2003, 08-19 Study SessionTuesday, August 19, 20(13
SUBJECT
Administration
introduction
1. Police Dept.
2. Legal
3. Legal
4. Community.
Development
5. Community
Development
6. Public Works
Council Requests Please Turn OR AD Electronic Devices During Council Meeting
7. Public Works Neil Kersten (30 minutes)
8. Legislative
9. Administration
Study Session Agcn& Augt vt 19. 2003
AGENDA
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
CITY COUNCIL WORKSHEET
STUDY SESSION
DISCUSSION LEADER ACTIVITY
David Mercier (5 minutes)
CITY HALL AT REDWOOD PLAZA
11707 East Sprague Avenue, First Fluor
NW Christian School (10 minutes)
Cal Walker (20 minutes)
Cary DriskelI (5 minutes)
Car} Driskell (20 minutes)
Marina Sukup (10 minutes)
Marina Sukup (20 minutes)
Ncil Kcrsten (15 minutes)
Mayor DeVleming (5 minutes)
David Mercier (10 minutes)
Employee Introductions
Introduction/ Presentation
D.A.R .E. Status Report
Proposed Resolution Vacating
Old & Granting New Easement
Proposed Zoning Code
Compliance Ordinance
Citizen Participation Plan
Comprehensive Plan
Transportation Element
Transportation Improvement
Board (TIB) Applications
Wastewater issues
Advance Agenda Additions
City Manager Comments
6:00 P.M.
GOAL
Information
Information/
Discussion
Aug 26 Agenda
Aug 26 Agenda
Sept 9 Adoption
Information
Information/
Discussion
Discussion
Discussion
Information:
Discussion
Note: At Council Study Sessions, there will be no public comments, except Council reserves the right to
request information from the public and staff as appropriate.
Page 1of1
ape,
TO: Spokane Valley City Council
FROM: Chief Cal Walker
DATE: August 8, 2003
:RE: DARE
MEMO
The purpose of this memo is to give you a brief synopsis of the current status of DARE in our
community, and the anticipated alternatives should the council continue to support the
dissolution of DARE as we know it now.
Spokane County, as a whole, has been a partner with DARE for approximately 15 years. The
content of this is not meant to diminish its successes, for I believe that the program can work.
What lies in controversy is how well, and how do you measure it. I believe the council is aware
of the other research that has downplayed some of the overall efficiency of the current DARE
program. This information was researched and provided to you at an earlier time by Interim City
Manager Lee Walton. I have attached it as an addendum.
As a short historical update, during the contract negotiations, Interim City Manager Lee Walton
and Law Enforcement Consultant Bob Jean provided information to the Spokane County
Sheriff's Office asking for a reorganization centered around trying new alternatives to some of
the then current practices, including DARE and the Traffic Unit. The Spokane County Sheriff's
Office was very willing to try new alternatives and to let the statistical data measure successes.
This included maintaining and expanding our current Community Oriented Policing philosophy,
as well as the expansion of those programs, including Neighborhood Watch and our long -term
successes with SCOPE. The reorganization focused on taking the current traffic duties and
spreading those duties out amongst the Patrol Division, which also increased the available
number of patrol officers who would be available to respond to regular patrol calls for our
citizens.
The Spokane Valley Police :Department implemented a number of these suggestions upon its
inception, and has a strong desire to make these new reorganized programs a success. We will
continue to pursue growth in the educational and the relationship building process currently
being covered by the interaction with DARE officers in our schools. As part of this, we need to
take a hard look at alternative methods of doing the same educational and relationship building
part of our total law enforcement picture. Some of these issues are budget driven. The last
budget for DARE countywide, with five deputies, was in excess of $400,000. Three of those
officers were assigned to valley schools. This brought the proportional approximate expense to
nearly $250,000. DARE in itself also requires certain compliance with national organization
Memo to Spokane Valley City Council
August 8, 2003
Page Two
standards. DARE has developed a new curriculum that includes a lesser amount of required time
in the classroom, and in theory could change the current three officers projected to cover valley
schools down to two. DARE still currently requires the use of a fully commissioned officer as an
instnictor. To maintain the current level of staffing, we would need to hire an additional two
officers, and equip those officers fully. The current contract price for an officer with all
necessary equipment is approximately $97,000. Add on an anticipated M &O expenditure of
approximately $10,000, and this would mean an increase in current expenditures of at least
$200,000.
Another possible alternative would be to lower the amount of on -duty coverage in the .Patrol
Division by two officers, and reassign them to the DARE program. This would alleviate the
salary portion of a budget expenditure, but would not answer the M &O associated with the
continuation of that program. We have looked, and will continue to look, for potential grant
funding associated with the continuation of DARE, but at this time see no probable allotment of
funding in this arena. In all of the previous negotiations to establish a law enforcement service
within Spokane Valley, it was requested that we look at the eventual development of alternative
solutions to the educational aspects of DARE.
We are in the process of implementing other means of relationship building and education within
all levels of our school contacts. These alternatives are not ready to implement, and may not be
viable for the start of this school year, but I believe we can develop a project addressing this
within a reasonable amount of time. The first and most viable option is to utilize and improvise
on the already great successes of our School Resource Officers. These officers do many of the
same functions, especially in the relationship - building area, that the DARE officers have done in
past years. Second, I anticipate pursuing the implementation of a CADET PROGRAM, where
young adults with an interest in pursuing a law enforcement career are plugged into specific,
limited duties within the law enforcement service (possibly in the area of educational contacts
within our schools). 1 also believe we should look at the implementation of community resource
officers, who would be utilized in some form of limited duty, education, and enforcement within
our department. As we explore these alternatives, we will continue to strive to place our current
staffing into contact with the children in our schools until other programs are developed.
There are some outlying areas that have utilized alternatives to DARE because of their financial
situation. Some of these include the use of local private individuals who do other programs and
boast of some of the same successes as DARE. Any time a community has considered removing
DARE from a current curriculum, there have been many, many public debates, each defending
their own desirable outcome. There area number of agencies across the nation, including some
locally, who have, because of financial constraints, eliminated their DARE programs. An
Memo to Spokane Valley City Council
August 8, 2003
Page Three
accurate measurement of whether or not the community suffers afterward is as debatable as the
issue of DARE's success itself
Some of the comments I have heard from the public include alternative funding solutions, such
as fundraisers, and a larger percentage of wage contribution by the schools. if our local schools
could find it within their limited budgets to assist in some of the funding, it would be easier to
talk about the additional hiring of staff to fill these positions.
First and foremost, I believe that we, as the Spokane Valley Police Department, have an absolute
responsibility to staff the first responders in our law enforcement agency to an appropriate level
so we can adequately respond to emergency calls, and additionally have sufficient staff to
respond to the Tess than emergent situations and provide a full service to our citizens. 1 have
spent many hours talking with a great number of people from different walks of life within our
community about DARE. 1 have heard many supportive comments regarding DARE, and many
others that do not believe in the program's viability. After listening to and weighing all these
comments, 1 find myself full circle, back at the negotiating table discussing what this community
deserves as a basic level of law enforcement service. In my many contacts with the community, 1
hear more positive comments about the current level of staffing that this community is able to
enjoy than ever before. Because of the overwhelming support and noticeable impact the current
staffing has on crime in our neighborhoods, I could not currently support removing any of that
staff to place into a DARE position. Should the council wish to consider any additional
expenditures to cover the cost of expenses around DARE, 1 would be more than happy to provide
those exact costs. I also believe that to be responsible to the taxpayers, we need to look at viable
alternatives that would reduce the cost of providing some type of drug, violence, and life skills
education, as well as utilizing non- commissioned or limited commission officers rather than that
of a fully commissioned, fully trained officer being committed to a school fill time.
1 anticipate further questions, both from the public and the council, regarding this matter, and
will make myself and our staff available to provide answers to any upcoming questions and
issues on this topic.
Thank you.
