2004, 07-20 Study SessionTuesday, July 20, 2004
Please Turn Off All Electronic Devices During the Meeting
DISCUSSION LEADER S1JBJ1i CT'AC m1TY
1. Ken Thompson (15 minutes) Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 04 -029
Authorizing Election for Property Tax Levy
]public comment]
2. Cary Driskell (10 minutes)
3. Cory Driskell (10 minutes)
4. Cal Walker ( l0 minutes)
f� Ca
8. Marina Sukup (20 minutes)
9. Mike Jackson (10 minutes)
10. Neil Kcrsten (10 minutes)
11. Mayor DcVleming
(5 minutes)
12_ Dave Mercier (5 minutes)
13. Dave Mercier (5 minutes)
Study Sesunn Agenda, 07.004
AGENDA
CiTY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
CITY COUNCIL WORKSHEET
STUDY SESSION
CITY HALL AT REDWOOD PLAZA
11707 East Sprague Avenue, First Floor
First Reading Proposed Ordinance 04 -030 Amending
Criminal Code Re Noise (public comment]
First Reading Proposed Ordinance 04-031 Amending
Criminal Code Rc Open Containers (public comment]
Motion Consideration: Precinct Lease Agreement
(public comment]
itdior= (in siclem aT1 n \pluoval tirDertraucnt of
t:cy;l]itnngcricnl (public cnmtncq
611 Marina Sukup/David Crosby Ad Floc Sign Committee Report
(15 minutes)
GOAL
6:00 p.m.
Approve Ordinance
Advance to g Reading
Advance to l Reading
Approve Agreement
, NoptiW — Falie<ttient
Discussion/lnformation
7. Marina Sukup (20 minutes) Clear View Triangles Enforterttent Approach Discussion/Information
Requirements and Schedules for Amending the Discussion/Information
the Comprehensive Plan and /or Development Regulations
Parks and Recreation MasterPlan Update
Report on Aquifer Protection Area Interlocal
Advance Agenda Additions
Council Check in
City Manager Comments
Discussion/Information
Discussion/lnformation
Discussion/lnfotmation
Discussion/Information
Discussion/lnformation
Note: Except as noted above. there will be no public comments at Council Study Sessions. However. Council always reserves the
right to request Information from the public and staff as appropriate.
I NOTICE Indritduals planning to menu the mseung who tcqutr_ spcia1 assistants to rccommodate phystca1, beams& or otbue impairments. please contact
the Cty Oak it (549) 921 -1000 to soon as possible so that arranctrni to mar be etude
Pape 1 or 1
Tuesday, .July 20, 2004
DISCUSSION LEADER
1. Kcn Thompson (15 minutes)
2. Cary Driskell (10 minutes)
3. Cary Driskell (10 minute)
4. Cal Walker (10 minutes)
5. Marina Sukup /David Crosby
(15 minutes)
6. Cal Walker (10 minutes)
7. Marina Sukup (20 minutes)
8. Marina Sukup (20 minutes)
9. Mike Jackson (10 minutes)
10. Neil Kenten (10 minutes)
11. Mayor DeVleming
(5 minutes)
12. Dave Mercier(5 minute)
13. Dave Mercier (5 minutes)
tiara Except as noted above. there will be no public comments at ('oi.di Study Sessions. However. Council always rescri r< the
right to request information front the public and staff as appropriate.
i tUTIC'1; individuals plantlmg to at2u d the meeting silk) :eyum special tnaistance to accommodate 'marine. or otltu ttnyainticnt., plane contact
the (liy Cart at (14/9i021-1t100 as Noon as pottage that arrangements ma) he made
Smd> Scat= Agaid& OI.2tgM
AGENDA
CITY' OF SPOKANE VALLEY'
CITY COUNCIL WORKSHEET
STUDY SESSION
CITY HALL AT REDWOOD PLAZA
11707 East Sprague Avenue, First Floor
Please Turn OR All Electronic Devices During the Meeting
SUBJECT /ACTIVITY
Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 04-029
Authorizing Election for Property Tax Levy
'public comment]
First Reading Proposed Ordinance 04 -030 Amending
Criminal Code Rc Noise Ipublk comment
First Reading Proposed Ordinance 04()31 Amending
Criminal Code Re Open Containers [public comment)
Motion Consideration: Precinct Lease Agreement
[public comment'
Ad Hoc Sign Committee Report
Department of Emergency Management Contract
Report
Clear View Triangles Enforcement Approach
Parks and Recreation Masterl'Ian Update
Report on Aquifer Protection Area lnterinraI
Advance Agenda Additions
Council Check in
City Manager Comments
GOAL
te
6:00 p.m.
Approve Ordinance
Advance to 2" Reading
Advance to t Reacting
Approve Agreement
Discussion /Information
Discussion/Information
Discussion/Information
Requirements and Schedules for Amending the Discussion/Information
the Comprehensive Plan and/or Devclopmeni Regulations
Discussion/Information
Discuss io nformat ion
Discussion/Information
Discussion/information
Discussion/information
Page l o l l
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: 07 -20 -2004 City Manager Sign -off:
Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent x old business new business
❑ information ❑ admin. report x pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Ordinance authorizing an election and property tax levy for street debt
for $6,000,000 in capital improvements.
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: The City desires to use bond sale proceeds for street capital
improvements in conjunction with Spokane County's Septic Tank Elimination Program (STEP).
Washington code 35A.40.090, requires an election to authorize the sale of $6 million in bonds
for street capital improvements as part of the County's Septic Tank Elimination Program, with
funding provided by a special property tax levy of $.21/m of taxable value each year, for six
years.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: At the July 13, city council meeting, the city council
discussed asking Spokane Valley voters to authorize the sale of up to $6 million in bonds to pay
for street capital improvements as part of the Spokane County Septic Tank Elimination program.
This debt would be used to provide curb -to -curb paving over sewer line trenches as sewer lines
are installed. Discussion also took place regarding voter approval of a property tax of
$.21 /thousand dollars of taxable value to pay debt service on this program. The City Council
forwarded the ordinance to the July 20 council meeting for a second reading.
BACKGROUND: Spokane County's Septic Tank Elimination Program will be constructing
sewer lines under Spokane Valley's streets, to eliminate septic tanks and the discharge of septic
waste into the aquifer which provides drinking water to thousands of Spokane Valley citizens.
Once the sewer lines are installed, the County will repave part of the street where there are
sewer trenches. The City's proposed bond sale would provide funding to install curb -to -curb
asphalt which would complete the street paving and provide new streets for neighborhoods.
This financing plan would provide $6 million over six years to pay for curb -to -curb asphalt.
Property owners would pay approximately $.21 per thousand dollars of taxable value to support
this program with tax receipts set aside in a dedicated fund for use only on street capital
improvements. The $6 million in debt would likely be borrowed in increments of about $1 million
each spring and repaid during the winter when property tax receipts are distributed to the City.
This approach results in a pay -as- you -go method of funding these capital improvements. The
additional property tax of $.21 per thousand dollars of taxable value would offset the savings
that resulted when Spokane Valley incorporated and the County road tax levy of $1.81/m was
replaced with a City general tax levy of $1.60/m. The $.21/m of taxable value levy would
provide about $900,000 a year for these capital improvements. The City's needs are greater
than $900,000 a year but the $.21 levy keeps the overall levy at, or below, the tax rate prior to
incorporation. This program could begin in 2005 if voters approve the measure in September of
this year.
The attached ordinance would place the measure on the ballot on September 14. State law
requires a City voter turnout at least equal to 40% of those voting in the last general election
(15,429 voters in Nov. 2003 times 40% = 6,172). A 60% yes vote of those voting is also
required.
The County Board of Commissioners must approve placement of a measure on a ballot, and
send that authorization to the County elections office at least 45 days prior to the election date.
Thus, our best opportunity to keep the ballot measure moving forward is to pass the ordinance
on July 20.
OPTIONS: 1) Pass the ordinance placing the measure on the ballot on September 14; 2) Do
not pass the ordinance and accept the asphalt patch work as the best approach the City can
afford; 3) Adopt an ordinance placing the measure on the ballot in November.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: A motion to pass the ordinance placing the measure
on the ballot in September is suggested.
BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: A 21 cent property tax levy for six years will generate about
$900,000 each year to pay for curb -to -curb paving. Curb -to -curb paving will extend the life of
Spokane Valley streets and reduce maintenance costs in future years.
STAFF CONTACT: Ken Thompson, Finance Director and /or Neil Kersten, Public Works
Director.
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. 04 -029
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE
VALLEY, OF SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBING CERTAIN
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS rS TO BE MADE TO CERTAIN STREETS WITHIN
THE CITY FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE CITY AND SURROUNDING AREA
AND DECLARING THE ESTIMATED COST OF SUCH IMPROVEiMENTS;
PROVIDING FOR THE ISSUANCE OF NOT TO EXCEED 56,000,000
PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS PAYABLE
FROM M) VALOREM TAXES LEVIED AGAINST ALL OF THE TAXABLE
PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY; PROVIDING FOR THE SUBMISSION OF
THE PROPOSED PLAN AND THE PROPOSITION OF INCURRING SUCH
INDEBTEDNESS TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS AT A SPECIAL
ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2004;
REQUESTING THE AUDITOR OF SPOKANE COUNTY TO DECLARE AN
EMERGENCY; AND PROVIDING FOR OTHER MATTERS PROPERLY
RELATING THERETO
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Spokane County, Washington
13E IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, of
Spokane County, Washington, as follows:
WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley, of Spokane County, Washington (hereinafter
designated the "City"), is a duly incorporated City operating under and by virtue of the laws of the State
of Washington;
WHEREAS, the City Council (the "Council ") of the City desires to authorize and acquire certain
capital improvements to streets, sidewalks, curbs, and gutters for the benefit of the residents of the City;
WHEREAS, in order to provide the funds to make such improvements, the Council has deemed it
necessary and advisable that the City issue and sell its unlimited tax general obligation bonds in the
principal amount of not to exceed 56,000,000;
WHEREAS, RCW 35A.40.090 requires that an election be called for the submission of a
proposition to the qualified electors within said City for their ratification or rejection prior to incurring
said bonded indebtedness;
WHEREAS, the City will notify the Auditor of Spokane County, Washington, in compliance
with RCW 29.13, as amended, of its intention to hold a special election on Tuesday, September 14, 2004,
to submit the. proposition of the issuance of general obligation bonds to the qualified electors of the City
for their ratification or rejection;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY DO
ORDAIN as follows:
Ordinance 04 -029 Bond Election Page 1 of 6
Section 1: The Council hereby determines that the welfare of the residents of the City requires
the acquisition, construction and installation of certain capital improvements and betterments to certain
of the area's streets and roads, together with all necessary appurtenances and fixtures. These
improvements will be made in conjunction with the. Spokane County Septic. Tank Elimination Program.
Section 2: The proposed capital improvements to be acquired, constructed, installed, and paid
for with the proceeds of the bonds, are as follows:
(a) The acquisition, construction and installation of road improvements, including
repaving and installation of curbing, sidewalks, and gutters; and
(b) Ancillary costs of engineering and attorney fees, bond costs, incidental costs and
costs related to the sale and issuance of the bonds, permits, utilities, accounting costs, and any
other expenses or consultant fees incidental thereto.
If, in the opinion of the Council, the needs of the City change in a manner that results in a
circumstance wherein any portion of the above - referenced capital improvements are not required, the
Council retains the right not to construct such capital improvements and to reallocate the money
originally contemplated therefor to other street improvements deemed more necessary by the Council.
Section 3: The total estimated cost of acquiring, constructing and installing said capital
improvements is hereby declared to be approximately $6,000,000.00, which shall be paid in part, if
authorized and empowered by the approving vote of the qualified electors of the City, by the issuance
and sale of unlimited tax general obligation bonds of the City, in the principal amount not to exceed
56,000,000, the balance of the cost of the project, if any, to be paid with other legally available funds,
including Spokane County funds and the City of Spokane Valley Street Capital Funds. The Council is
committed to issue bonds only in a plan that will require a tax equal to, or less than $0.21/$1,000 of
assessed value of real property located within the boundaries of the City.
In the event the City has other legally available funds, or there are bond proceeds remaining after
the capital improvements set forth in Section 2 have been completed or duly provided for, the Council
retains the right to make additional street capital improvements to the facilities of the City as found
necessary by the Council or the City may use the money to pay a portion of the debt service on the Bonds
authorized herein.
Section 4: The l3onds provided for in Section 3 hereof shall be sold in such amounts and at such
time or times as deemed necessary and advisable by the Council and as permitted by law, shall bear
interest at such rate or rates (not to exceed the maximum provided by law at the time such Bonds are
sold) and in such manner as the Council shall determine at the time the Bonds are sold, and shall mature
within a maximum term of six (6) years from date of issue, in such amounts as shall be determined by the
Council, but may mature at an earlier date or dates, as authorized by the Council and as provided by law.
Said Bonds shall he unlimited tax general obligations of the City and, unless paid from other sources,
both principal and interest thereon shall be payable out of annual tax levies to be made upon all the
taxable property within the City without limitation as to rate or amount, with the understandings set forth
herein. The exact date, form, terms, and maturities of said Bonds shall be as hereafter fixed by ordinance
of the Council.
In the event the proceeds of the sale of said Bonds, plus any or all of the moneys above -
described, are insufficient to make all of the capital improvements and purchases provided for, the City
Ordinance 04 -029 Bond Election Page 2 of 6
shall use the available. funds for paying the cost of those capital improvements for which Bonds were
approved and deemed by the Council to be most necessary and in the best interest of the City by the
Council.
Section 5: The Council hereby requests that a Special Election be called, conducted and held
within the City on Tuesday, September 14, 2004 for the purpose of submitting to the qualified electors of
the City, for their ratification or rejection, the proposal to acquire, construct and install said capital
improvements and to incur such indebtedness and issue said Bonds.
Section 6: The proposition to be certified to the Spokane County Auditor by the City Clerk shall
be in substantially the following form:
PROPOSITION NO.
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS, 2004 - $6,000,000
TO PAY FOR CERTAIN STREET IMPROVEMENTS, SHALL THE CITY OF
SPOKANE VALLEY ISSUE AND SELL NOT MORE THAN $6,000,000 PRINCIPAL
AMOUNT OF GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS TO IMPROVE CERTAIN
STREETS WITHIN TiLE BOUNDARIES OF THE CiTY? SAiD BONDS WILL BE
PAYABLE, BOTH PRINCIPAL AND INTEREST, FROM ANNUAL TAX LEVIES F_N
EXCESS OF REGULAR PROPERTY TAX LEVIES AND MATURE WITI-11N A
- . MAXIMUM TERM OF SIX (6) YEARS FROM DATE OF ISSUE, AS PROVIDED EN
t ; ORDINANCE NO. 04-029, ADOPTED ON JULY 20, 2004.
