
[10 minutes]
[15 minutes]
[5 minutes]
[15 minutes]
[estimated meeting time: 65 minutes* ]
Advance Agenda — Draft Revisal: 6124!2004 11:37 AM Page 1 of 3
August 3, 2004 NO MEETING
August 10, 2004 Regular Meeting 6:00 p.m. (due date July 301
Proclamation: Health Unit Coordinator's lay (August 22 11d
1. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance Regarding Clear View Triangles — Marina Sukup [5 minutes]
2. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance Interim Zoning Estate Lots — Marina Sukup [10 minutes]
3. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance Regarding Setbacks — Marina Sukup [10 minutes]
4. Second Reading: Proposed Ordinance Amending SVMC Title 5, Section 05 Business
Registrations— Ken Thompson [15 minutes]
5. Administrative Report:
a. CenterPlace Update — Mike Jackson [ 10 minutes]
b. Potential Amendments to Criminal Code (Noise issues, etc.) — Cary Driskell [15 minutes]
[estimated meeting time: 65 minutes* ]
August 17, 2004 Study Session 6:00 p.m. [due date August 61
I. Discussion of Alternatives to Incarceration — Cary Driskell!Gonzaga Students (20 minutes)
August 24, 2004 Regular Meeting 6:00 p.m.
1. Administrative Reports: [no public comment]
a.
2. Information Only: [no public comment]
a. Departmental Monthly Reports
b. Minutes of Planning Commission
August 31, 2004 NO MEETING
[due date August 131
September 7, 2004 Study Session 6:00 p.m. [due date August 27]
September 14, 2004, Regular Meeting 6:00 p.m. [due date September 3J
PUBLIC ITEARll G: Review 2004 Budget, Proposed 2005 Budget Revenues
1. Motion Consideration: Setting 2005 Budget Public Hearing Dates of October 12 and 26
Advance Age ida— Draft Revised: 6(24/2004 1 1:37 AM Page 2 or3
September 21, 2004 Study Session 6:00 p.m. [due date September 101
1. Overview of Draft Comprehensive Plan — Marina Sukup /Greg McCormick
2. Proposed Sidewalk Ordinance Discussion — Neil Kersten
September 28.2004 Regular Meeting 6:00 p.m.
1. Administrative Reports: [no public. comment]
a.
2. Information Only: [no public comment]
a. Departmental Monthly Reports
b. Minutes of Planning Commission
MEETINGS TO BE SCHEDULED
1 open house — wastewater issues (August or September)
r estimated meeting time does not include time for public comments]
[due date September 17]
(30 minutes)
(15 minutes)
OTHER PENDING AND /OR UPCOMING ISSUES:
Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 04 -007 Stormwater— Stanley Schwartz (first reading 02- 24 -04)
Second Reading Proposed Sidewalk Ordinance 04 -012 — Stanley Schwartz (first reading 02- 24 -04)
First Reading Proposed Sewer Ordinance — Neil Kersten
October 12: First Hearing on 2005 Proposed Budget
October 26: Second Hearing on 2005 Proposed Budget (includes fee resolution adoption)
November 9: Second reading of 2005 Proposed Budget
Advance Agenda— Draft Revised: 6/24/2004 11:37 AN1 Page 3 of 3