Cal Walker, Chief of Police
MEMO CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
TO: Council
FROM: Lee W
SUBJECT: DARE
11707 East Sprague Ave, Spokane Valley, WA 99206
Tel: (509) 921 -1000, Fax (509) 921 -1008
e-mail lwalton@spokanevalley.org
I see in the paper that the DARE program has become the "cause ccleb" for today so I
suspect you are getting some phone calls on the subject. 1 certainly didn't mean to
blindside you on this issue. I'm pretty sure that during our briefings with Bob Jean that
we touched on the concept that DARE and SCOPE were not included in the basic
contract but are listed as optional items subject to later discussions and decisions. The
three schools Resources Officers were included in the base agreement and budget. At that
time both Bob Jean and I commented that we would recommend including SCOPE
because it appeared to be reasonably effective and very popular in the community.
However, we also recommend that DARE not be funded because this program, based on
a number of studies, has never been proven to offer any real lasting benefit. It does of
course offer a popular public relations gimmick which is fine if a City•or County can
afford that gesture but I'm not sure that this is the best use of. 5300,000 in SV.
As noted, DARE has considerable popular support but in spite of fairly intense lobbying
many cities and counties have dropped it based on preponderance of rescarcb that
indicate it is not an effective program. Actually, better than saying it is ineffective it
might be better to say that its results don't justify its cost. In case you are interested I
am attaching an overview of these reports. Again I emphasize that these same studies
suggest that School Resources Officers, found in middle schools and high schools are
effective and are worth retaining.
Again, this is a policy issue and if the Council wishes to maintain the DARE program, a
budget amendment is just a motion away.
Studies Find Dare Program Not Effective Page 1 of 3
Contents I Feedback 1 Search 1DRCNet Home Page 1 Join DRCNet
DRCNet Library 1 Schaffer Library
STUDIES FIND DRUG PROGRAM NOT EFFECTIVE
Yet high -level supporters argue "it's better to have it than not have it"
by Dennis Cauchon
USA TODAY, 11 October 1993
Sign the Resolution for a Federal Commission on Drug
Policy
In just 10 years, D.A.R.E. has grown into the USA's No. 1 drug education program, reaching 5 million
fifth- graders in 60% of school districts.
The Drug Abuse Resistance Education logo -- " D.A.R.E. To Keep Kids Off Drugs" -- is on bumper
stickers, T- shirts, even Kentucky Fried Chicken boxes. Police, taxpayers and business give $700 million
a year. It's also a favorite of dozens of members of Congress.
But a raft of scientific studies says D.A.R.E., the 17 -week course taught by uniformed police, doesn't
achieve its main long -term goal: stopping kids from smoking pot, drinking booze or using other drugs.
"I've got nothing against D.A.R.E., but we need to get some white light on this issue so we can wisely
decide how to spend our money and on what programs," says Tom Colthurst, who recently organized a
national conference on drug education at the University of Califomia -San Diego. But D.A.R.E.
executive director Glenn Levant calls the studies flawed and not comprehensive: "Scientists, will tell
you bumble bees can't fly, but we know they can."
Levant says a proper national study would cost 53 million -$5 million and take seven years to finish.
Studies have focused mostly on specific cities, and cost several hundred thousand dollars each.
Experts agree recent research on D.A.R.E. is not perfect: It is difficult and expensive to measure the
behavior of large numbers of children over several years. But they say the research is better than studies
on other drug programs. "Almost every researcher would agree there's enough information to judge
D.A.R.E.," says Rand Corp. researcher Phyllis Ellickson.
"Ifs well- established that D.A.R.E. doesn't work," says Gilbert Botvin of the Institute for Prevention at
Cornell University Medical Center.
Created in 1983 under the direction of former Los Angeles Police chief Daryl Gates, D.A.R.E. exploded
after the Bush administration gave it heavy federal subsidies.
The program uses lectures, role playing and other techniques to teach children to avoid drugs. And by all
accounts, the kids who take the course and the police who teach it think it's terrific. D.A.R.E. "does no
htto://www.drualibrarv.ora/schaffer/lihrarvidare6.htni
Studies Find Dare Program Not Effective Page 2 of 3
harm and by far, nothing but good," says Scott Mandel, a Los Angeles -area teacher. " D.A.R.E. really
works," says Mike Miller, Round Rock, Texas, police officer and D.A.R.E. teacher. "Surveys from
across the nation show kids who take the D.A.R.E. course are much less likely to use drugs later in life."
That's not what most studies show.
To investigate D.A.R.E.'s effectiveness, researchers looked at two similar groups of children: One group
takes D.A.R.E.; the other does not. Then, researchers followed the children's behavior for several years.
Since 1987, studies -- most funded by law enforcement agencies involved in the program -- have been
conducted at 20 North Carolina schools; 31 Kentucky schools; 11 South Carolina schools; 36 Illinois
schools; and 11 Canadian schools. The results were similar.
The 1991 Kentucky study, the National Institute on Drug Abuse reported, found "no statistically
significant differences between experimental groups and control groups in the percentage of new users
of ... cigarettes, smokeless tobacco, alcohol, marijuana."
A 1990 study funded by the Canadian government found "D.A.R.E. had no significant effect on the
students' use of any of the substances measured.... They included: tobacco, beer, pop, marijuana, acid,
Valium, wine, aspirin, uppers, downers, heroin, crack (cocaine), liquor, candy, glue and PCP."
To make sense of the various studies, the Justice Department hired the Research Triangle Institute of
Durham, N.C., to conduct a statistical analysis of all D.A.R.E. research.
A preliminary report from the RTI -- analyzing eight studies involving 9,500 children -- says D.A.R.E.
has "a limited to essentially non- existent effect" on drug use.
D.A.R.E. did have a positive effect on children's knowledge and attitudes about drugs, the report says. It
also added the social skills needed to say no to drugs.
But even on these measures, D.A.R.E. didn't do as well as other drug programs, including local classes
taught by teachers and students.
D.A.R.E. America has launched a behind -the- scenes lobbying campaign against the final RTI report,
due in November.
"We're working with D.A.R.E. to ... voice their concerns," says Winnie Reed, the National Institute of
Justice official overseeing the study.
The pressure has angered some academic researchers. "It's repugnant, out of line and very unusual," says
Dennis Rosenbaum, director of the Center for Research in Law and Justice at the University of Illinois -
Chicago.
Rosenbaum -- a D.A.R.E. supporter -- says the group is its own worst enemy because it has spent so
much effort attacking the evaluations, rather than learning from research.
Even some state and local D.A.R.E. programs are backing away from D.A.R.E. America's fight. "If we
aren't getting the job done, we ought to be man enough to try something else," says Tim DeRosa of the
Illinois state police and long -time D.A.RE. activist.
Some government officials are aware of D.A.R.E.'s shortcomings.
httn: / /www.dru brary .ore /schaffer /library /d re.6 htrn
A h) /•)nn7
Studies Find Dare Program Not Effective Page 3 of 3
"Research shows that, no; D.A.R.E. hasn't been effective in reducing drug use," says William
Modzeleski, the top drug official at the Department of Education.
The department has considered asking Congress to repeal a law requiring states to give D.A.R.E. a total
of $10 million or more a year from federal Drug Free Schools money.
But D.A.R.E. continues to have high -level government support.
On Sept. 9 -- National D.A.R.E. Day by congressional decree -- D.A.R.E.
officials and students lunched with dozens of Congress members and met Attorney General Janet Reno.
Later, they visited first lady Hillary Rodharn Clinton.
Drug czar Lee Brown, who started the program in Houston when he was police chief, remains a booster.
"My experience has been positive," Brown says. "The research has pointed in many different directions,
but my conclusion is it's better to have it than not have it. I know first -hand that young people are
impressed by it and look up to the D.A.R.E. officer as a role model."
Yet many drug education experts fear that D.A.R.E.'s political clout is siphoning drug education money
from better programs.
"D.A.R.E. has a following and sales force that is extremely powerful in fighting for scarce resources,"
says University of Michigan researcher Lloyd Johnston, who conducts the government's survey of teen
drug use. "But its growth is totally out of scale to its effectiveness."
Johnston and others aren't sure why D.A.R.E. isn't working better.
Some think it targets children too young; some think teachers and older students get better results than
uniformed police; others say the program relies on psychological theories that don't work.