INiSTRUCTIONS TO VOTERS
To vote IN FAVOR OF the foregoing Proposition, mark a cross (X) in the "BONDS, YES"
square.
To vote AGAINST the foregoing Proposition, mark a cross (X) in the "BONDS, NO" square.
BONDS, YES ❑ BONDS, NO ❑
Section 7: Said Election will be held on Tuesday, September 14, 2004. Polls will be open from
7:00 o'clock A.M. and will remain open until 8:00 o'clock P.M., when they will close.
Section 8: The location of the polling places shall be as determined by the Spokane County
Auditor, as ex officio Supervisor of Elections for the City.
Section 9: In the event the above proposition is approved by the qualified electors of the City,
there shall be levied and collected annual tax levies in an amount sufficient in each such year during the
life of said Bonds, and until the full payment of both principal and interest on said Bonds, as will produce
levy proceeds sufficient in amount to fully pay currently maturing installments of principal and interest
on said Bonds. Said tax levies will be in excess of the regular annual tax levies permitted by law.
Section 10: It is hereby found and declared that an emergency exists, due to a need for certain
street improvements for the benefit of the residents of the City, which emergency requires the submission
Ordinance 04 -029 Bond Election Page 3 of 6
to the qualified electors of the City, for their ratification or rejection at said special election, of the
proposition of whether or not the City shall issue said unlimited tax general obligation bonds. The Clerk
of the City is hereby authorized and directed to deliver a copy of this Ordinance to the Spokane County
Auditor, as ex officio Supervisor of Elections for the City.
The Spokane County Auditor, as ex officio Supervisor of Elections, is hereby requested to also
find the existence of such emergency, to deem the same to exist, to call and conduct said Special Election
on Tuesday, September 14, 2004, and to submit to the qualified electors of the City the proposition as set
forth above.
Section 11: A Notice of Special Election shall be published at least once, which publication
shall take place not more than seven (7) nor less than three (3) days prior to the date of said Special
Election. Said publication shall be in a newspaper of general circulation within the City.
Section 12: Upon passage and approval of this Ordinance, a summary substantially in the. form
attached hereto as Exhibit "A" shall be published in the official newspaper of the City and shall take
effect and be in full force five (5) days after the date of publication.
ATTEST:
(S E A L)
ADOPTED this 20 day of July, 2004.
Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Michael C. Ormsby, Bond Counsel
Preston Gates & Ellis LLP
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,
Spokane County, Washington
Michael DeVleming, Mayor
Ordinance 04 -029 Bond Election Page 4 of 6
I, the undersigned, the City Clerk of the City of Spokane Valley, of Spokane County,
Washington, hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance is a full, true and correct copy of an Ordinance
duly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of said City, duly and regularly held at
the regular meeting place thereof on July 20, 2004, of which meeting all members of said Council had
due notice, and at which a majority thereof were present; and that at said meeting said Ordinance was
adopted by the following vote:
I further certify that I have carefully compared the same with the original Ordinance on file and
of record in my office; that said Ordinance is a full, true and correct copy of the original Ordinance
adopted at said meeting; and that said Ordinance has not been amended, modified or rescinded since the
date of its adoption, and is now in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have set my hand and seal on July 20, 2004.
(S E A L)
AYES, and in favor thereof, Council Members:
NOES, Council Members:
A.I3SENT, Council Members:
ABSTAIN, Council Members:
Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk
Ordinance 04 -029 Bond Election Page 5 of 6
TITLE OF ORDINANCE NO. 04-029
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,
OF SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DESCRIBING CERTAIN. CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENTS TO BE MADE TO CERTAIN STREETS WITHIN THE CITY FOR
THE BENEFIT OF THE CITY AND SURROUNDING AREA AND DECLARING THE
ESTTh'I.ATED COST OF SUCH IMPROVEMENTS; PROVIDING FOR 'LHL
ISSUANCE OF NOT TO EXCEED 56,000,000 PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF GENERAL
OBLIGATION BONDS PAYABLE FROM AD VALOREM TAXES LEVIED AGAINST
ALL OF THE TAXABLE PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY; PROVIDING FOR THE
SUBMISSION OF THE PROPOSED PLAN AND nix PROPOSITION OF
INCURRING SUCH INDEBTEDNESS TO 'ER QUALIFIED ELECTORS AT A
SPECIAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 2004;
REQUESTING THE AUDITOR OF SPOKANE COUNTY TO DECLARE AN
EIVITRGENCY; AND PROVIDING FOR OTI{ER MATTERS PROPERLY RELATING
THERETO.
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Spokane County, Washington
A full text of Ordinance No. 04 -029 is available at the office of the City Clerk of the City of
Spokane Valley and will be provided to any citizen upon personal request during normal business hours.
APPROVED this 20 day of July, 2004.
ATTEST:
Christine .Bainbridge, City Clerk
(SEAL)
Exhibit "A" — Page 1
Title for Publication
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,
Spokane County, Washington
Michael DeVleming, Mayor
CERTIFICATION OF BOND COUNSEL
I, the undersigned, Bond Counsel for the City of Spokane Valley, Washington, hereby certify that
1 have read the attached Summary of Ordinance No. 04 -029 of the City, and that the same is true and
complete and provides adequate notice to the public of the contents of said Ordinance.
DATED as of this 20 day of July, 2004.
Michael C. Ormsby
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: July 20, 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: First Reading to add provision for Noise Disturbances to Criminal Code.
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Ordinance 03 -046
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Adoption of the Criminal Code, Spokane Valley
Ordinance 03 -046 on March 26, 2003; Administrative report to Council 7 -13 -04
BACKGROUND: Our Police Department requested that the City adopt a Noise Disturbance
provision to provide the Police with an appropriate tool to combat excessive noise that disturbs
other residents' ability quiet enjoyment of their property and well- being. The initial discussion
staff had with Council on June 8, 2004, included whether to include noise disturbances on public
property as well to address bud car stereos. Staff is still looking into that, but Police Chief
Walker has urged staff to bring this part forward immediately for consideration due to the
number of noise complaints the Police are receiving. Staff will continue to work on the
remaining issues brought up by Council: noise disturbances on rights -of -way, and to what extent
a city may regulate blasting through a noise disturbance ordinance. These will be brought
forward in October.
OPTIONS: Adopt the proposed Noise Disturbance provisions; not adopt the provisions; request
staff to make further modifications for discussion and review.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Staff recommends that the Council move to advance
this proposed Ordinance to the next regular meeting session for second reading and adoption.
BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None anticipated
STAFF CONTACT: Cary P. Driskell, Deputy City Attorney
ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Ordinance No 04 -030
"`, CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
SPOKANE COUNTY WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. 04 -030
Proposed ordinance an noise disturbances —C. Driskell
Draft 2, July 20, 2004
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY
WASHINGTON, ESTABLISHING NOISE REGULATIONS UNDER THE MUNICIPAL
CODE FOR THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, TITLE 8, SECTION 25.060
PERTAINING TO NOISE DISTURBANCES.
WHEREAS, noise regulations are necessary to protect the health, welfare and safety of the
public; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to establish noise regulations under the Municipal Code to
accomplish that goal;
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Washington, ordains as follows:
Section 1. Intent. The City of Spokane Valley declares that having noise regulations in the
Municipal Code are necessary to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public. Therefore, the intent
of this Ordinance is to promote the right to quiet enjoyment of private property within the City.
Section 2. New code provisions on criminal noise regulation. There is established the
following new Section under Title 8, Chapter 25 oldie City of Spokane Valley Municipal Code:
8.25.060 Noise Disturbance
I . It is unlawful for any person to make, continue, cause to be made, or to allow to
originate from real property in the possession of said person, any sound which creates a
noise disturbance.
2. For the purposes of this section, the following sounds are declared to be noise
disturbances:
A. Sounds created by use of a radio, television set, musical instrument,
sound amplifier or any other device capable of producing or reproducing sound, which
emanate frequently, repetitively or continuously from any building, structure or property
located within a residential area, and which annoy or disturb the peace, comfort or repose
of a reasonable person of normal sensitivity;
B. Any other sound occurring frequently, repetitively or continuously which
annoys or disturbs the peace, comfort or repose of a reasonable person of normal
sensitivity. This section shall not apply to noncommercial public speaking and public
assembly activities conducted on any public space or public right-of-way for which a
permit has been obtained. Additionally, this section shall not apply to noises produced by
dogs, which is addressed in Spokane Valley Municipal Code 6.05.070(k)(4).
3. Exemptions.
A. The following shall be exempt from the. provisions of this chapter:
Ordinance 04 -030 Page 1 of 3
Proposed ordinance on noise disturbances — C. Driskell
Draft 2, July 20, 2004
i. Sounds created by motor vehicles when regulated by WAC
Chapter 173 -62;
ii. Sounds originating from aircraft in flight and sounds that
originate at airports which are directly related to flight
operations;
iii. Sounds created by surface carrier engaged in commerce or
passenger travel by railroad;
iv. Sounds created by warning devices not operating continuously
for more than five minutes, or bells, chimes or carillons;
v. Sounds created by safety and protective devices where noise
suppression would defeat the intent of the device or is not
economically feasible;
vi. Sounds created by emergency equipment and work necessary in
the interest of law enforcement or for health, safety or welfare of
the community;
vii. Sounds originating from officially sanctioned parades and other
public events;
viii. Sounds emitting from petroleum refinery boilers during startup
of the boilers; provided, that the startup operation is performed
during daytime hours whenever possible;
ix. Sounds created by watercraft, except to the extent that they are
regulated by other City or State regulations;
x. Sounds created by motor vehicles licensed or unlicensed when
operated off public highways, except when such sounds are
made in or adjacent to residential property where human beings
reside or sleep;
xi. Sounds originating from existing natural gas transmission and
distribution facilities;
xii. Sounds created in conjunction with public work projects or
public work maintenance operations executed at the cost of the
federal government, state or municipality;
xiii. Sounds created in conjunction with the collection of solid
wastes;
xiv. Sounds created in conjunction with military operations or
training;
xv. Sounds originating from organized activities occurring in public
parks, playgrounds, gymnasiums, swimming pools, and other
public recreational facilities during hours of operation;
xvi. Sounds originating from agricultural activities.
B. The following shall be exempt from provisions of this chapter between
the hours of seven a.m. and ten p.m.:
i. Sounds originating from residential property relating to
temporary projects for the repair or maintenance of homes,
grounds and appurtenances;
ii. Sounds created by the discharge of firearms on authorized
shooting ranges;
iii. Sounds created by blasting;
iv. Sounds created by aircraft engine testing and maintenance not
related to flight operations; provided, that aircraft testing and
Ordinance 04 -030 Page 2 of 3
Proposed ordinance on noise disturbances — C. Driskell
Draft 2, July 20, 2004
j" \, maintenance shall be conducted at remote sites whenever
possible;
v. Sounds created by the installation or repair of essential utility
services.
C. The following shall be exempt from the provisions of this chapter
between the hours of seven a.m. and ten p.rn., or when conducted beyond one thousand
feet of any residence where human beings reside and sleep at any hour:
4. Violation — Misdemeanor — Penalty. Any person violating any of the provisions of this
chapter shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor.
Section 3. Severabilitv. If any section, subsection, sentence or clause of this chapter is for
any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions of this
chapter.
Section 4. Effective date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after
publication of this Ordinance or a summary thereof occurs in the official newspaper of the City as
provided by law.
ATTEST:
Passed on this day of July, 2004.
City Clerk, Christine Bainbridge
Approved As To Form:
Deputy City Attorney, Cary P. Driskell
i. Sounds originating from temporary construction sites as a result
of construction activity;
ii. Sounds originating from forest harvesting and silvicultural
activity;
iii. Sounds originating from the quarrying, blasting and mining of
minerals or materials, including, but not limited to, sand, gravel,
rock and clay, as well as the primary reduction and processing of
minerals or materials for concrete hatching, asphalt mixing and
rock crushers;
iv. Sounds originating from uses on properties which have been
specifically conditioned to meet certain noise standards by an
appropriate City hearing body.
Date of Publication:
Effective Date:
Mayor, Michael DeVleming
Ordinance 04 -030 Page 3 of 3
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: July 20, 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: Ordinance Amending Open Container law
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: SVMC 8.20.020; RCW 66.44.100
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Adoption of 03 -046 in March 2003; Study session on
proposed amendment to open container amendment on June 8, 2004; Administrative Report to
Council on July 13, 2004.
BACKGROUND: The current open container provision, when presented to the Council for
adoption prior to incorporation, were inadvertently listed as a misdemeanor offense. State law
does not list that as a misdemeanor offense, and staff has been unable to find another city in
Washington that lists that action as a misdemeanor offense.
Staff has drafted a revision based upon Spokane County's currently adopted provision, which is
consistent with what many cities in Washington have adopted. The fine under the current City
provision is $100. To be consistent with that previously stated intent, staff contacted Court staff
to determine what infraction fine level would be appropriate to charge, when considered with
court costs and fees that are added by the Court, to reach an approximate fine of $100. If the
amended provision states a fine of $50 plus court costs and fees, the total paid for a person in
violation would be $103.00. As such, staff suggests that inclusion in the ordinance a fine in the
amount of $50 plus court costs and fees.
Councilman Munson requested additional information on fines and court cost amounts that can
be imposed. After further research, there appears to be a controlling RCW provision that
precludes individual fine setting by cities. RCW 66.44.100, which is attached to this RCA, states
that violations shall result in a Class 3 infraction, which under state law is a $50.00 fine, plus
court costs and fees. This is the amount suggested by staff in the proposed draft. Given this,
there does not appear to be any discretion in the amount of the fine.
OPTIONS:
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Motion to advance proposed Ordinance 04 -031 to a
second reading.
BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None anticipated.
STAFF CONTACT: Cary P. Driskell, Deputy City Attorney
ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Ordinance No. 04 -031; RCW 66.44.100
Proposed amended ordinance on open containers — C. Driskell
Draft 2, July 20, 2004
CITY OF SPOKANE. VALLEY
SPOKANE COUNTY WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. 04 -031
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY' OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY,
WASHINGTON, AMENDING SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE 8,
SECTION 20.020 PERTAINING TO OPEN CONTAIINERS.