Levant thinks critics are just jealous of D.A.R.E.'s success. "We're like apple pie," he says. "But I guess
you can always find someone who doesn't like apple pie."
Contents I Feedback I Search I DRCNet Home Page ( Join DRCNet
DRCNet Library Schaffer Library
htin•!lwww (lrnalihrary nralenhaffP.rllil,rarvlrlarpi hfr, ,1111
Several Studies Suggest DARE Programs Ineffective Page 1 of 1
Several Studies Suggest DARE Programs
Ineffective
htto://www.ncisn.orrilfeb93/clare.himl
riEWS BRIEFS
The excerpts below are from the "DARE Research Fact Sheet" by the Research Council on
Ethnopsychology:
DRUG EDUCATION
February 1993
Drug Abuse Resistance Education (DARE), the controversial, school -based antidrug program taught by
uniformed police officers who encourage children to turn in peers and family members who use illicit
drugs, is not effective in its stated goal of reducing use or future use by adolescents of licit and illicit
drugs, according to several published studies (Research Council on Ethnopsychology, DARE Research
Fact Sheet, provided to NewsBriefs January 1993).
1. "DARE demonstrated no effect on adolescents' use of alcohol, cigarettes, or inhalants, or on their
future intentions to use these substances. However, DARE did make a positive impact on
adolescents' awareness of the costs of using alcohol and cigarettes, perceptions of the media's
portrayal of these substances, general and specific attitudes toward drugs, perceived attitudes
towards drug use, and assertiveness" (Christopher Ringwalt, Susan Ennett, Kathleen Holt, "An
Outcome Evaluation of Project DARE," Center for Social Research and Policy Analysis,
Research Triangle Institute, P.O. Box 12194, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709).
2. "A longitudinal study published in January 1990 by the Evaluation and Training Institute of Los
Angeles, under contract to DARE America, assessed the program on a number of dimensions.
Included were the use of five gateway substances after DARE: marijuana, beer, wine, hard liquor,
and cigarettes. DARE students showed elevations on all five substances two years after the
course; control -group subjects were elevated on only three" (Evaluation and Training Institute,
Los Angeles, "DARE Evaluation Report for 1985 -1989, Table 14 ").
3. "Another outcome evaluation of DARE is Richard R. Clayton and Anne Cattarello, 'Prevention
Intervention Research: Challenges and Opportunities,' in C.G. Leukenfeld and W.J. Bukoski (eds.)
Drug Abuse Prevention Intervention Research: Methodological Issues (Rockville, Md.: National
Institute on Drug Abuse Research Monograph 107, 1991, pp. 29 -56). It seems clear that any
careful reader of Clayton and Cattarello's Table 2 will conclude that all the comparisons favor the
control subjects and none favor DARE. ... At a minimum it must be said that the authors were
unable to find scientific support for DARE; for with cigarettes, smokeless tobacco, alcohol and
marijuana alike (the four substances assessed), the measured outcomes lay in the opposite
direction from what the researchers had predicted. Their prediction had been that DARE is
effective in preventing experimentation, but this expectation was not supported."
Jerry L. Jensen: 1.)A1th Research Page 1 of 2
Jerry E. Jensen
1999 Roseville Area School Board Candidate
Return to Issues & Beliefs page.
To ask questions or give feedback send me E -mail
7 Out of 9 Research Articles Say 'tD.A.R.E. Doesn't Work"
Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.) is a seventeen week prograrn to help students
recognize and resist the pressures that may influence them to experiment with tobacco, alcohol,
marijuana, inhalalnts, or other drugs. It also addresses ways for students to resist violence. It is
offered to sixth grade students and is a taught by uniformed police officers.
1 support the D.A.R.E. concept and was instrumental in adopting the program when I was a school
principal. The cooperation between law enforcement and educators is wonderful. The
philosophical and financial commitment on behalf of the Roseville Police Department is to be
commended. I will work to increase this kind of collaboration among all segments of our
community —all working for the benefit of our children. Children gain many things through the
D.A.R.E. Program— higher self esteem, a more complete sense of community, and an
understanding of issues related to drug abuse. I will work hard for D.A.R.E. to continue —with
adaptations. Adaptations are needed because D.A.R.E. does not work! Below are highlights of
applicable research articles.
• Consistent with other scientifically sound studies, we found that D.A.R.E. had no effect on
students' drug use at any time through 10th grade... Our 10 -year follow -up failed to find any
sleeper effects... At age 20, there were no differences between those who received D.A.R.E.
and those who did not in their use of alcohol, other drugs, etc. Project D.A.R.E.:No Effects at 10-Year Follow.
Up. Lynam, D.; Milich, R.; Zimmerman, R.; Martin, C.; Leukefeld, C.; and Clayton. R. Journal ofConsulting and C!lrrical ?rychology. August
1999
• ...adolescents did not report a delay in the use of alcohol or drugs, offering further
evidence of the the program's limited utility...Docs D.A.R.E. Work? M Evaluation in Rural Tennessee. Zagumny,
Manhew J.; Thompson, Michael K. Journal °JAlroho! and Drug Education; v42 n2 p32 -41, Win 1997
• ...no significant differences were found between D.A.R.E. participants and
compar sons...Three -Year Follow -up of Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.). Dukes, Richard L.; And Others. Evaluation
Review; v20 n1 p49 -66 Feb 1996
• ...results show no significant difference in the use of D.A.R.E. instruction for middle school
students...The Effects of the D.A.R.E. Program on Middle School Students. Mays, Darnell (1998)
• ...indicated that D.A.R.E. participation resulted in greater self - esteem, stronger institutional
bonds, and endorsement of fewer risky behaviors. Program effects counteracted the negative
effects of student maturation. An Evaluation of D.A.R.E. (Drug Abuse Resistance Education), Using a Solomon Four -Group
Design with Latent Variables. Dukes, Richard L.: And Others. Evaluation Review; v19 nd p409.35 Aug 1995.
• Results suggest a possible sleeper effect for the program....Long -Term Impact of Drug Abuse Resistance
http://www.tcfreenet.oreineoDlehensenie/DARE'research.html
.tlln -nnv
Jerry E. Jensen: DARE Research Page 2 of 2
Education ( D.A.R.E,); Results of a 6 -Year Follow -up. Dukes, Richard L: Stein, Judith A.; Ullman, Jodie B. Evaluation Revrcw; v12 n4 p483.500
Aug 1997.
• There is a distinct lack of evidence of efficacy about the DARE program; various studies
have shown that it does not keep kids off drugs. In spite of these findings, the program
maintains extremely high levels of school and community support and DARE's promoters
are reluctant to regroup, reevaluate, or redesign the program. A Report of Outcomes of Project D.A.R.E. with
Eighth Grade Students. Van Burgh, Jill Wright: Render, Gary F.; Moon, Charles E.; Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Northern Rocky
Mountain Educational Research Association (Jackson, WY, September 27 -30, 1995.
• The paucity of recorded drug offenses among both test and control groups most likely
reflects lack of apprehension. The Effectiveness of Project DARE: Does It Work? Kochis, Donna S. Journal of Alcohol and
Drug Education; v40 n2 p40- 47,Win 1995,
• Results were complimentary of Drug Abuse Resistance Education (D.A.R.E.) and Student
Assistance Program (S.A.P.) which emphasize intervention strategies. A Survey of Current
Research Studies on Drug Education Programs in'America. Pellow, Randall A.; Jengelesl3, Jaynes L. Journal of
Drug Education; v21 n3 p203 -10 1991.
Return to issues & Beliefs page.
To ask questions or give feedback send me E -mail
htl:n : / /www trfrRFnP.t nry /nnnnlr. /ipncon■p/rl A 1? Fr000a..,
A 1 N, I. ll.,
Meeting Date: 8 -19 -03 City Manager Sign -off:
Item: Check all that apply: x consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing
❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE : Proposed resolution vacating old and accepting new access
easement.