WHEREAS, the City Council created a criminal code through adoption of Ordinance 03 -046; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires, from time to time, to amend provisions of the criminal
code to reflect policy choices, changes in state law, or to correct portions of City Code as need be.
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Washington, ordains as follows:
Section 1. Intent. It is the intent of the City of Spokane Valley to bring City code
provisions into conformity with state law requirements relating to possession of open alcohol containers
in public places.
Section 2. Amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code 8.20.020. Spokane Valley
Municipal Code Section 8.20.020 shall be amended to read as follows:
8.20.020 Alcoholic beverage control — Opening or consuming liquor or
possession open container of liquor in public place
Except as provided by Title 66 RCW, any person who possesses an open container of
liquor in a public place is guilty of an infraction and fined fifty dollars, plus applicable
court costs and fees. This provision shall not apply to containers kept in the trunk of a
vehicle or in an area of the vehicle not normally occupied by the driver or passengers. A
utility compartment or glove compartment is deemed to be within the area occupied by
the driver and passengers. This provision does not apply to passengers in a public
conveyance that is commercially chartered for group use or a for -hire vehicle licensed
under city, county or state law.
Section 3. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence or clause of this chapter is for
any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions of this
chapter.
Section 4. Effective date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five days after
publication of this Ordinance or a summary thereof occurs in the official newspaper of the City as
provided by law.
Passed on this day of July. 2004.
ATTEST: Michael DeVleming, Mayor
Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk
Approved As To Form:
Deputy City Attorney, Cary P. Driskell
Date of Publication:
Effective Date:
Ordinance 04 -031 Page 1 of
RCW 66.44.100
Opening or consuming liquor in public place -- Penalty.
Except as penritted by this title, no person shall open the package containing liquor or
consume liquor in a public place. Every person who violates any provision of this section
shall be guilty of a class 3 civil infraction under chapter 7.810 RCW.
[1999 c 189 § 3; 1981 1st ex.s. c 5 § 21; 1933 ex.s. c 62 § 34; RRS § 7306 -34.1
NOTES:
Application -- 1999 c 189: See note following RCW 66.28.230.
Severability -- Effective date -- 1981 1st ex.s. c 5: See RCW 66.98.090 and
66.98.100.
Page 1 of 1
httn•/ /www lru wa nrw /RC.W/ index. r. fm? fi► eeantirm= SNetinnkSectinn= 6(S.44.100&nrinrver... 7/14/7.004
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: July 20, 2004 City Manager Sign -off:
Item: Check all that apply: 0 consent El old business ❑ new business g public hearing
❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Lease Agreement, Spokane Valley Police Precinct
GOVERNING LEGISLATION:
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Previous Administrative Report , Council
direction to continue with agreement
BACKGROUND:
Negotiation of lease /purchase of Spokane Valley Police Department facility
OPTIONS: Lease or purchase of all or portions of the Spokane Valley Precinct
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Motion to consider signing lease agreement
as presented
BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Future budget amendment request
STAFF CONTACT: Chief Cal Walker
ATTACHMENTS Attached Lease Contract
TO: CITY MANAGER DAVE MERCIER
FROM: CHIEF CAL WALKER
RE: PRECINCT LEASE AGREEMENT
DATE: JULY 14, 2004
Based upon direction from the Council to proceed with a lease agreement for the
Spokane Valley Precinct, attached is a copy of that contract. Staff requests
motion for consideration to approve the agreement between the City of Spokane
Valley and Spokane County as outlined.
Return to:
Daniela Erickson, Clerk of the Board
:Board of County Commissioners
11116 W. Broadway
Spokane, Washington 99260
INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN SPOKANE COUNTY AND
THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY WITH REGARD TO THE PRECINCT BUILDING
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into by and between Spokane County, a
political subdivision of the State of Washington, having offices for the transaction of business at
1116 West Broadway Avenue, Spokane, Washington 99260, hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY"
and the City of Spokane Valley, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, having
offices for the transaction of business at the Redwood Plaza, 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite
106, Spokane Valley, Washington 99206, hereinafter referred to as "CITY," jointly hereinafter
sometimes referred to as the "Parties."
Page 1 of 9
RECITALS:
A. Pursuant to the provisions of RCW 36.32.120(6), the Board of County Commissioners
has the care of County property and the management of County funds and business; and
B. Pursuant to chapter 35.02 RCW, the City of Spokane Valley established Midnight,
March 31, 2003, as its "official date" of incorporation and upon that date commenced operations as
a city. Provided, however, under RCW 35.02.220 the County was responsible for providing law
enforcement services for a period of sixty (60) days from the official date of incorporation or
through May 31, 2003; and
C. Pursuant to the provisions of chapter 39.34 RCW (l.nterlocal Cooperation Act), counties
and cities may contract with each other to perform certain functions which each may legally
perfomn; and
D. Pursuant to the provisions of RCW 36.34.130, the Board of County Commissioners of
Spokane County may dispose of County property to another governmental agency upon such terms
as may be agreed upon and for such consideration as may be deemed by the Board of County
Commissioners to be adequate; and
E. Prior to the incorporation of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County acquired that
parcel of property located at 12710 East Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley, Washington, 99216, to
include the building ( "Precinct Building ") thereon hereinafter jointly referred to as the "Premises."
The Precinct Building was subsequently renovated. The total cost for the purchase of the property
and renovation of the Precinct Building was $2,400,000. Spokane County ( "County ") and the City
of Spokane Valley ( "City") have discussed the City purchasing 56% of the Premises. The 56%
figure represents the amount of space occupied by the City in the Precinct Building in 2003.
Recognizing that the citizens within the now incorporated limits of the City of Spokane Valley
helped pay for the purchase of the Premises and renovation of the Precinct Building through
payment of various taxes, Spokane County desires to give the City credit in the event it determines
to purchase 56% of the Premises. The credit is calculated by taking the total cost of the Premises
($2,400,000) and dividing it by the population of the unincorporated area of Spokane County prior
to the incorporation of the City of Spokane Valley (201,849). (52,400,000 = 201,849 = 511.89)
The resulting number of $11.89 represents the unincorporated per capita cost of the Premises. This
figure is then applied to the population of the City at the date of incorporation (82,500). (511.89 x
82,500 = $975,040. The resulting number of $975,046 represents the credit that the County will
afford the City if it determines to purchase 56% of the Premises. 56% of the cost of the Premises is
$1,344,000. ($2.400,000 x 56% = 51, 344, 000) The credit of $975,046 is applied to the purchase
price for 56% of the Premises, which leaves a balance of $368,945. 631,344,000 — $975,046 =
5368, 954.) (See Attachment "A" for calculations in another format.] The County and City desire to
reduce to writing their understanding as to the (i) ownership of the Premises, (ii) terns and
conditions under which the City may occupy the Precinct Building located on the Premises, and (iii)
terms and conditions under which the City may purchase 56% of the Premises
NOW TJ EREFORE for and in consideration of the mutual promises set forth hereinafter
and as provided for in the above - referenced recitals, which are made a part of this Agreement and
incorporated herein, the Parties do hereby agree as follows:
1. PURPOSE. The purpose of this Agreement is to set forth the Parties' understanding
regarding:
(i) ownership of the Premises,
(ii) terms and conditions under which the CITY may occupy the Precinct Building located on
the Premises,
(iii) terms and conditions under which the CI'T'Y may purchase 56% of the Premises,
The terminology 'Premises" shall mean that parcel of property located at 12710 East Sprague
Avenue, Spokane Valley, Washington, 99216, consisting of approximately 105,519 square feet,
including a building thereon hereinafter referred to as the "Precinct Building" which has 21,780
square feet.
Page 2 of 9
2. OWNERSHIP/USE/PURCHASE.
Page 3 of 9
A. Ownership of the Premises.
The CITY acknowledges that the COUNTY is the owner of the Premises. The Parties
acknowledge and agree that the total cost for the purchase and renovation of the Premises was
TWO MILLION FOUR I- UNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($2,400,000).
B. Terms and conditions under which the CITY may use the Precinct Building
located on the Premises.
The COUNTY agrees to allow the CITY to use a portion of the Precinct Building on a yearly
basis. The CITY agrees to pay the COUNTY a yearly "use fee" for its occupancy of the Precinct
Building and use of a proportionate share of the marked parking spaces on the Premises. The use
fee will consist of two components.
Component One will be a number representing the square footage rate normally charged lessees
for Class B space not including Operation and Maintenance ( "O &M ") costs. For calendar year
2003 the Parties agree that Component One for the City's 56% occupancy of the Precinct
Building was $9.00 per square foot or a total of $109.771 (56% of 21,780 square feet = 12,197
square feet. 12,197 square feet times $9.00 per square foot = $109,771). Since the CITY only
occupied the Precinct Building from June 1, 2003 to December 31, 2003, the CITY'S 2003
Component One charge is $64,033.20. For calendar year 2004 the Parties agree that Component
One for the CITY'S 56% occupancy of the Precinct Building will be $9.00 per square foot or a
total of $109,771. In the event this Agreement runs beyond 2004, Component One for all
subsequent years will be based on the CITY'S actual occupancy of the Precinct Building and a
$9.00 per square foot charge increased annually as of January 1 of each year in an amount equal
to the Consumer Price Index (CPT) —All Urban Consumers, "U.S. City Average" (also known as
Series ID:CUUR0000SAO) as of December 1 of the previous year.
The CITY will not pay the COUNTY any money for Component One so long as it has a credit as
provided hereinafter. All amounts owing for Component One will be subtracted from the CITY'S
$975,046 credit toward the $1,344,000 purchase price for 56% of the Premises as calculated and
explained in Recital E. Each yearly credit of Component One will have the effect of increasing the
CI CY'S actual purchase price of the Premises in the same amount. Attached hereto as Attachment
"A" and incorporated herein by reference is a document that the Parties agree accurately sets forth
the CITY'S financial contribution/credit toward the purchase and renovation costs of the Premises.
Attachment "A" in chart form sets forth the narrative in Recital "E.." Once the CITY has used its
credit of $975,046 in paying amounts owing for Component One, the CITY will be required to pay
the COUNTY all amounts owing for Component One on the same frequency as Component Two
discussed hereinafter. Any late payments of Component One as of this date shall, at the sole option
of the COUNTY, be subject to the same penalty assessment as provided for with regard to
Component Two. Since Component One is based on an agreed to yearly amount, there will not be
an adjust and settle for Component One at the end of any calendar year.
Component Two will be a number representing a square footage charge for O &M allocated to all
occupants of the Precinct Building based upon their percentage of square footage occupancy.
Attached hereto as Attachment "B" and incorporated herein by reference is a document that
generally summarizes the M &O costs that will be allocated to occupants of the Precinct Building.
The M &O costs include various categories of items including utilities (electric, water, sewer)
garbage, janitorial services, inspection services, COUNTY indirect costs, capital improvements
and miscellaneous M &O. The Parties acknowledge that there may be unanticipated, not budgeted
M &O costs in any calendar year as well as unanticipated not budgeted capital improvements in any
calendar year. The COUNTY Director of Administrative Services shall advise the CITY Manager
in writing on or before November 1 of each calendar year of the planned capital improvements for
the Precinct Building regardless of the cost for the following year. The COUNTY will consider the
C1TY's written comments on the planned capital improvements so long as they are received within
fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the notification. The COUNTY's determination as to the
necessity of the planned capital improvement shall be binding on the Parties. The COUNTY
Director of Administrative Services shall advise the CITY Manager as soon as possible of any
unanticipated not budgeted capital improvement. The costs of all capital improvements whether
planned or unanticipated shall be allocated in the year of the improvement and shall not be
amortized over the life of the improvement. For the purpose of this Agreement the terminology
"capital improvement(s)" shall mean any expenditure of $2,000.00 or more. Any such expenditure
will be coded as provided for in the BARS- manual adopted by the State of Washington under
chapter 43.88 RCW.
For calendar year 2003 the Parties agree that Component Two will be calculated at the end of the
calendar year based upon actual costs for M &O for the C.i.TY'S 56% occupancy of the Precinct
Building from June 1, 2003 through December 31, 2003. For calendar year 2004 the Parties
agree that Component Two will be based on the CITY'S 56% occupancy of the Precinct Building
for same items set forth in Attachment "B." For purposes of monthly billings in 2004, and
subject to the adjust and settle provisions, the Parties agree that the monthly Component Two
billing for the CITY'S 56% occupancy of the Precinct Building will be $3,018.11 per month. In
the event this Agreement runs for subsequent calendar years, Component Two will be based
upon the same items set forth in Attachment "B" applied toward the CITY'S percentage of
occupancy for that calendar year.
COUNTY will bill CITY for Component One and Component Two monthly during the first
week of the month, except for amounts owing for 2003 that will be included in the first billing in
2004. All billings shall be sent to the CITY at the address set forth hereinafter. Monthly billings,
except for 2003 which will be billed in a lump sum, will be determined by dividing that yearly
amount for Component One as set forth and calculated hereinabove by twelve (12) and the
estimated monthly cost for 2004 for Component Two. Payments by CITY for Component Two
will be due by the 5 day of the following month. At the sole option of COUNTY, a penalty may
be assessed on any late payment by CITY for Component Two based on lost interest earnings had
the payment been timely paid and invested in the Spokane County Treasurer's Investment Pool.
At the end of calendar year 2004 and subsequent years the Agreement is in effect, using actual
M &O expenditures, COUNTY will each determine whether or not the estimated O &M numbers
Page 4 of 9
used as the basis for calculating O &M costs for Component Two were accurate. The COUNTY
will provide the CITY with documentation substantiating all actual M &O expenditures. The
CITY will be afforded a thirty (30) calendar day time frame to review and comment on the
expenditure documentation. The COUNTY agrees to consider any written concem(s) which the
CITY raises with regard to its review of the expenditure documentation so long as it is received
within the thirty (30) day time frame. However, the COUNTY's determination of the
expenditure will be controlling and binding on the Parties. To the extent that CITY was over
billed in any year, it will receive a credit to be applied as mutually agreed. If CITY was under
billed, it will receive a debit that will be due and payable in the next monthly payment or in the
event this Agreement is terminated within thirty (30) days of any billing. The adjustment will
normally take place in February, but no later than April 30 of the following year.