GOVERNING LEGISLATION:
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN:
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
BACKGROUND: Property at 3715 South Woodruff (Ponderosa neighborhood) was recently
sold. In the process of new owners purchasing the property, it was discovered that there exists
an access easement along the north 15 feet of the property to allow the City access to a storm
drainage area behind and to the east of the residence. The storm drainage runs behind several
properties. When the residence was constructed, it was built within approximately 7 feet of the
property line on the north, blocking the access easement.
The new owners wanted to make sure the City still had access to the storm drainage, and
offered to vacate the existing 15 foot easement on the north side of the property, and grant a
new 15 foot access easement on the south property line.
The new access is better than what existed on the north, due to the location of the house. This
change of location of the easement is necessary to provide access in the event of flooding.
OPTIONS: Not move the easement and remove the residence.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move the resolution for approval on a subsequent
Council meeting.
BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None.
STAFF CONTACT: Cary Driskell or Dick Thiel
ATTACHMENTS Resolution vacating existing easement and accepting new easement.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY,
WASHINGTON, TERMINATING EXISTING ACCESS EASEMENT AND
ACCEPTING GRANT OF NEW ACCESS EASEMENT.
WHEREAS, Richard and Barbara Berkseth own property at 3715 South Woodruff,
Spokane Valley, WA, with said property being encumbered by an access easement as identified
in Exhibit A;
WHEREAS, the residential structure at the subject property was constructed over the
access easement, rendering the access easement ineffective for its intended purpose;
WHEREAS, Richard and Barbara Berkseth want to vacate the existing 15 foot access
easement along the north side of their property, and grant a new access 15 foot access easement
to Spokane Valley on the south side of the subject property as described in Exhibit B; and
WHEREAS, Spokane Valley needs an access easement over the subject property no
worse than the currently existing access easement to gain access to a storm drainage located
behind and to the east of the subject property.
NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley,
Spokane County, Washington, as follows:
The City of Spokane Valley vacates the access easement described in Exhibit A, and
accepts the grant of access easement described in Exhibit B, and further authorizes the City
Manager to execute all necessary documents to complete the vacation of the existing easement
and conveyance of the new access easement.
ATTEST:
Adopted this day of August, 2003.
City Clerk, Christine Bainbridge
Approved as to Form:
Interim City Attorney, Stanley M. Schwartz
crrY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
RESOLUTION NO. 03-
City of Spokane Valley
Mayor Michael DeVleming
S:l cbainbridge \Resolutions\resolution vacating easement and accepting new easement for 8- 26- 03.DOC
EXHIBIT A
Spokane Valley currently has an access easement for ingress and egress over:
North 15 feet of Lot 2, Block 1, PONDEROSA 6 AUDITION, as per
plat recorded in Volume 16 of flats, page 23, records of Spokane
County;
Situated in the County of Spokane, State of Washington
Parcel No.:45321.2302
Parcel No.:45321.2302
EXHIBIT B
The property owners wish to grant Spokane Valley an access casement for ingress and
egress over:
South 15 feet of Lot 2, Block 1, PONDEROSA 6 T11 ADDITION, as per
plat recorded in Volume 16 of Plats, page 23, records of Spokane
County;
Situated in the County of Spokane, State of Washington
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: 8 -19 -03 City Manager Sign -off:
Item: Check all that apply: X consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing
❑ information El admin. report ❑ pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE : Proposed Zoning Code Compliance chapter.
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Interim Zoning Code adopted by Council prior to incorporation.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: This is the first touch by Council.
BACKGROUND: Spokane Valley adopted the Spokane County Zoning Code as its Interim
Zoning Code prior to incorporation, with the intent of reviewing it and making changes where
appropriate to meet local demands. One of the items is Chapter 14.406, providing remedies for
the City in the event a person violates provisions of the Interim Zoning Code. The chapter, as
adopted, failed to provide adequate disincentives (civil penalties) or processes for abatement of
identified violations. This new section significantly enhances what was originally adopted, with
particular focus on abating the violations and providing the best mechanisms to be able to
secure payment of costs incurred by the City in abating violations.
The Planning Commission approved a very similar version, with changes made after their
approval relating to the City getting a judicial abatement order prior to entry onto private
property. On -going discussions with WCIA and MRSC revealed the need for such an order, so
that change was made.
OPTIONS: Continue with the existing Interim Zoning Code compliance chapter.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Put the Chapter.on first reading for a subsequent
regular Council session.
BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Anticipated to be neutral. The revised chapter authorizes an
abatement fund, which will be funded by penalties assessed under the chapter.
STAFF CONTACT: Cary Driskell or Marina Sukup.
ATTACHMENTS Ordinance repealing and replacing Interim Zoning Code Chapter 14.406
Spokane
do ,Ua11ey
Background:
Department of Community Development
LONG RANGE PLANNING DIVISION
Staff Report
Subject: Zoning Code Enforcement Code Revision
Hearing Date: June 25, 2003
Staff: Greg McCormick, AICP — Long Range Planning Manager
Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney
The City of Spokane Valley adopted several interim regulations necessary for
incorporation of the city on March 31, 2003. One of the main pieces of regulatory
legislation adopted by the city was the zoning code. The zoning code establishes the
zoning districts throughout the city along with allowed uses, development standards, sign
regulations and others. Enforcement of the zoning code is also addressed in the code
under Chapter 14.406 Enforcement. The code enforcement chapter specifies the authority
and the process by which code violations are processed. This chapter also contains
sections on identifying penalties for non compliance, appeals and judicial authority.
At the time of incorporation the city inherited some 273 open code enforcement cases from
Spokane County. In addition the county opened over 400 sign code violation files for
illegal signs within the City of Spokane Valley. After reviewing the county's enforcement
provisions contained in the zoning code it was determined that a major revision was
needed in order to provide the city's code enforcement officer with the tools necessary to
more efficiently deal with code enforcement issues.
The following is a flow chart of the existing code enforcement process describing what
happens to a complaint once received by the city.
1
Written Complaint Received
Yes
Valid?
Notice of Inspection Issued
Compliance?
l i r No
Voluntary Compliance Agreement
No
Notice of Violation Issued:
1. Level I fines
2. Level II fines
Compliance?
�flo
Forward to Proseduting
Attnomey Office
Yes
No
Yes
< Agreement Reached? » Z T Work Completed?
No
Yes
2
Existing Zoning Code
Compliance Process
CASE CLOSED -
COMPLAINTAN'T
NOTIFIED
Yes
Issue Area
Existing Code
Proposed Code
Receipt of complaints
Written only
Written or telephone
Inspection
Yes — only after written
complaint received
Yes — after written or telephone
complaint received
Notice to violator
Notice of Inspection
Violator contacted either in
person or via written notice
Citation authority
Level 1 & 11 citations
Notice & order or stop work
order issued
Monetary penalties
Level 1 - $75 to $250
Level II - $500
Up to $1,000 & 90 days
incarceration
Voluntary Compliance
Agreement
Yes
Yes
Judicial Enforcement
Yes — county prosecutor 1
Yes — city attorney
Appeals
Yes — hearing examiner
Yes — hearing examiner
Cost recovery
No
Yes
Discussion:
As can be seen from the flow chart above, the existing code Tacks some of the tools
necessary to deal efficiently with code violation issues. The primary tools are the notice
and order and the stop work order. These two tools provide the city with a much more
effective and efficient approach to code enforcement. An observation of the existing
process has been that the current code does not focus or emphasize actual abatement of
the code violation. The process tends to be more circular with a series of citations and
fines rather than addressing the violation that is occurring.
The proposed code is characterized by a more results or abatement oriented tone. The
monetary penalties included in the proposed code are more severe, again to promote or
encourage abatement of code violations. The table below compares the existing and
proposed codes:
Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the planning commission revise the code enforcement provisions of
the zoning code based on the information provided herein and attached to this staff report.
Attachments:
Attachment 1 — Existing "Enforcement" Chapter Flow Chart
3
Attachment 1
Proposed "Enforcement" Chapter
Flow Chart
Complaint Received
Issue Warning
(Written - within 5 days)
Compliance?
Voluntary Compliance Agreement
Agreement Reached? Yes - � Work Completed? Yes
No
Issue:
1. Citation
2. Notice & Order
3. Stop Work Order
Civil Penalty
City ,Abatement
Cost Recovery
Valid?