C. Terms and conditions under which the CITY may purchase 56% of the Premises.
COUNTY agrees to sell CITY 56% of the Premises. The 56% figure represents the amount of
space occupied by the CITY in the Precinct Building in 2003. The COUNTY has determined to
give the CITY credit in the event it determines to purchase 56% of the Premises. The credit is
calculated by taking the total cost of the Premises ($2,400,000) and dividing it by the population of
the unincorporated area of Spokane County prior to the incorporation of the City of Spokane Valley
(201,849). ($2,400,000 _ 201,849 = $11.89) The resulting number of $11.89 represents the
unincorporated per capita cost of the Premises. This figure is then applied to the population of the
CITY at the date of incorporation (82,005). ($11.89 x 82,005 = $975,046). The resulting number
of $975,046 represents the credit that COUNTY will afford the CITY if it had purchased 56% of
the Premises as of its official date of incorporation. 56% of the cost of the Premises is $1,344,000.
($2.400,000 x 56% = $1,344,000) The credit of $975,046 is applied to the purchase price for 56%
of the Premises, which would have left a balance of $368,945 as the purchase price as of April 1,
2003. ($.1,344,000— $975.046 = $368,954.) For each year the CITY uses the Premises as provided
for in this Agreement the purchase price will increase. This is due to the fact that the C1TY does
not pay the COUNTY during its use of the Premises any money for Component One of the use fee.
Instead the amount due by the CiTY for Component One is applied against its credit of $975,046
toward the purchase of 56% of the Premises. For example, in calendar year 2003, the amount
owning by the CITY for Component One of the use fee was $64,033.06. (S109,771 771 - 12=
$9,147.58 per month. 59,147.58 x 7 [representing June 1, 2003 - December 31, 2003] =
$64,033.06). This amount was applied to the CITY'S credit for the purchase of 56% of the
Premises ($975,046). This would leave a credit remaining of $911,012.94. In the event the CITY
determined to purchase 56% of the Precinct Building, its credit toward the purchase price would
then be reduced by $64,033.06 thus it's the purchase price would increase $64,033.06 from the
$368,954 for a total purchase price of $432,987.06.
3. TERM. The term of this Agreement shall be retroactive to April 1, 2003 and shall run
through December 31 of each calendar year this Agreement is in effect. Either Party may
terminate this Agreement for any reason whatsoever upon six (6) months written notice to the
other Party, with notice to be made no later than June 30 of any year, such that the termination
takes effect prior to or on December 31 of any year. The six (6) month notice requirement will
assist each Party in analyzing and adopting its budget for the ensuing calendar year. Provided,
Page 5 of 9
however, the Parties by mutual agreement may terminate this Agreement upon such notice
mutually agreed upon. Provided, further, upon termination of this Agreement and the CITY
determining to purchase its 56% occupancy of the Precinct Building from the COUNTY, the
purchase price will be based on the formula set forth in Attachment "A" and the CITY'S
Component Two credit to date. The Parties further agree that the COUNTY is providing the
CITY with a credit toward the purchase of the Precinct building only in the event the CiTY
determines to purchase its 56% occupancy share of the Precinct building. The COUNTY is
under no obligation of any kind or nature to provide cash or in -kind services to the CITY for its
citizen's proportionate share of the purchase price of the Premises.
4. UTILITIES. COUNTY shall furnish customary janitor /cleaning service, electricity for
lighting and operating of low power usage office machines, heat, normal office air conditioning,
and common area maintenance, during ordinary business hours of the Precinct Building. Phone
services will be the sole responsible of the CITY.
5. ALTERATIONS, ADDITIONS, OR IMPROVEMENTS. CITY shall not, without first
obtaining the written consent of the COUNTY, make any alternations, additions, or
improvements in, to, or about the Premises or Precinct Building.
6. INSURANCE.
A. County will obtain and keep in force property insurance for the replacement cost of the
Precinct Building. The City will pay the County a share of the premium for this coverage based
upon its occupancy of the Precinct Building as of June 1, 2003 for calendar year 2003 and
January 1 for each subsequent year this Agreement is in effect. The cost of the City's share of
the premium associated with the property insurance will be included in Component Two.
B. Each Party shall carry its own property damage covering its personal contents and equipment.
Each Party is encouraged to carry business interruption 'insurance coverage.
C. Each Party shall carry Worker's Compensation Insurance in compliance with RCW 51.12.020,
which requires subject employers to provide workers' compensation coverage for all their subject
workers and Employer's Liability or Stop Gap Insurance in the amount of $1,000,000.
D. The County shall carry General Liability Insurance on an occurrence basis, with a combined
single limit of not less than $1,000,000 each occurrence and $2,000,000 aggregate for bodily
injury and property damage on the Premises. The Parties agree that the City will pay the County a
share of the premium for this coverage based upon its occupancy of the Precinct Building as of
June, 1, 2003 for calendar year 2003 and January 1 for each subsequent year this Agreement is
in effect. The cost of the City's share of the premium will be included in Component Two. It
shall include premises and operations, independent contractors, products and completed
operations, personal injury liability, and contractual liability coverage for the indemnity provided
under the Agreement.
Page 6 of 9
E. Each Party shall carry Automobile Liability Insurance with a combined single limit, or the
equivalent of not Tess than $1,000,000 each accident for bodily injury and property damage,
including coverage for owned, hired and non -owned vehicles.
F. There shall be no cancellation, material change, reduction of limits or intent not to renew
insurance coverage(s) without thirty (30) days written notice from each Party or its insurer(s) to the
other Parties. Each Party shall furnish acceptable insurance certificates or self - insurance letter
from an authorized insurance risk pool to the other Parties upon request. The certificate shall
specify applicable policy endorsements, the thirty (30) day cancellation clause, and the deduction or
retention level.
7. LIABILITY.
A. COUNTY shall indemnify and hold harmless CITY and its officers, agents, and employees, or
any of them from any and all claims, actions, suits, liability, loss, costs, expenses, and damages of
any nature whatsoever, by any reason of or arising out of any negligent act or omission of
COUNTY, its officers, agents and employees, or any of them relating to or arising out of its
obligations under the terms of this Agreement. In the event that any suit based upon such claim,
action, loss, or damages is brought against CITY, COUNTY shall defend the same at its sole cost
and expense; provided that CITY reserves the right to participate in said suit if any principle of
governmental or public law is involved; and if final judgment in said suit be rendered against CITY,
and its officers, agents, and employees, or any of them, or jointly against CITY and COUNTY and
their respective officers, agents, and employees, COUNTY shall satisfy the same.
B. CITY shall indemnify and hold harmless COUNTY and its officers, agents, and employees, or
any of them from any and all claims, actions, suits, liability, loss, costs, expenses, and damages of
any nature whatsoever, by any reason of or arising out of any negligent act or omission of CITY, its
officers, agents and employees, or any of them relating to or arising out its obligations under the
terms of this Agreement. In the event that any suit based upon such claim, action, loss, or damages
is brought against COUNTY, CiTY shall defend the same at its sole cost and expense; provided
that COUNTY reserves the right to participate in said suit if any principle of governmental or
public law is involved; and if final judgment in said suit be rendered against COUNTY, and its
officers, agents, and employees, or any of them, or jointly against COUNTY and CITY and their
respective officers, agents, and employees, CITY shall satisfy the same.
C. The foregoing indemnity is specifically intended to constitute a waiver of each party's immunity
under Washington's Industrial Insurance Act, Chapter 51 RCW, respecting the other party only, and
only to the extent necessary to provide the indemnified party with a full and complete indemnity of
claims made by the indemnitor's employees. The Parties acknowledge that these provisions were
specifically negotiated and agreed upon by them.
8. NOTICES. All notices or other communications given hereunder shall be deemed given on: (1)
the day such notices or other communications are received when sent by personal delivery; or (ii)
the third day following the day on which the same have been mailed by first class delivery, postage
Page 7 of 9
prepaid addressed to COUNTY or CITY shall from time -to -tune designate by notice in writing to
the other Party:
COUNTY: Spokane County Chief Executive Officer
or his /her authorized representative
1116 West Broadway Avenue
Spokane, Washington 99260
Spokane County Director of Administrative Services
1116 West Broadway Avenue
Spokane, Washington 99260
City of Spokane Valley City Manager
or his/her authorized representative
Redwood Plaza
11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 106
Spokane Valley, Washington 99206
9. NO SEPARATE ENTITY CREATED. This Agreement does not create nor seek to create a
separate legal entity pursuant to RCW 39.34.030(3)(b).
10. FILING OF THIS AGREEMENT. The COUNTY shall cause this Agreement to be filed
with the Spokane County Auditor.
11. AMENDMENTS. This Agreement may be amended at anytime by mutual Agreement of
both Parties executed with the same formalities as the present Agreement.
12. SEVERABELITY. 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.
13. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement contains all of the agreements of the Parties with
respect to any matter covered or mentioned in this Agreement and no prior agreements or
understandings pertaining to any such matters shall be effective for any purpose.
14. NO WAIVER. No officer, employee, or agent or otherwise of the CITY or COUNTY has
the power, right or authority to waive any of the conditions or provisions of this Agreement. No
waiver of any breach of this Agreement shall be held to be a waiver of any other or subsequent
breach. All remedies afforded in this Agreement at law shall be taken and construed as
cumulative, that is, in addition to every other remedy provided herein or by law. Failure of any
CITY:
Page 8 of 9
1
Party to enforce, at any time, any of the provisions of this Agreement or to require, at any time,
performance by the other Parties of any provisions shall not, in any way, affect the validity of this
Agreement or any part hereof, or the right of any Party to hereafter enforce each and every such
provision.
15. HFA_DINGS. Headings are inserted for convenience of reference only and are not to be
deemed part of or to be used in construing this Agreement.
16. ASSIGNMENT. No Party may assign its interest in this Agreement without the express
written consent of the other Party, which shall not be unreasonably withheld.
17. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. The Parties shall observe all federal, state and local laws,
ordinances and regulations, to the extent that they may be applicable to the terms of this
A greement.
18. VENUE. This Agreement shall be construed under the laws of Washington State. Any
action at law, suit in equity or judicial proceeding regarding this Agreement or any of its
provisions shall be instituted only in courts of competent jurisdiction within Spokane County,
Washington.
19. COUNTERPARTS. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each
of which, when so executed and delivered, shall be an original, but such counterparts shall
together constitute but one and the same.
IN WITNESS W . EREOF, the Parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed
on this day of , 2004.
ATTEST:
VICKY M. DALTON,
Clerk of the Board
B PH]LLIP D. HARRIS, Chair
DAHIELA ERICKSON
Deputy Clerk
Attest:
City Clerk
Approved as to form only: Its:
City Attorney
Page 9 of 9
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
M.KATF MCCASLIN, Vice -Chair
JOHN ROSKELLEY
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY:
By:
(Title)
City of Spokane Valley Contribution to Premises Purchase
Facility Purchase and Renovation Costs $2,400,000
Divided by:
Unincorporated Population at Time of Purchase 201,849
Equals:
Per Unincorporated Capita Cost of Facility $11.89
Multiply by:
City of Spokane Valley Population 82,005
Equals:
City of Spokane Valley Contribution $975,046
City of Spokane Valley Purchase 56% Ownership in Premises
Facility Purchase and Renovation Costs $2,400,000
Multiply by:
City of Spokane Valley Occupancy 56%
Equals:
City of Spokane Valley Share of Purchase Cost $1,344,000
Less:
City of Spokane Valley Credit $(975,046)
Equals:
City of Spokane Valley Payment to Spokane County $368,954
ATTACHMENT "A"
Utilities
Janitorial Sery
Inspection Sery
Insurance
Professional
Other
TOTALS
Valley Precinct Building
Summary of 2003 Expenses
and
2004 Estimate for City of Spokane Valley
June - December 2003
Spokane City of
County Spokane
Total Paid (44 %) Valley (56 %)
14,300.62 6,292.27 8,008.35
12,782.00 5,624.08 7,157.92
620.69 273.11 347.59
5,128.80 2,256.67 2,872.13
1,527.02 671.89 855.13
1,431.53 629.87 801.66
35,790.66 15,747.90 20,042.77
* Per Month calculated by dividing the City of Spokane Valley June - December 2003 amount by seven.
** Janitorial increased by 20% over 2003
ATTACHMENT B
2004
City of
Spokane City of
Valley Per Spokane
Month * Valley Annual
1,144.05 13,728.60
1,227.07 *" 14,724.86
410.30 4,923.65
122.16 1,465.94
114.52 1,374.27
3,018.11 36,217.32
Meeting Date: July 20, 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. Ad Hoc Sign Committee
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Spokane Valley Ordinance 03 -53, Chapter 14.804.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: City Council ratified the Mayor's appointments to
the Ad Hoc Sign Committee on May 25, 2004.
BACKGROUND: Chapter 14.804 of the Interim Zoning Regulations regulates the placement
and dimensions of signage. The Ad Committee was charged with the 'review and update" of
the existing regulations.
The Committee met on June 8, June 22, and July 8, 2004. On June 8, 2004 Mr. David Crosby
was elected Chairman and Mr. Ken Holloway was elected Vice - Chairman. The members of the
Committee agreed to meet every other week for two hours. The Committee has requested that
the minutes of the meeting be posted on the City website and expects to host a public meeting
for discussion of any changes prior to finalizing its recommendations to the City Council. The
Planning Commission will also hold a public hearing prior to making its recommendation to City
Council.
The Committee has established a systematic methodology for review of the regulations,
beginning with the definitions, to be followed by a review of the ordinance based on sign types.
To date, the Committee has paid close attention to ensuring that the language was clear,
unambiguous and enforceable.
Committee discussions are both cordial and spirited.
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: None requirements.
BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None.
STAFF CONTACT: Marina Sukup, AICP, Community Development Director
ATTACHMENTS:
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: July 14, 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: Department of Emergency Management Services
GOVERNING LEGISLATION:
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Previous Interlocal signed in 2003
BACKGROUND: On November 12, 2003, Spokane Valley City Council approved and
signed an Interlocal Agreement providing for DEM (Department of Emergency
Management Services) with Spokane County, the City of Spokane and other small cities
and towns. Upon Council's signature, the agreement was forwarded to the Spokane
County BOCC for their signature. During the same time, negotiations were underway
between the remaining small cities and towns, Spokane County and the City of
Spokane on how to distribute the cost of providing DEM services to the smaller cities
and towns with populations less than 10,000. Eventually, Spokane County and the City
of Spokane agreed to split the cost of providing DEM services to all cities and towns
with populations under 10,000. This decision changed the language and the total costs
as were provided in the original Interlocal Agreement.
This amended Interlocal has now been prepared with minimal changes and is being
presented to the Council for consideration. Major changes are highlighted below as to
the section in which the changes occurred.
♦ Overall, all dates reflect 2004 rather than 2003, and all references to the
Interlocal Agreement are now labeled "Amended Interlocal Agreement ".
♦ Page 6, Section 7: EMAC
Changes in this section allow for the City Manager, City Administrator, Chief
Financial Officer or Chief Executive Officer to appoint a designee as a
representative on the EMAC council.
The word "chairman" has been changed to "chair ".
♦ Page 6, Section 8: FUNDING
The major change in this section changes billing from quarterly to monthly.
♦ Attachment B
Changes in Attachment B have added costs for M & 0 of the DEM offices located
in the new Fire Training Center and have allowed for additional state revenues,
offsetting the original Interlocal breakdown. The total operational costs are now
$320,784.00. The City of Spokane Valley's annual share is now $61,376.37.
This equates to a monthly billing of approximately $5,114.70. The previous
Interlocal annual amount charged to the City was $62,541.73, which would have
equated to $5,211.81 per month. These changes have saved the City of
Spokane Valley approximately $100.00 per month.
Cal Walker
Chief of Police
OPTIONS:
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION:
BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None
STAFF CONTACT: Chief Cal Walker
ATTACHMENTS
Return to:
Daniela Erickson
Clerk of the Board
1116 West Broadway
Spokane, Washington 99260
2004 AMENDED INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
FOR EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT SERVICES
TIM AMENDED INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT is made by and
among the City of Spokane, a Washington State municipal corporation, having offices for the
transaction of business at 808 West Spokane Falls Boulevard, Spokane, Washington 99201,
hereinafter referred to as the "CITY," the City of Spokane Valley, a municipal corporation of
the State of Washington, having offices for the transaction of business at the Redwood Plaza,
11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 106, Spokane Valley, Washington 99206, hereinafter referred
to as "SPOKANE VALLEY," City of Medical Lake, a municipal corporation of the State of
Washington, having offices for the transaction of business at 124 S. Lefevre P.O. Box 130,
99019, hereinafter referred to as "MEDICAL LAKE," the Town of Millwood, a municipal
corporation of the State of Washington, having offices for the transaction of business at 9103
East Fredrick, 99206, hereinafter referred to "MILLWOOD," the Town of Fairfield, a municipal
corporation of the State of Washington, having offices for the transaction of business at Town
Hall, P.Q. Box 334, 99012, hereinafter referred to as "FAIRFIELD," the Town of Latah a
municipal corporation of the State of Washington, having offices for the transaction of business
at P.O. Box 130, 99018, hereinafter referred to as "LATAH," the City of Liberty Lake, a
municipal corporation of the State of Washington, having offices for the transaction of business
at City Hall, c/o P.O. Box 370, 99019, hereinafter referred to as "LIBERTY LAKE," the Town
of Rockford, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, having offices for the
transaction of business at Town Hall, 20 West Emma, P.O. Box 49, 99030, hereinafter referred to
as "ROCKFORD," the Town of Spangle, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington,
having offices for the transaction of business at P.O. Box 147, 99031, hereinafter referred to as
"SPANGLE," the City of Chcncy, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, having
offices for the transaction of business at General Office, 609 Second, 99004, hereinafter referred
to as "CHENEY," the City of Airway Heights, a municipal corporation of the State of
Washington, having offices for the transaction of business at City Hall, 1208 South Lundstrom,
P.O. Box 969, 99001, hereinafter referred to as "AIRWAY HEIGHTS," the City of Deer Park, a
municipal corporation of the State of Washington, having offices for the transaction of business
at City Hall, 316 Crawford, Box F, 99006, hereinafter referred to as "DEER PARK," the Town
of Waverly, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, having offices for the
transaction of business at 255 North Commercial, P.O. Box 37, 99039, hereinafter refen to as
Page 1 of 13
"WAVERLY," and Spokane County, a political subdivision of the State of Washington, having
offices for the transaction of business at 1 116 West Broadway Avenue, Spokane, Washington
99260, hereinafter referred to as the "COUNTY," jointly hereinafter referred to as the "Parties."
WTTNESSETH:
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of R.CW 36.32.120(6), the Board of County
Commissioners has the care of County property and the management of County funds and business;
and
WHEREAS, pursuant to chapter 39.34 RCW, local governments may jointly exercise
their powers, privileges and authorities through the execution of Interlocal Cooperation
Agreements in order to make the most efficient use of their powers by enabling them to
cooperate with other localities on a basis of mutual advantage and thereby provide services and
facilities in a manner and pursuant to forms of governmental organization that will accord best
with geographical, economic, population, or other factors influencing the needs and development
of local community; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to RCW 38.52.070, two or more political subdivisions may join in
the establishment and operation of a local organization for emergency management services. The
City of Spokane, City of Spokane Valley, City of Medical Lake, Town of Millwood, Town of
Fairfield, Town of Latah, City of Liberty Lake, Town of Rockford, Town of Spangle, City of
Cheney, City of Airway Heights, City of Deer Park, Town of Waverly, and Spokane County are
authorized and directed to establish local organizations for emergency management services ui
accordance with the Washington State Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan and
Program; and
WHEREAS, the City of Spokane and Spokane County entered into a joint Resolution on
or about June 25, 1979, under Resolution No. 79 -0873, establishing a joint Spokane City /County
Department of Emergency Services. Additionally the entities on or about October 22,1996
adopted Resolution No. 96 -0991, which carried out the functions for both entities as called for
pursuant to chapter 38.52 RCW. The City of Spokane Valley, City of Medical Lake, Town of
Millwood, Town of Fairfield, Town of Latah, City of Liberty Lake, Town of Rockford, Town of
Spangle, City of Cheney, City of Airway Heights, City of Deer Park, and Town of Waverly are
desirous of becoming a party to this joint venture; and
WHEREAS, it is the intent of the City of Spokane, City of Spokane Valley, City of
Medical Lake, Town of Millwood, Town of Fairfield, Town of Latah, City of Liberty Lake,
Town of Rockford, Town of Spangle, City of Cheney, City of Airway Heights, City of Deer Park,
Town of Waverly, and Spokane County to combine their efforts to maintain the Department of
Emergency Management ( "DEPARTMENT ") by entering into this Interlocal Cooperation
Agreement.
Page 2 of 13
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants contained
herein, and as authorized under chapter 39.34 RCW and chapter 38.52 RCW, the City of
Spokane City Council, City of Spokane Valley City Council, City of Medical Lake City Council,
Town of Millwood Town Council, Town of Fairfield Town Council, Town of Latah Town
Council, City of Liberty Lake City Council, Town of Rockford Town Council, Town of Spangle
Town Council, City of Cheney City Council, City of Airway Heights City Council, City of Deer
Park City Council, Town of Waverly Town Council and the Spokane County Board of County
Commissioners hereby agree as follows:
SECTION NO. 1: SPOKANE CITY /COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT
The Spokane City /County Department of Emergency Services, as created under the joint
Resolution No. 79 -0873, shall be hereby known as the "Spokane City /County Department of
Emergency Management," hereinafter referred to as "DEPARTMENT."
SECTION NO. 2: CORM IITMEN T
The Parties agree to be fully committed to the Emergency Management Program and provide the
resources necessary for the DEPARTMENT to carry out the Emergency Management Mission.
The Parties agree that they are each responsible for individual department emergency
preparedness. The PARTIES agree to ensure that department heads participate in collaboration,
dialog, planning, and exercises with the DEPARTMENT to assure readiness in event of disaster
or major emergency. This statement of commitment flows from the Parties down to the
individual employees for the safety of life, property, and the environment of Spokane.
SECTION NO. 3: TERM
The term of this Amended Interlocal Agreement shall commence as of the last date executed by
the Parties hereto and shall continue until terminated as provided for hereinafter.
SECTION NO. 4: PURPOSE
It is the purpose of this Amended Interlocal Agreement to continue the combined efforts of CITY
and COUNTY as originally developed in Joint Resolution No.79 -0873, and Joint Resolution No.
96 -0991 and to add SPOKANE VALLEY, MEDICAL. TAKE, MILLWOOD, FAIRFIELD,
LATAI-I, LIBERTY LAKE, ROCKFORD, SPANGLE, CHENEY, AIRWAY I-IEIGHTS, DEER
PARK, and WAVERLY, to this Agreement in order to establish and operate, pursuant to RCW
38.52.070, a local organization for emergency management in accordance with the Washington
State Comprehensive )emergency Plan and Program. This Amended Interlocal Agreement is to
provide for the effective and economical preparation for and coordination of emergency
functions, other than functions for which military forces are primarily responsible.. To mitigate,
Page 3 of 13
prepare for, respond to, and recover from emergencies and disasters, and to aid victims suffering
from injury or damage, resulting from emergency disasters caused by all hazards, whether natural
or man -made, and to provide the opportunity for coordination and support of search and rescue
operations.
SECTION NO. 5: DUTIES AND RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE DEPARTMENT
The DEPARTMENT shall office at the Spokane Fire Training Center, 1618 N. Rebecca,
Spokane, Washington 99217, until the Parties, by mutual agreement, decide upon a new location.
The DEPARTMENT, in addition to having those duties as enumerated ii R.CW 38.52.070, shall
also have the following responsibilities:
Page 4 of 13
(1) Facilitate a coordinated planning process integrating Emergency Management plans to
include: federal, state, local governments, individual city and county departments,
neighborhood, individual citizens, schools and the private sector;
(2) Conduct a comprehensive internal assessment and evaluation of emergency plans,
equipment and personnel proficiency through a program of regular exercises;
(3) Acquire and maintain Emergency Management facilities and equipment;
(4) Administer and facilitate programs that enable people, governments, communities and
the private sector to minimize and recover from immediate and long term impacts of
disasters;
(5) Facilitate the identification, development, implementation and evaluation of
mitigation strategies and activities to reduce vulnerability to the effects of disasters;
(6) Provide timely and accurate Emergency Management information;
(7) Participate with the 9 -1 -1 Operations Committee to assist the public in Spokane
County to easily, rapidly, and accurately access emergency police, fire, and medical
assistance during time of a disaster;
(8) Effectively and efficiently train DEPARTMENT staff to coordinate emergency
management resources, programs, functions and systems;
(9) Propose coordinated legislation, ordinances, and local laws to improve the safety of
people, governments and the private sector;
(10) Coordinate a cooperative effort of federal, state, and local governments,
neighborhoods, schools, individual citizens, individual city and county departments and
private sector to educate the public in emergency and disaster preparedness;
Page 5of13
(1 1) Coordinate facilities and resources to assist federal, state, and local governments to
effectively and efficiently respond to emergencies and disasters;
(12) Work in cooperation with federal, state, and local governments, and the private
sector to realize, develop and maintain a network of survivable emergency
telecommunications and warning systems;
(13) Facilitate a partnership of federal, state, and local governments and the private sector
that provides "All Hazards" emergency management training for emergency coordination
and management level personnel;
(14) Facilitate and participate in various group meetings, such as: Search and Rescue
Council, Spokane Disaster Committee, Local Emergency Planning Committee, Amateur
Radio Emergency Service (A.R.E.S.)/Radio Amateur Civil Emergency Service
(R..A.C.F.S.), Inland Empire Fire Chiefs Association, Inland Northwest Law Enforcement
Leadership Group, Business & Industry Committee, Spokane County EMS Council,
Spokane County Hospital Disaster Committee, City and County Department Heads and
other groups;
(15) Establish, train and maintain a volunteer cadre that can be mobilized in case of
search and rescue missions, emergencies and/or disasters;
(16) Prepare, monitor, administer and evaluate the DEPARTMENT'S annual budget;
(17) Participate in and attend related Emergency Management conferences, seminars,
training and education; and
(18) Schedule, coordinate and conduct training in emergency management for educating
government, private sector and individuals.
SECTION NO. 6: PROPERTY AND EQUIPMENT
All existing equipment and supplies previously used by the Emergency Services Departments of
both CITY and COUNTY shall be combined and consolidated for the continued maintenance and
use by the DEPARTMENT. All equipment so consolidated shall remain the equipment of the
individual entity supplying the same to the consolidation.
All equipment required by the DEPARTMENT, other than that obtained from consolidation,
shall be held in the name of the DEPARTMENT and shall be disposed of upon termination of the
DEPARTMENT as the Parties may mutually agree.
SECTION NO. 7: EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COUNCIL (EMAC)
An Emergency Management Advisory Council ( "EMAC ") is hereby created. EYMAC'S function
shall be. to provide vision and make reconunendations to the DEPARTMENT. EMAC shall be
composed of the following or their designee: City of Spokane Administrator, City of Spokane
Chief Financial Officer, Spokane County Chief Executive Officer, Spokane Valley City
Manager, a representative from the Inland Empire Fire Chiefs Association, and a representative
from the Inland Northwest Law Enforcement Leadership Group. The Director and Deputy
Director of the DEPARTMENT shall be ex- officio, non - voting members.
A majority of EMAC members will constitute a quorum. EMAC will assist, advise and
collaborate with the Local Director and Deputy Director of the DEPARTMENT in the
development of service levels, resulting budget, emergency plans and training
EMAC shall meet on a quarterly basis, unless deemed unnecessary by the Chair. The Local
Director shall serve as chair.
SECTION NO. 8: FUNDING
The Local Director or Deputy Director shall annually prepare a budget for operation of the
Spokane City /County Department of Emergency Management ( "DEM "). The annual budget shall
be submitted to the EMAC for review and approval. The annual budget shall than be submitted
to the Board of County Commissioners for Spokane County for its adoption.
The budget shall include all costs of maintenance and operation of its offices at 1618 N. Rebecca
and 1 121 W. Gardner, Spokane Washington. Attached hereto as Attachment "A" and "13," and
incorporated herein by reference, is a 2004 Budget that sets forth all projected 2004 costs for
operating and maintaining DEM. The annual budget once approved by the EMAC shall be
allocated among the Parties in the same proportionate share as their populations are to the total
population of Spokane County. For the purpose of calculating populations, the COUNTY shall
have that population assigned to the unincorporated area of Spokane County. Provided, however,
for calendar year 2004 the COUNTY and CITY agree to equally share the budget allocation
assigned to all cities that are a part of this Arnended Interlocal Agreement and have populations
of less than 1.0,000. The Parties agree to use the population figures as prepared and published by
the Washington State Office of Financial Management as of January 1 of each calendar year to
allocate the budget for that year.
The Spokane County Director of Administrative Services will submit an invoice to the Parties
(twelve equal payments) no later than the first week of the service month. Invoices will be due
and payable no later than the fifth of following month.