Yes
Compliance?
4No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Forward to City Attorney for
Prosecution
Proposed Zoning Code
Compliance Process
CASE CLOSED -
COMPLAINTANT
NOTIFIED
A
Memo
To: Mayor DeVleming & City Council
From William Gothmann, Planning Commission Chair
Date: July 15, 2003
Re: Recommendation — Zoning Code Compliance Code Revision
Background:
The Planning Commission reviewed proposed changes to Chapter 14.406,
Zoning Code Compliance of the city's interim zoning code during a study
session on June 11, 2003. The Commission then held a public hearing on the
proposed code revision on June 23, 2003. No public testimony was provided at
the hearing. The Commission began deliberations on the proposed code
revision at the conclusion of the hearing on June 23` The deliberations were
continued to the evening of July 9, 2003 at which time the Commission voted
unanimously to forward this recommendation to the City Council.
As the Council is aware, at the time of incorporation the city inherited some 273
open code enforcement cases from Spokane County. In addition the county
opened over 400 sign code violation files for illegal signs within the City of
Spokane Valley. After reviewing the county's enforcement provisions contained
in the zoning code staff determined that a major revision was needed in order to
provide the city's code enforcement officer with the tools necessary to more
efficiently deal with present and future code enforcement issues.
Issues:
The Commission discussed several issues related to this code revision with city
staff during the staff presentation of the code revision and during the
deliberations by the Commission. Those issues are summarized in the
following table:
Spokane
j�alley
Issue Area
Existing Code
Proposed Code I
Receipt of complaints
Written only
Written or telephone
Inspection
Yes — only after written
complaint received
Yes — after written or telephone
complaint received
Violator contacted either in
person or via written notice
Notice to violator
Notice of Inspection
Citation authority
Level I & II citations
Notice & order or stop work
order issued
Monetary penalties
Level I - $75 to $250
Level II - $500
Up to $5,000 & up to 90 days
incarceration
Voluntary Compliance
Agreement
Yes
Yes
Judicial Enforcement
Yes — county prosecutor
Yes — city attorney
Yes — hearing examiner
Appeals
Yes — hearing examiner
Cost recovery
No
Yes
Recommendation:
The Planning Commission recommends that the attached Chapter 14.406,
Zoning Code Compliance be adopted by City Council in order to facilitate the
enforcement of existing zoning and development regulations.
William Gothmann, Chair
Spokane Valley Planning Commission
• Page 2
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY,
WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON,
REPEALING CHAPTER 14.406 OF THE CITY OF
SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE AND
ESTABLISHING ZONING CODE COMPLIANCE 14.406.
WHEREAS, The City of Spokane Valley, Washington adopted a Zoning Code to
regulate the orderly development of the City of Spokane Valley; and
WHEREAS, the existing code compliance provisions, Section 14.406, does not
adequately provide the necessary processes to ensure abatement of identified code
violations;
WHEREAS, violations of the City of Spokane Valley Zoning Code pose a threat
to the health, welfare and safety of the citizens of the City of Spokane Valley, and the
City of Spokane Valley desires to address this problem; and
WHEREAS, enforcement of the City of Spokane Valley Zoning Code is within
the police powers of the City of Spokane Valley, Washington.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE
VALLEY, WASHINGTON ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Repeal. Section 14.406 of the City of Spokane Valley Zoning
Code relating to Zoning Code compliance is repealed in its entirety.
Section 2. New Zoning Code Compliance Section. The new Zoning Code
Compliance Section 14.406, as set forth in Attachment "A" to this Ordinance, is adopted.
Section 3. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this
ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent
jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or
constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance
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 August, 2003.
City Clerk, Chris Bainbridge
Approved As To Form:
Interim City Attorney, Stanley M. Schwartz
Date of Publication:
Effective Date:
Mayor, Michael DeVleming
Planning Commission Recommendation — with revised abatement procedure
3 -12 -03
14.406.005 -
14.406.010 -
14.406.015 -
14.406.020 -
14.406.025 -
14.406.030 -
14.406.035 -
14.406.050 -
14.406.060 -
14.406.070 -
14.406.080 -
14.406.090 -
14.406.095 -
14.406.100 -
14.406.110 -
14.406.120 -
14.406.200 -
14.406.210 -
14.406.220 -
14.406.230 -
14.406.240 -
14.406.300 -
14.406.305 -
14.406.310 -
14.406.320 -
14.406.330 -
14.406.335 -
14.406.340 -
permit.
14.406.350 - Notice and order — remedies
14.406.360 - Notice and order — remedies
14.406.400 - Stop work order — authorized
14.406.410 - Stop work order — effect.
14.406.420 - Stop work order — remedy —
14.406.430 - Stop work order — remedy —
14.406.500 - Civil penalties — assessment
14.406.520 - Civil penalties — duty to corn
14.406.530 - Civil penalties — community
14.406.540 - Civil penalties — waivers.
14.406.550 - Civil penalties — critical area
14.406.560 - Cost recovery.
14.406.570 - Collection of civil penalties,
14.406.580 - Abatement
14.406.590 - Code compliance abatement
Chapter 14.406
Zoning Code Compliance
Name and intent.
Statement of policy.
Definitions.
Relationship to Growth Management Plan.
Declaration of public nuisance — misdemeanor.
Enforcement, authority and administration.
Guidelines for departmental responses to complaints.
initial investigation.
Procedures when probable violation is identified.
Service — citation, notice and order, and stop work order.
Training and rulemaking.
Obligations of persons responsible for code violation.
Determination of compliance.
Voluntary compliance agreement — authority.
Voluntary compliance agreement — contents.
Failure to meet terms of voluntary compliance agreement.
Citations — authority.
Citations — effect.
Citation — contents.
Citation — modification or revocation.
Citation — remedy — civil penalties.
Notice and order — authority.
Notice and order — effect.
Notice and order — contents.
Notice and order — recording.
Notice and order — supplementation, revocation, modification.
Notice and order - administrative conference.
Notice and order — remedies — suspension, revocation or limitation of
— denial of permit.
— abatement.
civil penalties.
criminal penalties.
schedule.
ply.
service.
s.
fees and costs.
fund — authorized.
Planning Commission Recommendation — with revised abatement procedure
8 -12 -03
14.406.600 - Administrative appeals — standing - filing requirements.
14.406.610 - Administrative appeal — notice of hearing.
14.406.620 - Administrative appeal — procedures.
14.406.630 - Administrative appeal — final order.
14.406.640 - Judicial enforcement — petition for enforcement.
14.406.650 - Severability.
14.406.660 - Effective date.
14.406.005 — Name and intent. This chapter shall be known as "Zoning Code Compliance ".
The purpose of this chapter is to identify processes and methods to encourage compliance with
development ordinances and regulations adopted by the City of Spokane Valley to promote and
protect the general public health safety and welfare of City residents. This chapter declares
certain acts to be civil violations and establishes non -penal enforcement procedures and civil
penalties. This chapter also declares certain acts to be misdemeanors subject to prosecution by
the City.
It is the intention of the City to pursue code compliance actively and vigorously in order to
protect the health, safety and welfare of the general public. This intent is to be pursued in a way
that is consistent with adherence to, and respectful of, fundamental federal and state
constitutional principles.
While this chapter does authorize the City of Spokane Valley to take action to enforce the City
ordinances and regulations, it shall not be construed as placing responsibility for code
compliance or enforcement upon the City in any particular case, or as creating any duty on the
part of the City to any particular person or class of persons.
14.406.010 — Statement of policy. It is the policy of the City of Spokane Valley to emphasize
code compliance by education and prevention as a first step. This policy is designed to ensure
code compliance and timely action that is available to all persons and uniform in its
implementation. While warnings and voluntary compliance are desirable as a first step,
enforcement and civil penalties should be used for remedial purposes as needed to assure and
effect code compliance. Abatement or remediation should be pursued when appropriate and
feasible. Uniform and efficient procedures, with consistent application governed by regulation
should be used to accomplish this policy.