Annual adjustments will be made on or before March 31 of each year based on actual
expenditures for the previous year. In the event that the Parties were over billed during the
previous calendar year, they will receive a credit to be applied to the next monthly billing. In the
Page 6of13
event that they are no longer signatories to this Amended Interlocal Agreement, they will be paid
by check. In the event that the Parties were under billed during the previous calendar year, they
will be responsible for paying such debit in the next monthly billing. In the event that they are no
longer signatories to this Agreement, they will be responsible for paying any billing within thirty
(30) calendar days. At the sole discretion of the CITY or SPOKANE VALLEY or any City
having a population of 10,000 or less who financially pays a portion of the annual DEM budget
in the case of over billing, or the sole discretion of the COUNTY, in the case of an under billing,
the party may request interest on such amount based on the lost interest earnings had the under
billing amount been invested since the end of the calendar year to the date of determination in the
Spokane County Treasurer's Investment Pool or the over billing amount been invested since the
end of the calendar year to the date of determination in the Washington Cities Investment Pool.
SECTION NO. 9: INDEMNIFICATION
The Parties agree that the DEPARTMENT, all of its employees, to include the Local Director
and Deputy Director, shall be included under the COUNTY'S self-insured insurance coverage for
general liability and worker compensation.
The Parties further agree that the COUNTY shall he responsible for any liability, loss, cost or
expense claimed by third parties for property damage and bodily injury, including death, caused
by any act or omission attributed to the DEPARTMENT, its employees or agents in connection
with the Amended Interlocal Agreement.
Each Party shall be responsible for its own wrongful and negligent acts or omissions, or those of
its officers, agents, or employees to the fullest extent required by law, and shall indemnify,
defend, and hold the other party harmless from any such liability. In the case of negligence of
more than one Party, any damages allowed shall be levied in proportion to the percentage of
negligence attributable to each Party and each Party shall have the right to seek contribution from
the other Party in proportion to the percentage of negligence attributable to the other Party.
SECTION NO. 10: SPOKANE DISASTER COMMITTEE
There shall be a Spokane Disaster Committee. The Spokane Disaster Committee shall consist of
representatives from law enforcement, fire service, hospitals, local government, emergency
medical services, the military, the DEPARTMENT, as well as other individuals from the public
and private sectors. The purpose of the Spokane Disaster Committee shall be to assist the
DEPARTMENT in mitigation, preparation, planning, response and recovery from disasters or
major emergencies. The Committee shall meet on a monthly basis, unless deemed unnecessary
by the Chair. The Committee shall elect its own chair, vice- chair, etc. The Committee shall
establish its own by -laws.
Page 7of13
SECTION NO. 11: LOCAL EMERGENCY PLANNING COMMITTEE
There shall be a Spokane Local Emergency Planning Committee ( "LEPC "). The LEPC shall he
established and conform to the Federal, State, and Local laws. The LEPC shall assist the
DEPARTMENT in its compliance to all pertinent laws pertaining to Hazardous Materials.
SECTION NO. 12: THE LOCAL DIRECTOR OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
The Spokane County Sheriff is hereby appointed as the Spokane Local Director of Emergency
Management. The Local Director shall be responsible for:
(1) The overall Emergency Management program;
(2) Serve as Chair of the EMAC; and
(3) Empowered to declare a disaster or state of emergency in consultation with affected
jurisdictional elected official(s).
SECTION NO. 13: DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
The Deputy Director of the Spokane City/County Department of Emergency Management shall
be responsible to the Local Director. Subject to the direction of the Local Director, the Deputy
Director is hereby empowered and directed:
(1) To act on behalf of the Local Director in his absence in all Emergency Management
functions and responsibilities;
(2) To prepare a comprehensive emergency management plan conforming to the state
comprehensive emergency management plan program and programs;
(3) To coordinate the effort of the emergency management organization for the
accomplishment of the purposes of this Agreement;
(4) To coordinate and facilitate cooperation between divisions, services and staff of the
joint emergency management services jurisdictions, and to resolve questions of authority
and responsibility that may arise between them;
(5) '1'o represent the Spokane City /County Department of Emergency Management
organization in all dealings with public or private agencies pertaining to emergency
management and disasters;
(6) To keep and maintain an inventory of all non- perishable and non - expendable goods,
supplies and equipment of the DEPARTMENT or in its custody, including federal excess
property on loan to the DEPARTMENT, with said inventory to specify the location of
each item listed thereon; and
Page 8 of 13
i
_ J'
(7) To equip, maintain, and train Emergency Operations Center ( "EOC ") personnel and to
act as manager of said EOC upon activation for disaster or exercise.
SECTION NO. 14: TERMINATION
Each Party may terminate its participation in the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement upon ninety-
days (90) days written notice to the Director of the DEPARTMENT prior to January l st of any
year. The effective date of the termination will be December 31 s '
Federal or state owned properties shall be disbursed in accordance with appropriate federal or
state guidelines. Items loaned to the DEPARTMENT by a participating member shall upon
request be returned to that member upon that member's withdrawal from this Agreement or upon
this Agreement's cancellation.
All properties owned by the DEPARTMENT will remain with the DEPARTMENT and shall not
be subject to disbursement.
SECTION NO. 15: SEVERABILITY
It is understood and agreed by the Parties hereto that if any part, term or provision of this
Amended Interlocal Agreement is held by the courts to be illegal, the validity of the remaining
provisions shall not be affected, and the rights and obligations of the Parties shall be construed
and enforced as if the Agreement did not contain the particular provision held to be invalid.
If it should appear that any provision hereof is in conflict with any statute of the State of
Washington, said provision that may conflict therewith shall be deemed modified to conform to
such statutory provision.
SECTION NO. 16: ENTIRE AGREEMENT
The Parties agree that this Amended Interlocal Agreement is the complete expression of the
terms hereto and any oral representations or understandings not incorporated herein are excluded.
This Amended Interlocal Agreement shall supersede all prior resolutions and agreements
executed by the Parties hereto with regard to Emergency Management, including, but not
necessarily limited to Spokane County joint Resolution No. 79 -0873 executed June 25, 1979 and
Spokane County joint Resolution No. 96 -0991 unless incorporated and made reference to herein.
SECTION NO. 17: MUTUAL AID AGREEMENTS
Nothing in this Amended Interlocal Agreement shall limit the authority, responsibility or duties
of any Party arising out of any mutual aid agreement or other Agreements with other
governmental entities.
Page 9 of 13
SECTION NO. 1.8: COUNTERPARTS
This Amended Interlocal Agreement may be executed in counterparts, and each such counterpart
shall be deemed to be an original instrument. All such counterparts together will constitute one
and the same Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have caused this Amended Interlocal Agreement to
be executed on date and year opposite their respective signatures.
DATED:
Attest:
City Clerk (Title)
Approved as to form:
By:
Assistant City Attorney
DATED: TOWN OF LATAH:
Attest: By:
Its:
Town Clerk (Title)
DATED:
Attest:
City Clerk (Title)
Approved as to form only:
Acting City Attorney
Page 10 of 13
CITY OF SPOKANE:
By:
Its:
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY:
By:
Its:
DATED: CITY OF MEDICAL LAKE:
Attest:
Its:
City Clerk (Title)
DATED: TOWN OF MILLWOOD:
Attest: By:
Its:
Town Clerk (Title)
DATED:
Attest:
Town Clerk (Title)
DATED: CITY OF LIBERTY LAKE:
Attest: By:
City Clerk (Title)
Approved as to form only:
Acting City Attorney
Page 11 of 13
By:
TOWN OF FAIRFIELD:
By:
Its:
Its:
DATED: TOWN OF ROCKFORD:
Attest: 13y:
Its:
Town Clerk (Title)
DATED: TOWN OF SPANGLE:
Attest: 13y:
Its:
Town Clerk (Title)
DATED: CITY OF CH:NEY:
Attest: By:
Its:
City Clerk (Title)
DATED: CITY OF AIRWAY HEIGHTS:
Attest: 13y:
Tts:
City Clerk (Title)
DATED: CITY OF DEER PARK:
Attest: By:
Its:
City Clerk (Title)
Page 12 of 13
DATED: TOWN OF WAVERLY:
Attest:
ATTEST:
VICKY M. DALTON
CLERK OF THE BOARD
BY:
Daniela Erickson, Deputy
Page 13 of 13
By:
Its:
Town Clerk (Title)
DATED: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF SPOKANE, COUNTY, WASHINGTON
PI-T[ LIP D. HARRIS, Chair
M. KATE MCCASLIN, Vice -Chair
JOHN ROSKELLEY
Total County Pop
ATTACHMENT "A"
SPOKANE COUNTY POPULATION
Estimated 2003
Population Analysis per City
% Population per City
Spokane Valley 82,005 0.1913
Spokane 197,400 0.4606
Unincorporated 119,844 0.2796
Small Cities: 29,351 0.0685
Airway Heights 4,590
Cheney 9,470
.Deer Park 3,055
Fairfield 586
Latah 194
Liberty Lake 4,640
Medical Lake 4,215
Millwood 1,655
Rockford 533
Spangle 275
Waverly 138
Total County Pop
29,351 428,600.00 1.0000
Population Analysis with Small Cities Apportioned
Equally to City of Spokane and Unincorporated
Spokane Valley 82,005 0.1913
Spokane 212,076 0.4948
Unincorporated 134,520 0.3139
Based on Washington State OFM Forecast June 30, 2003
428,600 1.0000
% Population per
Entity
Population % with Small
0.1913
0.4948
0.3139
Total
Cities Apportioned
Equally to City of
Spokane and
Unincorporated
Total by Entit}
61,376.37
158,727.21
100,680.68
320,784.26
Operating Budget* 332,131
Building MIO ** 19,496
Indirect Costs * ** + 30,432
Revenue * * **
Total Operating Cost
ATTACHMENT "B"
Spokane County
Department of Emergency Management
2004 Operating Costs
382,059
61,275
320,784
City of Spokan City of Spokane
Valley
Unincorporated
County
Population Analysis with Small Cities Apportioned
Equally to City of Spokane and Unincorporated
Population
per Entity
Spokane Valley 82,005 0.1913
Spokane 212,076 0.4948
Unincorporated 134,520 0.3139
Total County Pop 428,600 1.0000
* Adopted 2004 budget for Department 010- 0400009
* *Building M/O based on OMB A -87 2002 for 2004 page 171and sq ft provided by 13i11 Hansen
* ** FTEs multiplied by same indirect rateIFTF used by the Sheriffs Office for their 2004 Valley Contract
a *a* Per Tom Mattern, per contract this is the amount of revenue to be received from the State
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: July 20, 2004 City Manager Sign -off:
Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing
[E] information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Administrative Report. Clear View Triangles Enforcement
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Spokane Valley Ordinance 03 -53.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: City Council was briefed on Clear View Triangles
on June 29, 2004.
BACKGROUND: 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. As written, the provisions are difficult to enforce.
The Community Development Department evaluated the impact of enforcement of the
provisions, and these findings are summarized in the attached memorandum.
OPTIONS: To recommend amendment of existing provisions through a process which includes
a hearing and recommendations by the Planning Commission, to provide additional direction to
staff, or to delete provisions of existing ordinances.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Approval of the amendment of existing provisions
through the process which includes a public hearing and recommendation of the Planning
Commission.
BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: S16,584 annually estimated.
STAFF CONTACT: Marina Sukup, AICP, Community Development Director
ATTACHMENTS:
Presentation
Memorandum Clear View Triangle Enforcement
Intersection
Control
'Total
None
1362
Stop
1180
Signal
69
Yield
19
Sj�kan�
■ Ualley
Memorandum
To: Dave Mercier, City Manager, and Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Marina Sukup, AICP, Community Development Director
CC: Nina Regor, Deputy City Manager, Tom Scholtens, Chris Berg, Kelli Sammeli
Date: July 1, 2004
Re: Clear View Triangle Enforcement
11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 • Spokane Valley WA 99206
509.921.1000 • Fax: 509.921.1008 • cityhall®spokanevalley.org
The Division of Code Compliance evaluated the impact of enforcement of Clear View Triangles
regulation on the City, taking two separate intersections where visibility has been a concern. On -site
investigations were conducted without a measuring wheel or cones, both of which will be required if
the City elects to proceed with enforcement. The findings were then generalized, making certain
assumptions about the number of intersections falling within the categories of "uncontrolled' or "stop
controlled ". "Stop Controlled" may include signalized and yield controlled intersections.
The following table summarizes the number of intersections and control
status. An estimated 10 -20% of all intersections may require investigation
and/or enforcement action, affecting roughly 300 -600 properties. Since the
City has no history of enforcement, it should be expected that the number of
initial investigations/enforcement actions may be high, but also that a large
number of property owners (85 -95 %) will voluntarily comply with a notice.
This is particularly true where the visibility obstruction can be corrected by
the trimming of trees and bushes. Modification of sight obscuring fences is
likely to be more difficult.
The City of Spokane has limited problems with fences, since permits for fences are required. With
approximately three times the number of intersections, over the last three years the City of Spokane
has averaged 131 enforcement actions. Their enforcement, like Spokane Valley, is entirely complaint
driven. Assuming a permit is required for new /modified fences, it would be reasonable to conclude
that the enforcement of visibility triangles after the initial start -up period will average 40-45 per year,
with most actions initiated during the spring and early summer.
Enforcement of visibility triangles is normally the responsibility of municipal code enforcement,
although technical assistance from Public Works may be required from time to time. Specific
problems which should be anticipated involve properties where the owner is not unwilling, but rather
unable to clear visibility obstructions as a result of infirmity, the lack of financial resources, or both.
Based on these assumptions, the annualized commitment of the City of Spokane Valley for the
enforcement of visibility triangles is summarized for years after the initial period as follows is shown
on the following table. During the initial period, the commitment of resources could be significantly
higher.
The estimated costs are conservative, and the impact on Code Enforcement or other departments
should be gauged with due consideration of other City enforcement priorities. Enforcement should be
preceded by a substantial public education process.
A member of the community suggested following Council discussion on June 29, 2004, that the City
should address vegetation immediately and by requiring a permit for new or modified fences, could
delay requiring individuals to modify their fences until either the fence was modified or the property
was sold. This idea has considerable merit, although once the City has actual or constructive notice
of a potential threat to the public safety, liability for a failure to correct the situation may attach.
If City Council determines that a permit for fencing should be required, it is recommended that no fee
should be charged persons seeking to correct an existing situation following notice. Permit fees for
new fences should be those charged for the minimum building permit ($69.50) to assure cost
recovery.
# Cases (Average est.))
Man Hours
Costs
Investigation (CD)
40-45
100 -115
$ 4,600
Voluntary Compliance (CD)
34 -40
34 -40
$ 1,600
Further Enforcement (CD)
Corporation Counsel
Wearing Examiner
6 -8 •
30-40
12 -16
36-48
S 1,600
$ 960
S 3,984
Judicial Abatement
4
24
$ 3,840
TOTAL
97
283
$16, 584
The estimated costs are conservative, and the impact on Code Enforcement or other departments
should be gauged with due consideration of other City enforcement priorities. Enforcement should be
preceded by a substantial public education process.
A member of the community suggested following Council discussion on June 29, 2004, that the City
should address vegetation immediately and by requiring a permit for new or modified fences, could
delay requiring individuals to modify their fences until either the fence was modified or the property
was sold. This idea has considerable merit, although once the City has actual or constructive notice
of a potential threat to the public safety, liability for a failure to correct the situation may attach.
If City Council determines that a permit for fencing should be required, it is recommended that no fee
should be charged persons seeking to correct an existing situation following notice. Permit fees for
new fences should be those charged for the minimum building permit ($69.50) to assure cost
recovery.
Spoka
jValley
Clear View Tangle
Enforcement
rrrn u n ity; Deue l opm'e nt D e pa rtm a nt
e rr.
June 29,2004 (�
:4iL C,
r
Purpose
• Brief the City Council on issues associated with "Clear
View Triangle" Enforcement
Background
• TheZoning regulations (Ordinance 03 -53) control the
placement of fences and shrubbery which is prohibited
within the "Clear View. Triangle"
As written; °the,st are,difficuIt to enforce
City4Council. briefed on fearr Triangles" on
•
June 29,
2004
1
• 1020% of intersections may
require investigationtremediation'
. • 3,00 -600 properties
• 185 of owners,will
'+comply. with notice,,, r
the
2
/
Clear View
Triangle
Enforcement Issues
• Vegetation growth is seasonal but recurring
• Enforcement is complaint driven, although it is
anticipated that a number of requests will be
generated from Police and Public Works
• Notifying fence area installers /contractors that a permit
is required and that clear view triangles will be
enforced will resolve a number of .issues. prospectively
• If enforced, the present regulations would; maintain a
clear view (assuming a 25 foot front/flanking setback)
• If Council prefers NOT to enforce any clear view
triangle regulations, the Zoning regulations should be
`amended to delete the existing :provisions
•
F .it, +Y•
c
om . ...a
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 property
• 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
clear view.triangle
• This can 'oniy:be accomplished if a permit is required
zl� f ouncil determines that�a.fe'n permit is advisable
'A` +� fee .recommended foranew a ces should ld be those of
t minimum bui ding permit
4
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: July 13, 2004 City Manager Sign -off:
Item: Check all that apply: El consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing
E information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Administrative Report. Requirements and schedules for amending
the Comprehensive Plan and /or Development Regulations
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70, Spokane Valley Ordinance 53
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: None.
BACKGROUND: The City Council adopted the Spokane County Comprehensive Plan pursuant
to Ordinance No. 52, subsequently adopting the Zoning Code of Spokane County as interim
development regulations for the new city (Ordinance 53). Council requested information
concerning the requirements, process and schedule for amending the Comprehensive Plan
and/or Development Regulations. Memorandum attached.
OPTIONS: Not Applicable
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Not Applicable- Information only. .
BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Not applicable.
STAFF CONTACT: Marina Sukup, Community Development Director
ATTACHMENTS: Memorandum
Spokan��
■ Valley
11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 • Spokane Valley WA 99206
509.921.1000. Fax: 509.921.1008 • cityhall ®spokanevalley.orr
Memorandum
To: Dave Mercier, City Manager, Members of the Spokane Valley City Council
From: Marina Sukup, AICP, Community Development Director
Date: July 13, 2004
Re: Requirements and schedules for amending the Comprehensive Plan and/or Development
Regulations
The City is currently operating under an interim Comprehensive Plan, adopted from Spokane County,
pending development of our first self- initiated Plan. We are also operating within development
regulations adopted from the County.
Staff, Council members and clients can all point to changes that can and should be made to the
Comp Plan and the development codes and regulations. The question has been asked, 'What types
of `fixes' can we make now, and what types of 'fixes' should wait until the development of our Comp
Plan ?" The purpose of this memo is to describe categories and timing of various fixes.
Changes to the Comprehensive Plan
The existing Comprehensive Plan may be amended only once a year, with applications due not later
than July 1. Changes in the Comprehensive Plan must be submitted to the Community Trade and
Economic Development Department (CTED) at least 60 days prior to final approval by the City
Council. Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan require State Environmental Protection Act
(SEPA) review as a Non - Project Action. The issuance of a Determination of Non - Significance (DNS)
or Mitigated Determination of Non - Significance (MDNS) allows for a 14 day appeal period. Council
has provided that a public hearing will be held before the Planning Commission, which then forwards
its recommendation to City Council. Fourteen days notice of the hearing is required. City Council
may also have a public hearing.
Changes to Development Regulations
Development regulations must be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. We may initiate any
changes to regulations that would correct inconsistencies with our currently adopted Plan at any time.
Regulation changes we would like to propose which are not consistent with the interim adopted Plan
must wait until our own Comp Plan is adopted.
As with changes to the Comp Plan, changes to development regulations require review by CTED;
SEPA determination, notice, public hearings and the opportunity for public comment.
The chart on the last page shows the process for creating or amending a development regulation.
Examples of Actions that will require an Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan
• Any rezoning where the zoning requested is not supported by the policies of the
Comprehensive Plan, e.g. a commercial designation in a residential zone.
C'
Types and Timing of Changes to the Comprehensive Plan, continued
July 13, 2004
Page 2 of 3
• Amendments to the sign ordinance that would permit new billboards or change the
designation of any or all of the aesthetic corridors.
• Actions that would conflict with explicit policies of the Plan, such as eliminating "border
easements".
• Capital facilities updates.
Although area -wide rezones that are not inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan do not require a
Plan amendment, it may be prudent to process them simultaneously, and it certainly does not hurt
anything to do so.
Examples of Actions that typically do NOT require an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan:
• Changes in permitted uses within the zones.
• Changes in the number of Tots that may use the short plat method within statutory limits.
• Dimensional standards, including setbacks, minimum lot size, lot coverage, etc. and sign
height and area requirements.
• Procedural changes e.g. code compliance provisos, eliminating or requiring notice (provided
that the changes do not conflict with statutory provisions) requiring permits or updating
obsolete or confusing provisions.
• Improving safety and building standards. Changes in engineering standards
• Revisions that further Plan provisions, including design requirements.
• Moratoria or interim zoning.
It is possible that some changes may fall into a gray area that will require a careful review of the
Comprehensive Plan to be sure there are no conflicts, and to determine the notice that will be
required.
The chart below shows the review process for changes in regulations. Once the proposed regulation
is drafted and circulated, the process will take at least sixty days. Additional time may be required to
discuss issues with stakeholders and assure adequate opportunity for community comment.
Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan may be made only once a year and would need to be
complete before the change in the regulations process can be initiated. The deadline for the
submittal of amendments is July 1. This will typically add three to six months to the process outlined.
Types and Timing of Changes to the Comprehensive Plan, continued
July 13, 2004
Page 3 of 3
Athain Rpl to
Cora)
Council Directive
vane/Ye
♦
C PROPOSED \
REGULATION • /
1,4 Day Notice
Planning
CanYnISS n
. Hanrinp
PC
Re:amrnendeUon
SEPA
vI
7
4 ONSI} /DNS
- — Apency RavbN . ClED 1
I
L-• -14 by Comcnar Appe31 I
Odlrmnce
PunliceUon
— 50aye - Vtocllva O10o �1
Amending Develio p ie nit
Regudl2 ions
tfoo: o R e [lop tent
..,r,n,, - a,o. ,
• Brief the City Council on the requirements and
schedules for the amending the Comprehensive Plan
andfor development regulations
Background
• The City adopted the Spokane County Comprehensive
Plan and Development Regulations as interim measures
(Onfinances 03-053 and 03 -052)
• The Comprehensive Plan may be amended only once a
year with the deadline for application July 1
• Amendments to the Conip Plan and Development
Regulations require:
..Neile by Comawnity. 1raiex . E=conomleDevelopment .(CThD)
SIe15E ' ruiflif5iA51�Fnoteiien Act (SEPA)nit5ly.ip •
flansZiogaf$imittio
0 [ ,C1 • Reg tiw
iNtr1-` t : r d r a be fliftWeiWlfidlibeGFAM
ntended o
mole en the
1
Requires Comp Plan Amendment
• Any rezoning where the zoning requested is not
supported by the policies of the Comprehensive Plan,
e.g. a commercial designation in a residential zone.
• Amendments to the sign ordinance that would permit
new billboards or change the designation of any or all
of tho aesthetic cortridors.
• Actions that would conflict with explicit policies of the
Plan, such as elminating'bordereasernents - ,
•. Cgpital f c lities atos: Y
•
Reds NOT Requiring Comp Plan Amendment
• Changes in permitted uses within the zones
• Changes in tho number of toes that may use the short plat
method within statutory limits.
• Dimensional standards, Including setbacks. minimum Dot
size, lot coverage, etc. and sign height and aroa _
requirements.
• _Procedural changes e_g.;code compliance provisos,
clindnaing or requiring notice (provided changes do not
cantllra wdhislatutory prsions):requirypgpenngs or
,•: - upd�ti o<solet&brbonfumnqp Is3ons:_ t "
6 Inn own safety C jbuildmgatii dnrds: C engesin' =v-
0 Revision n .(111,427It�=1 ,'-a; b 1e 7i
.0 sfv;I:M. PIP '
2
But
• Some changes may fail into a gray area that will requ
a careful review of the Comprehensive Plan to be sure
there are no conflicts, and to determine the notice that
MI be required
• Once the proposed regulation is drafted and circulated,
the process well take at least sixty days
• Additional time may be roquirod to discuss issues with
stakeholders and assure adequate opportunity for
community comment
• : rtan invent t°ihe Coo spr h,?n ive Plan _mbe ay mad ,
814 e ce a yea and WO dtneed :tb be �r plate beto
" ec a o'Int eiegel &tlr. rbproci;s __:�itdlated
3
Meeting Date: July 20, 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 : Master Plan Update
GOVERNING LEGISLATION:
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN:
BACKGROUND: Director Mike Jackson will give an update on the Master Plan.
OPTIONS:
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION:
BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None
STAFF CONTACT: Mike Jackson
ATTACHMENTS
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
�1 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: July 20, 2004 City Manager Sign -off:
Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent X old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing
X information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN SPOKANE COUNTY AND
THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY REGARDING USES AND ALLOCATION OF AQUIFER
PROTECTION AREA REVENUES
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.36 Aquifer Protection Areas
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Approval of Resolution #04 -016 "Authorizing
Inclusion of Spokane Valley Within an Aquifer Protection Area" on June 8, 2004.
BACKGROUND: The Spokane County Board of Commissioner sent a letter dated January 27,
2004 to Spokane Valley requesting consideration for inclusion of the City of Spokane Valley in
the reauthorization of the Aquifer Protection Area. The Council received several briefings
regarding the APA program and on June 8, 2004 the City Council approved resolution #04 -016
which authorized inclusion of Spokane Valley within the Aquifer Protection Area subject to
subject to approval by Spokane Valley and Spokane County of an interlocal agreement
regarding use of the funds.
We have completed a draft interlocal which is attached for your review. Section 2 details the
use of the APA funds. Briefly, the uses of the funds are as follows:
1. County may charge reasonable administration and billing costs.
2. County may charge costs associated with the County's Water Resources Program.
3. Spokane Regional Health District will receive $100,000 per year to monitor septic
tanks.
4. The City of Spokane will receive $500,000 per year.
5. Remaining revenues will be used for subsidies to reduce the Capital Facilities Rates
charged for the annual Septic Tank Elimination Projects through the year 2010.
6. After 2010 the City will receive its proportional share of the remaining fees through
2025.
OPTIONS:
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION:
BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS:
STAFF CONTACT: Neil Kersten
ATTACHMENT: Draft Interlocal
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN SPOKANE COUNTY AND TIME CiTY OF
SPOKANE VALLEY REGARDING USES AND ALLOCATION OF AQUIFER
PROTECTION AREA REVENUES
This Interlocal Agreement by and between the City of Spokane Valley, a municipal
corporation of the state of Washington, having offices for the transaction of business as 11707
East Sprague Avenue, Suite 106, Spokane Valley, Washington 99206, ( "CITY ") and Spokane
County, a political subdivision of the state of Washington, having offices for the transaction of
business at 1116 West Broadway Avenue, Spokane Washington, 99260 ( "COUNTY ")
hereinafter sometimes referred to as the PARTIES.
The CITY and COUNTY agree as follows:
Section 1: RECITALS AND FINDINGS
1.1 The CITY is located in the Aquifer Protection Area established by Spokane County
Ordinance 85- 0641, dated July 30, 1985 pursuant to the provisions of chapter 36.36
RCW (AQUIFER PROTECTION AREAS).
1.2 On December 31, 2005, the authorization to collect Aquifer Protection Area fees will
terminate.
1.3 The COUNTY has suggested to the CITY that a ballot proposition be placed before the
voters to re- authorize the establishment of the Aquifer Protection Area for another 20-
years and impose fees on the withdrawal of subterranean water and on on -site sewage
disposal.
1.4 On June 8, 2004, the Spokane Valley City Council passed Resolution Number 04 -016
approving the inclusion of its municipal boundaries within the boundaries of the
reauthorized Spokane Aquifer Protection Area, subject to approval by Spokane Valley
and Spokane County of an Interlocal Agreement regarding use of the funds.
1.5 The purpose of this Agreement is to satisfy the condition in the Spokane Valley
Resolution Number 04 -016 regarding use of the funds.
Section 2: USES AND ALLOCATIONS OF AQUIFER PROTECTION AREA FEES
2.1 The CITY authorizes the COUNTY to charge reasonable administration, billing, and
customer account activities /services to the COUNTY budget fund that has been
established for the Aquifer Protection Area Fees (commonly identified as Budget Fund
436). All charges shall relate directly to activities /services performed by COUNTY
staff in conjunction with the administration, billing and customer account activities
related to the Spokane Aquifer Protection Area. Charges shall be based on actual costs,
on a monthly basis.
2.2 The CITY authorizes the COUNTY to charge all activities related to the COUNTY's
Water Resources Program, including but not limited to aquifer monitoring, aquifer data
management, aquifer studies, coordination of aquifer protection activities, and similar
efforts to Fund 436. For the purpose of this provision the terminology Water Resources
APASPKVAU.EY -AG .EEME'T.DOC 1
Program shall mean those activities included in budget Fund 436, Department 751.