14.406.015 — Definitions.
A. "abate" means to take whatever steps are deemed necessary by the Director to ensure that
the property complies with applicable code requirements. Abatement may include, but is not
limited to, rehabilitation, demolition, removal, replacement or repair.
B. "civil code violation" means and includes an act or omission contrary to:
1. Any ordinance, resolution, regulation or public rule of the City that regulates or
protects the use and development of land or water; and/or
2. The conditions of any permit, notice and order or stop work order issued pursuant
to any such ordinance, resolution, regulation or public rule.
2
' C. "The City" means the City of Spokane Valley, Washington.
Planning Commission Recommendation — with revised abatement procedure
8 -12 -03
D. "days" will be counted as business days when five or less days are allowed to do an act
required by this Ordinance. "days" will be considered calendar days when more than five days
are allowed to do an act required by this Ordinance.
E. "determination of compliance" means a written statement from the Director or designee
that the Director has reviewed evidence to determine that the violation(s) has been sufficiently
abated as to the violation(s) stated in the voluntary compliance agreement, citation, notice and
order or stop work order.
F. "Director" means the Director of the Department of Community Development, or his or
her designee(s) authorized in writing.
G. "found in violation" means"
I . That a citation, notice and order or stop work order has been issued and not timely
appealed; or
2. That a voluntary compliance agreement has been entered into; or
3. That the Hearing Examiner has determined that the violation has occurred and
such determination has not been stayed or reversed on appeal.
H. "I- Iearing Examiner" means the City of Spokane \'alley Hearing Examiner, as provided
by City of Spokane Valley Ordinance number 57.
I. "mitigate" means to take measures, subject to City approval, to minimize the harmful
effects of the violation where remediation is either. impossible or unreasonably burdensome.
J. "permit" means any form of certificate, approval, registration, license or any other
written permission issued by the City. All conditions of approval, and all easements and use
limitations shown on the face of an approved final plat map which are intended to serve or
protect the general public are deemed conditions applicable to all subsequent plat property
owners, owner's tenants, and owner's agents as permit requirements enforceable under this
chapter.
K. "person" means any individual, association, partnership, corporation or legal entity,
public or private, and the agents and assigns of such individual, association, partnership,
corporation or legal entity.
L. "person responsible for a code violation" means the person who caused the violation, if
that can be determined, and/or the owner, lessor, tenant or other person entitled to control, use
and/or occupancy of the property where the civil code violation occurs.
M. "public rule" means any rule properly promulgated to implement City civil code
provisions.
3
Planning Commission Recommendation — with revised abatement procedure
8 -12 -03
N. "remediate" means to restore a site to a condition that complies with sensitive area or
other regulatory requirements as they existed before the violation occurred; or, for sites that have
been degraded under prior ownerships, restore to a condition which does not pose a probable
threat to the environment or to the general public health, safety or welfare.
O. "resolution" for purposes of this chapter means any resolution adopted by the City of
Spokane Valley City Council.
14.406.020 — Relationship to Growth Management Plan. This chapter is adopted as
development regulations pursuant to RCW 36.70A (Growth Management Act).
14.406.025 — Declaration of public nuisance — misdemeanor.
A. All civil code violations are hereby determined to be detrimental to the general public
health, safety and welfare and are hereby declared public nuisances. All conditions determined
to be civil code violations shall be subject to and enforced pursuant to the provisions of this
chapter except where specifically excluded by law or regulation.
B. Any person who willfully or knowingly causes, aids or abets a civil code violation
pursuant to this chapter by any act of commission or omission is guilty of a misdemeanor. Upon
conviction, the person shall be punished by a fine not to exceed one thousand dollars and/or
incarceration for a term not to exceed ninety days. Each week (seven consecutive days) such
violation continues shall be considered a separate misdemeanor offense. As an alternative, or in
addition to any other judicial or administrative remedy provided in this chapter or by law or other
regulation, the Director may recommend that the Office of the City Attorney file a misdemeanor
complaint against the person responsible for code violation when the Director has documentation
or other evidence that the violation was willful and knowing.
14.406.030 — Enforcement, authority and administration.
A. In order to discourage public nuisances and otherwise promote compliance with
applicable code provisions, the Director may, in response to field observations or reliable
complaints, determine that civil code violations have occurred or are occurring, and may:
1. Enter into voluntary compliance agreements with persons responsible for code
violations;
2. Issue citations and assess civil penalties as authorized by this chapter;
3. Issue notice and orders, assess civil penalties and recover costs as authorized by
this chapter;
4. Require abatement by means of a judicial abatement order, and if such abatement
is not timely completed by the person or persons responsible for a code violation,
undertake the abatement and charge the reasonable costs of such work as authorized by
this chapter;
4
Planning Commission Recommendation — with revised abatement procedure
8 -12-03
5. Allow a person responsible for the code violation to perform community service
in lieu of paying civil penalties as authorized by SVZC 14.406.530;
6. Order work stopped at a site by means of a stop work order, and if such order is
not complied with, assess civil penalties as authorized by this chapter;
7. Suspend, revoke or modify any permit previously issued by the Director or deny a
permit application as authorized by this chapter when other efforts to achieve compliance
have failed; and
8. Forward a written statement providing all relevant information relating to the
violation to the Office of City Attorney with a recommendation to prosecute willful and
knowing violations as a misdemeanor offense.
13. The procedures set forth in this title are not exclusive. These procedures shall not in any
manner limit or restrict the City from remedying civil code violations or abating civil code
violations in any other manner authorized by law.
C. In addition, or as an alternative, to utilizing the procedures set forth in this chapter, the
Director may seek legal or equitable relief to abate any conditions or enjoin any acts or practices
which constitute a civil code violation.
D. In addition, or as an alternative, to utilizing the procedures set forth in this chapter, the
Director may assess or recover civil penalties accruing under this chapter by legal action filed in
Spokane County District Court by the Office of the City Attorney.
E. The provisions of this chapter shall in no way adversely affect the rights of the owner,
lessee or occupant of any property to recover all costs and expenses incurred and required by this
chapter from any person causing such violation.
F. In administering the provisions for code enforcement, the Director shall have the
authority to waive any one or more such provisions so as to avoid substantial injustice by
application thereof to the acts or omissions of a public or private entity or individual, or acts or
omissions on public or private property including, for example, property belonging to public or
private utilities, where no apparent benefit has accrued to such entity or individual from a code
violation. Any determination of substantial injustice shall be made in writing supported by
appropriate facts. For purposes of this clause, substantial injustice cannot be based exclusively
on financial hardship.
G. The provisions of this chapter detailing the administration of code compliance procedures
are intended only for the purpose of providing guidance to City employees and are not
jurisdictional, and are not to be construed as creating a basis for appeal or a defense of any kind
to an alleged code violation.
H. The Director may, upon presentation of proper credentials, with the consent of the owner
or occupier of a building or premises, or pursuant to a lawfully issued inspection warrant, enter at
reasonable times any building or premises subject to the consent or warrant to perform the duties
imposed by this chapter. It is the intent of the City Council that any entry made to private
-5-
Planning Commission Recommendation — with revised abatement procedure.
8 -12-03
property for the purpose of inspection for code violations be accomplished in strict conformity
with constitutional and statutory constraints on entry, and the holdings of the relevant court cases
regarding entry. The right -of -entry authorized by this chapter shall not supersede those legal
constraints.
I. The Director or his or her representative may request that the police, appropriate fire
district, Spokane Regional Health District or other appropriate City department or other non -city
agency assist in enforcement.
14.406.035 — Guidelines for departmental responses to complaints.
A. The following guidelines should be applied by the Director, subject to resource
limitations, when responding to code compliance complaints. The timelines identified below
may be modified by Department rule, subject to council review and approval.
1. High risk investigations needing an urgent response (within 24 hours) include any
cases in which there is an imminent likelihood of or actual bodily harm, damage to public
resources or facilities, damage to real or personal property, public health exposure or
environmental damage or contamination.
2. Moderate risk investigations needing a prompt response (within 72 hours) include
cases in which there is risk of bodily harm, damage to public resources and /or facilities,
damage to real or personal property, or environmental damage or contamination.
3. Low risk investigations needing response as time permits (within 14 days of
violation being identified by code compliance staff) including cases where the violation is
non- emergent, does not fit within the high risk or moderate risk categories and has only
minor public impacts.
13. The response times set out in this chapter are not jurisdictional, and failure to meet them
in any particular case shall not affect the City's authority to enforce City code provisions with
regard to that case.
14.406.050 — Initial investigation. This chapter sets forth guidelines for more specific
procedures to be used by the Director in implementing this chapter. The guidelines set forth in
this chapter are not jurisdictional, and failure to meet them in any particular case shall not affect
the City's authority to enforce City code provisions with regard to that case.
A. Field verification. Except in emergencies and for low risk case complaints, field
verification should be made if possible prior to, concurrent with, or shortly after notifying the
person responsible for the code violation or alleged code violation. Low risk case complaints
should be acknowledged by sending a letter to the person(s) responsible for the code violation.
The letter should state that a violation may have occurred, but has not been verified, and should
ask the recipient to contact the person issuing the letter.
E. Advising interested parties of receipt of complaint and /or field investigation.
6
Planning Commission Recommendation — with revised abatement procedure
8 -12 -03
1. The person responsible for the code violation should be advised of any complaint
by personal contact; phone; posting and nail (return receipt requested).
2. The complainant should be contacted by phone, and if possible, in person during
the field visit.
C. The Director will record all violations in a database system, including a list of all actions
taken on the complaint.
D. To the extent possible, the Department shall check its own records and the records of
other agencies for previous violations on the site of the alleged violation or by the owner or
occupant of the site or such other person as may be responsible for the code violation.
E. Staff undertaking field investigations shall comply with the provisions of this chapter
regarding right of entry.
14.406.060 — Procedures when probable violation is identified.
A. The Director shall determine, based upon information derived from sources such as field
observations, the statements of witnesses, relevant documents and data systems for tracking
violations and applicable City codes, whether or not a violation has occurred. As soon as the
Director has reasonable cause to determine that a violation has occurred, he or she shall
document the violation and promptly notify the person(s) responsible for the code violation.
B. Except as provided in subsection D, a warning shall be issued verbally or in writing
promptly when a field inspection reveals a violation, or as soon as the Director otherwise
determines a violation has occurred. The warning shall inform the person determined to be
responsible for a code violation of the violation and allow the person an opportunity to correct it
or enter into a voluntary compliance agreement as provided for by this chapter. Verbal warnings
shall be logged and followed up with a written warning within five (5) days, and the site shall be
re- inspected within fourteen (14) days.
C. No warning need be issued in high risk cases, emergencies, repeat violation cases, cases
that are already subject to a voluntary compliance agreement, cases where the violation creates
or has created a situation or condition that is not likely to be corrected within seventy -two (72)
hours, cases where a stop work order is necessary, or when the person responsible for the code
violation knows, or reasonably should have known that the action was a civil code violation.
D. Citations may be issued in moderate and low risk cases, provided that the Director
determines it is probable that the violation can likely be fully corrected in a short period of time.
E. Notice and orders should be issued in all high risk cases in which a voluntary compliance
agreement has not been entered into within two (2) days of notification by the Director. Notice
and orders may be issued in moderate and low risk cases where the Director determines that the
violation is unlikely to be fully corrected in a short period of time.
7
Planning Commission Recommendation — with revised abatement procedure
8 -12 -03
F. The Director shall use all reasonable means to determine and cite the person actually
responsible for the code violation occurring when the property owner has not directly or
indirectly caused the violation.
G. If the violation is not corrected, or a voluntary compliance agreement is not achieved
within fifteen (15) days of notification by the Director, a notice and order or stop work order
should be issued. Citations should be issued within fifteen (15) days from receipt of a complaint.
Notice and orders should be issued within twenty (20) days from receipt of a complaint. Stop
work orders should be issued promptly upon discovery of a violation in progress.
H. All complainants will be asked by staff at the time the complaint is filed whether they
wish to be kept advised of enforcement efforts. Any complainant who provides a mailing
address and requests to be kept advised of enforcement efforts should be mailed a copy of all
written warnings, voluntary compliance agreements, citations, notice and orders, stop work
orders and notices of settlement conferences issued by the Director with regard to the alleged
violation. Any complainant may appeal a determination of code compliance issued by the
Director pursuant to SVZC 14.406.095.
14.406.070 — Service — citation, notice and order, and stop work order.
A. Service of a citation or notice and order shall be made on a person responsible for code
violation by one or more of the following methods:
1. Personal service of a citation or notice and order may be made on the person
identified by the Department as being responsible for the code violation, or by leaving a
copy of the citation or notice and order at the person's house of usual abode with a person
of suitable age and discretion who resides there;
2. Service directed to the landowner and /or occupant of the property may be made
by posting the citation or notice and order in a conspicuous place on the property where
the violation occurred and concurrently mailing notice as provided for below, if a mailing
address is available;
3. Service by mail may be made for a citation or a notice and order by mailing two
copies, postage prepaid, one by ordinary first class mail and the other by certified mail, to
the person responsible for the code violation at his or her last known address, at the
address of the violation, or at the address of the place of business of the person
responsible for the code violation. The taxpayer's address as shown on the tax records of
Spokane County shall be deemed to be the proper address for the purpose of mailing such
notice to the landowner of the property where the violation occurred. Service by mail
shall be presumed effective upon the third business day following the day upon which the
citation or notice and order was placed in the mail.
B. For notice and orders only, when the address of the person responsible for the code
violation cannot be reasonably determined, service may be made by publication 'once in the
City's newspaper of record. Service by publication shall conform to the requirements of Civil
Rule 4 of the Rules for Superior Court. _ ,/
8
Planning Commission Recommendation — with revised abatement procedure
8 -12 -03
C. Service of a stop work order on a person responsible for a code violation may be made by
posting the stop work order in a conspicuous place on the property where the violation occurred
or by serving the stop work order in any other manner permitted by this chapter.
D. The failure of the Director to make or attempt service on any person named in the
citation, notice and order or stop work order shall not invalidate any proceedings as to any other
person duly served.
14.406.080 — Training and rulemaking.
A. In order to ensure strict conformity with the constraints on entry imposed by state and
federal law, and to ensure that City employees deal with the public in a manner which respects
the rights of private property owners, the Director shall develop and adopt internal procedures,
protocols and training programs governing the conduct of searches by compliance officers.
B. The Director shall adopt procedures to implement the provisions of this chapter, and
specifically the guidelines set out in this chapter describing reasonable and appropriate protocols
for investigating code violations.
14.406.090 — Obligations of persons responsible for code violation.
A. It shall be the responsibility of any person identified as responsible for code a violation to
bring the property into a safe and reasonable condition to achieve code compliance. Payment of
civil penalties, applications for permits, acknowledgement of stop work orders and compliance
with other remedies does not substitute for performing the corrective work required and having
the property brought into compliance to the extent reasonably possible under the circumstances.
B. Persons determined to be responsible for a code violation pursuant to a citation or notice
and order shall be liable for the payment of any civil penalties and abatement costs, provided
however, that if a property owner affirmatively demonstrates that the action which resulted in the
violation was taken without the owner's knowledge or consent by someone other than the owner
or someone acting on the owner's behalf that owner shall be responsible only for bringing the
property into compliance to the extent reasonably feasible under the circumstances. Should the
owner not correct the violation, only those abatement costs necessary to bring the property into a
safe and reasonable condition, as determined by the Director, shall be assessed by the City. No
civil penalties shall be assessed against such an owner or his or her property interest.
1.4.406.095 — Determination of compliance. After issuance of a warning, citation, voluntary
compliance agreement, citation, notice and order, or stop work order, and after the person(s)
responsible for a code violation have come into zoning code compliance to the satisfaction of the
Director, the. Director shall issue a written determination of compliance. The Director shall mail
copies of the determination of compliance to each person originally named in the warning,
voluntary compliance agreement, citation, notice and order, or stop work order, as well as the
complainant, by certified mail, five -day return receipt requested.