Charges will occur on a monthly basis.
2.3 The CITY authorizes the COUNTY to transfer up to $100,000 annually through year
2010 from Fund 436 to the Spokane Regional Health District to provide for data base
management related to monitoring of septic tanks in the Aquifer Sensitive Area. For the
purpose of this provision, the terminology Aquifer Sensitive Area shall mean the area
where activities on the ground surface can affect the water quality in the Spokane
Valley Rathdrum Prairie Aquifer. The actual amount transferred shall be determined
by the Spokane County Utilities Director, in the annual budget for Fund 436, and as
approved by the Board of County Commissioners. Transfer of such money shall occur
in one lump sum or in installments, provided there is sufficient money in Fund 436 to
make such transfer(s).
2.4 The CITY authorizes the COUNTY to transfer $500,000 annually through year 2010
from Fund 436 to the City of Spokane for activities as authorized under RCW
36.36.040. Transfer of such money shall occur in one lump sum or in installments
provided there is sufficient money in Fund 436 to make such transfer(s).
2.5 The CITY authorizes the COUNTY to utilize all revenues remaining from annual
Aquifer Protection Area fees imposed pursuant to chapter 36.36 RCW, for the years
2006 through 2010, after disbursements authorized in Items 2.1 through 2.4, for
subsidies to reduce the Capital Facilities Rates charged to properties included in annual
Septic Tank Elimination Projects. During this period, the Aquifer Protection Area fees
will be used to benefit all new customers in the Septic Tank Elimination Projects
equally. For the purpose of this provision, the terminology Capital Facilities Rate(s)
shall have that meaning set forth in Spokane County Section 8.03.1135. The
terminology Septic Tank Elimination Projects shall mean those sewer projects
identified in the Capital Improvement Program of Section 4 of the Spokane County
2001 Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan, as hereafter amended.
2.6 The CITY and COUNTY agree that for the years 2011 through 2025, annual Aquifer
Protection Area fees remaining after disbursements authorized in Items 2.1 and 2.2 will
be distributed annually between the COUNTY, the CITY, and the City of Spokane on a
proportional basis relative to the amount generated in unincorporated areas, the CITY,
and the City of Spokane. Provided, however, the Aquifer Protection Area fees shall be
used exclusively and solely for purposes authorized under R.CW 36.36.040.
2.7 The CITY agrees that the COUNTY may audit the CITY's use of Aquifer Protection
Area fees at any time during this Agreement to determine compliance with RCW
36.36.040. if it is determined that the CITY's use of the Aquifer Protection Area fees is
not consistent with the allowable uses provided under R.CW 36.36.040, the COUNTY
will withhold subsequent Aquifer Protection Area fees equal to the amount of fees that
were determined to be inconsistent with allowable uses under RCW 36.36.040.
Section 3: GENERAL
3.1 Modification. This Agreement may be modified in writing by mutual written
agreement of the PARTIES.
APA.SPK VALIAY- ACIRF.F.MEdT.DOC
2
3.2. All Writings Contained Herein/Binding Effect. This Agreement contains terms and
conditions agreed upon by the PARTIES. The PARTIES agree that there are no other
understandings, oral or otherwise, regarding the subject matter of this Agreement.
3.3 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.
3.4 Records. All public records prepared, owned, used or retained by COUNTY in
conjunction with this Agreement shall be deemed COUNTY property and shall be
made available to CITY upon request by the City Manager.
3.5 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.
3.6 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.
3.7 Filing. This Agreement shall be filed by the County with such offices or agencies as
required by chapter 39.34 RCW.
3.8 Notice. All notices or other communications given hereunder shall be deemed given on:
(1) the day such notices or other communications are received when sent by personal
delivery; or (ii) the third day following the day on which the same have been mailed by
first class delivery, postage prepaid addressed to COUNTY at the address set forth below
for such Party, or at such other address as COUNTY shall from time -to -time designate by
notice in writing to the other PARTIES:
COUNTY: Spokane County Chief Executive Officer or his/her authorized
representative
1 1 16 West Broadway Avenue
Spokane, Washington 99260
CITY: City of Spokane Valley City Manager or his/her authorized representative
Redwood Plaza
11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 106
Spokane Valley, Washington 99206
APA•5PKVALLSY -AO MExT.DOC
Section 4: EFFECTIVE DATE AND DURATION
4.1 This Agreement shall be effective as of January 1, 2006, provided that the voters by
simple majority vote re- authorize the creation of the Aquifer Protection Area as
provided for in RCW 36.36.030, and shall continue until December 31, 2025 or until
the re- authorized Aquifer Protection Area sunsets as provided for in the ballot
proposition, whichever is sooner.
Section 5: SEVERA.BILITY
5.1 It is understood and weed 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
PART FS 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 6: EXECUTION AND APPROVAL
6.1 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.
6.2 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.
npa- sPECVAI.I.EY -Aon ar.Doc 4
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:
13Y:
Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk
APA- Spk Val ley- Agrec men l.Doc 5
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
PH I LLIP D. HARRIS, Chair
M. KATE MCCASLIN, Vice Chair
JOIN ROSKELL EY, Commissioner
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY:
By:
DAVID R. MERCIER
Its: City Manager
0
Proposed Revision to APA Agreement (awaiting County response)
Current Proposed Section 2.7
The CITY agrees that the COUNTY may audit the CITY's use of
Aquifer Protection Area fees at any time during this Agreement to
determine compliance with RCS' 36.36.040. If it is determined
that the CITY's use of the Aquifer Protection Area fees is not
consistent with the allowable uses provided under RCW 36.36.040,
the COUNTY will withhold subsequent Aquifer Protection Area fees
equal to the amount of fees that were determined to be
inconsistent with allowable uses under RCW 36.36.040
Revised Proposed Section 2.7
The CITY and COUNTY agree that the either party may audit the
other's use of Aquifer Protection Area fees at any time during
this Agreement to determine compliance with RCW 36.36.040. If it
is determined that the CITY's use of the Aquifer Protection Area
fees is not consistent with the allowable uses provided under RCW
36.36.040, the COUNTY will withhold subsequent Aquifer Protection
Area fees equal to the amount of fees that were determined to be
inconsistent with allowable uses under RCW 36.36.040. If it is
determined that the County's use of the Aquifer Protection Area
fees is not consistent with the allowable uses provided under RCW
36.36.040, the COUNTY will reimburse Aquifer Protection Area fees
equal to the amount of fees chat were determined to be
inconsistent with allowable uses under RCW 36.36.040.
July 27, 2004 Regular Meeting, 6:00 p.m. [due date Thursday July 151
1. CONSENT AGENDA: Minutes, Accounts Payable, Payroll, [5 minutes]
2. First Reading Proposed Ordinance Interim Zoning Estate Lots — Marina Sukup [10 minutes]
3. First Reading Proposed Ordinance Regarding Setbacks — Marina Sukup [10 minutes]
4. First Reading: Proposed Ordinance Amending SVMC Title 5, Section 05 Business
Registrations — Ken Thompson [ 15 minutes]
5. Second Reading: Proposed Ordinance Amending Criminal Code re Noise — Cary Driskell [10 minutes]
6. Second Reading: Proposed Ordinance Amending Criminal Code re Open Container [10 minutes]
7. Motion Consideration: Motion regarding response to Liberty Lake Annexation
Petition within the unallocated Urban Growth Area — Cary Driskell [ 15 minutes]
8. Motion Consideration: Authorizing $10,000 for Consulting Services for Wastewater Alliance
Research —Neil Kersten [10 minutes]
9. Motion Consideration: Approval of Aquifer Protection Area Interlocal Agreement —Neil Kersten [10 min]
10. Administrative Reports: [no public comment]
a. New City Hall Initial Preferences — Nina Regor [ 15 minutes]
11. Information Only: [no public comment]
a. Departmental Monthly Reports; b. Minutes of Planning Commission
[estimated meeting time: 110 minutes* ]
DRAFT
ADVANCE AGENDA
For Planning Discussion Purposes Only
as of July 15, 2004 9:00 a.m.
Please note this is a work in progress; items are tentative
To: Council & Staff
From: City Manager
Re: Draft Schedule for Upcoming Council Meetings
August 3, 2004 NO MEETING
August 10, 2004 Regular Meeting 6:00 p.m. [due date Thursday July 29]
Proclamation: Health Unit Coordinator's Day (August 22
1. CONSENT AGENDA: Minutes, Accounts Payable, Payroll
2. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance Interim Zoning Estate Lots — Marina Sukup
3. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance Regarding Setbacks — Marina Sukup
4. Second Reading: Proposed Ordinance Amending SVMC Title 5, Section 05 Business
Registrations — Ken Thompson
5. Proposed Resolution Amending Fee Schedule — Marina Sukup
6. Motion Consideration: Approval of Dept. of Emergency Mgmt Contract — Cal Walker
7. Administrative Report:
a. CenterPlace Update — Mike Jackson
b. Library Facilities Update — Nina Regor
c. Wastewater Update ( lnterlocal Agreement w /Spokane Co) — Neil Kersten
d. Discussion Facility Use Agreement — Mike Jackson
e. Helmet Safety Issue Research Update — Cary Driskell
f. Scooters/Motorized Bikes Report — Cary Driskell
[5 minutes]
[10 minutes]
[10 minutes]
[15 minutes]
[10 minutes]
[10 minutes]
[10 minutes]
[15 minutes]
[15 minutes]
[15 minutes]
[10 minutes]
[15 minutes]
g. Spokane Regional Convention & Visitor's Bureau Update on Tourism Promotion
Area Budget —John Brewer [10 minutes]
8. Information Only: Salary Commission Update —Nina Regor
[estimated meeting time: 150 minutes* ]
Advance Agenda —17raf Revised: 7115/2004 8:59 AM Paee 1 of 3
August 17, 2004 Study Session 6:00 p.m. [due date Thursday, August 5]
1. Request from Outside Agencies for Budget Consideration (15 minutes per presenter) (75 minutes)
2. Animal Control Update —Nancy Hill (10 minutes)
3. Discussion of Alternatives to Incarceration — Cary Driskell/Gonzaga Students (30 minutes)
TOTAL MINUTES: 115 minutes
Max. mtg. time: 150 minutes
August 24, 2(104 Regular Meeting 6:00 p.m. [due date Thursday August
1. CONSENT AGENDA: Minutes, Accounts Payable, Payroll
2. First Reading Proposed Ordinance Regarding Clear View Triangles — Marina Sukup
3. Proposed Resolution Approving Facility Use Agreement Form — Mike Jackson
4. Administrative Reports: [no public comment]
a. Stormwater Program /Report on Swale Comparison — John Hohman
b. Budget 2005 Estimates — Ken Thompson
c. Determination of Council Goals for 2005 — Dave Mercier
d. Panhandling Research Report — Cary Driskell
5. Information Only: (no public comment]
a. Departmental Monthly Reports
b. Minutes of Planning Commission
August 31. 2004 NO MEETING
September 7, 2004 Study Session 6:00 p.m.
Managed Competition — Morgan Koudelka
12J
[5 minutes]
[10 minutes]
[10 minutes]
[60 minutes]
[ 15 minutes]
[15 minutes]
[10 minutes]
[estimated meeting time: 125 minutes* ]
[clue date Thursday August 261
(30 minutes)
TOTAL MTNTUTES:
Max. mtg. time: 150 minutes
September 14, 2004, Regular Meeting 6:00 p.m. [due date Thursday September 2]
1. PUBLIC HEARING: Proposed 2005 Budget Revenues [10 minutes]
2. CONSENT AGENDA: Minutes, Accounts Payable, Payroll [5 minutes]
3. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance Regarding Clear View Triangles — Marina Sukup [5 minutes]
4. Motion Consideration: Setting 2005 Budget Public Hearing Dates of October 12 and 26 [5 minutes]
5. Administrative Reports: [no public comment[
a. Preliminary budget Report — Dave Mercier [60 minutes]
6. Information Only: [no public comment]
[estimated meeting time: 85 minutes *]
September 21, 2004 Study Session 6:(10 p.m. [due date Thursday September 9]
Economic Analysis Charrette for Sprague - Appleway Corridor — Marina (120 minutes)
Advance Agenda — Draft Revised: 7/15f2004 8:59 AM Page 2 of 3
September 28, 2004 Regular Meeting 6:00 p.m. [due slate Thursday September 161
1. CONSENT AGENDA: Minutes, Accounts Payable, Payroll [5 minutes]
2. Administrative Reports: [no public comment]
a. Overview of Draft Comprehensive Plan — Marina Sukup /Greg McCormick [30 minutes]
b. Department Budget Highlights — Department Directors [60 minutes]
3. Information Only: [no public comment]
a. Departmental Monthly Reports
b. Minutes of Planning Commission
October 5, 2004 Study Session 6:00 p.m. [due date Thursday September 23]
1. Proposed Sidewalk Ordinance Discussion —Neil Kersten (15 minutes)
2. First Reading: Proposed Property Tax Ordinance [public comment] — Ken Thompson (15 minutes)
TOTAL MINUTES:
Max. mtg. time: 150 minutes
October 12, 2004 Regular Meeting 6:00 p.m. [due date Thursday September 30]
1. PUBLIC HEARING: First hearing on 2005 Proposed Budget
(includes fee resolution adoption) [15 minutes]
2. CONSENT AGENDA: Minutes, Accounts Payable, Payroll [5 minutes]
3. Second Reading: Proposed Property Tax Ordinance — Ken Thompson [5 minutes]
October 19, 2004 Study Session 6:00 p.m.
October 26, 2004 Regular Meeting 6:00 p.m. [due date Thursday, October 141
1. PUBLIC HEARING: Final Budget Hearing [10 minutes[
2. First Reading Proposed Ordinance Adopting Budget — Ken Thompson [10 minutes]
3. Proposed Resolution Amending Fee Resolution — Ken Thompson [ 10 minutes]
4. Administrative Reports:
a. Proposed Amendment to Criminal Code —Noise (Blasting & boom boxes vehicles)
— Cary Driskell [ 10 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
November 9: Second reading of 2005 Proposed Budget
February 12, 2005 — Half-Day Council /Staff Retreat
MEETINGS TO BE SCHEDULED
1 open house — wastewater issues (August or September)
[ *. estimated meeting time does not include time for public comments]
[estimated meeting: 95 minutes *]
[due date Thursday, October 7]
TOTAL MINUTES:
Max. mtg. time: 150 minutes
Advance Agenda — Drab Reviss d: 7/15/2004 5:59 AM Page 3 of 3