14.406.100 — Voluntary compliance agreement — authority.
9
Plannine Commission Recommendation — with revised abatement procedure
8 -12 -03
A. Whenever the Director determines that a code violation has occurred or is occurring, the
Director shall make reasonable efforts to secure voluntary compliance from the person
responsible for the code violation. Upon contacting the person responsible for the code
violation, the Director may enter into a voluntary compliance agreement as provided for in this
chapter.
B. A voluntary compliance agreement may be entered into at any time after issuance of a
verbal or written warning, a citation, notice and order or a stop work order and before an appeal
is decided pursuant to SVZC 14.406.630.
C. Upon entering into a voluntary compliance agreement, a person responsible for a code
violation waives the right to administratively appeal, and thereby admits that the conditions
described in the voluntary compliance agreement existed and constituted a civil code violation.
D. The voluntary compliance agreement shall incorporate the shortest reasonable time
period for compliance, as determined by the Director. An extension of the time limit for
compliance, or a modification of the required corrective action may be granted by the Director if
the person responsible for the code violation has shown due diligence or substantial progress in
correcting the violation, but circumstances render full and timely compliance under the original
conditions unattainable. Any such extension or modification must be in writing and signed by
the Director and person(s) who signed the original voluntary compliance agreement.
E. The voluntary compliance agreement is not a settlement agreement.
14.406.110 — Voluntary compliance agreement — contents.
A. The voluntary compliance agreement is a written, signed commitment by the person(s)
responsible for a code violation in which such persons) agrees to abate the violation, remediate
the site, and/or mitigate the impacts of the violation. The voluntary compliance agreement shall
include the following:
The name and address of the person responsible for the code violation;
The address or other identification of the location of the violation;
3. A description of the violation and a reference to the provision(s) of the ordinance,
resolution or regulation which has been violated;
4. A description of the necessary corrective action to be taken and identification of
the date or time by which compliance must be completed;
5. The amount of the civil penalty that will be imposed pursuant to SVZC
14.406.500 if the voluntary compliance agreement is not satisfied;
6. An acknowledgement that if the Director determines that the terms of the
voluntary compliance agreement are not met, the City may, without issuing a citation,
notice and order or stop work order, impose any remedy authorized by this chapter, enter
the real property and perform abatement of the violation by the City, assess the costs
- 10-
Planning Commission Recommendation — with revised abatement procedure
8 -12 -03
incurred by the City to pursue code compliance and to abate the violation, including
reasonable legal fees and costs, and the suspension, revocation or limitation of a
development permit obtained or to be sought by the person responsible for the code
violation;
7. An acknowledgement that if a penalty is assessed, and if any assessed penalty, fee
or cost is not paid, the Director may charge the unpaid amount as a lien against the
property where the civil code violation occurred if owned by the person responsible for
the code violation, and that the unpaid amount may be a joint and several personal
obligation of all persons responsible for the code violation;
8. An acknowledgement that by entering into the voluntary compliance agreement,
the person responsible for the code violation thereby admits that the conditions described
in the voluntary compliance agreement existed and constituted a civil code violation; and
9. An acknowledgement that the person responsible for the code violation
understands that he or she has the right to be served with a citation, notice and order, or
stop work order for any violation identified in the voluntary compliance agreement, has
the right to administratively appeal any such citation, notice and order, or stop work
order, and that he or she is knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waiving those rights.
14.406.120 — Failure to meet terms of voluntary compliance agreement.
A. If the terms of the voluntary compliance agreement are not completely met, and an
extension of time has not been granted, the Director may enter the real property and abate the
violation without seeking a judicial abatement order. The person responsible for code
compliance may, without being issued a citation, notice and order, or stop work order, be
assessed a civil penalty as set forth by this chapter, plus all costs incurred by the City to pursue
code compliance and to abate the violation, and may be subject to other remedies authorized by
this chapter. Penalties imposed when a voluntary compliance agreement is not met accrue from
the date that an appeal of any preceding citation, notice and order, or stop work order was to
have been filed or from the date the voluntary compliance agreement was entered into if there
was not preceding citation, notice and order, or stop work order.
B. The Director may issue a citation, notice and order, or stop work order for failure to meet
the terms of a voluntary compliance agreement.
14.406.200 — Citations — authority. Whenever the Director has determined, based upon
investigation of documents ancllor physical evidence, that a civil code violation has occurred, the
Director may issue a citation to any person responsible for code violation. The Director shall
make a detennination whether or not to issue a citation within fifteen (15) days of receiving a
complaint alleging a violation or otherwise discovering that a violation may potentially exist.
Subsequent complaints shall be treated as new complaints for purposes of this chapter.
However, such subsequent complaints shall not constitute a separate violation to which the
penalties of this chapter apply.
14.406.210 — Citations — effect.
Planning Commission Recommendation — with revised abatement procedure
S -12 -03
A. A citation represents a determination that a civil code violation has occurred and that the
cited party is a person responsible for a code violation.
B. A citation subjects the person responsible for a code violation to the civil penalties
prescribed by SVZC 14.406.500.
C. The person responsible for a code violation shall either pay the civil penalties assessed
within twenty (20) days of the date of issuance of the citation, or appeal the citation according to
the procedures described in SVZC 14.406.600 -630.
D. Failure to appeal the citation within twenty (20) days shall render the citation a final
determination that the conditions described in the citation existed and constituted a civil code
violation, and that the cited party is liable as a person responsible for a code violation.
E. Imposition of a civil penalty creates a joint and several personal obligation in all persons
responsible for a code violation who are served with notice of the violation. The Office of the
City Attorney, on behalf of the City of Spokane Valley, may collect the civil penalties assessed
by any appropriate legal means.
F. Issuance of a citation in no way limits the Director's authority to issue a notice and order
or stop work order to any person responsible for a code violation pursuant to this chapter.
14.406.220 — Citation — contents. The citation shall include all of the following information:
A. The address, when available, or location of the civil code violation;
B. A legal description of the real property or the Spokane County tax parcel number where
the violation occurred or is located, or a description identifying the property by commonly used
locators;
C. A statement that the Director has found the named person(s) to have committed a civil
code violation and a brief description of the violation(s) found;
D. A statement of the specific ordinance, resolution, regulation, public rule, permit
condition, notice and order provision or stop work order provision that was or is being violated;
E. A statement that the citation represents a determination that a civil code violation has
occurred and that the cited party is subject to a civil penalty;
N. A statement of the amount of the civil penalty assessed, that payment of the civil
penalties assessed under this chapter does not relieve a person found to be responsible for a code
violation of his or her duty to correct the violation and/or to pay any and all civil penalties or
other cost assessments issued pursuant to this chapter, and that the penalty must be paid within
twenty (20) days, if not appealed pursuant to SVZC 14.406.600 -630;
F. A statement of the corrective or abatement action required to be taken and that all
required permits to perform the corrective action must be obtained from the proper issuing
agency;
- 12 -
� J G. A statement advising that any person named in the citation, or having any record .or
equitable title in the property against which the citation is issued may appeal from the citation to
the Hearing Examiner within twenty (20) days of the date of service of the citation;
H. A statement advising that a failure to appeal the citation within twenty (20) days renders
the citation a final determination that the conditions described in the citation existed and
constituted a civil code violation, and that the named party is liable as a person responsible for a
code violation; and
O
Planning Commission Recommendation — with revised abatement procedure
8 -12 -03
1. A statement advising that a willful and knowing violation may be referred to the Office
of the City Attorney for prosecution pursuant to SVZC 14.406.025.
14.406.230 — Citation — modification or revocation.
A. The Director may add to, revoke in whole or in part, or otherwise modify a citation by
issuing a written supplemental citation. The supplemental citation shall be governed by the same
procedures and time limits applicable to all citations contained in this chapter.
B. The Director may issue a supplemental citation, or revoke a citation issued under this
chapter:
1. if the original citation was issued in error;
2. whenever there is new information or change of circumstances; or
3. if a party to a citation was incorrectly named.
C. Such revocation or modification shall identify the reasons and underlying facts for
modification or revocation, and shall be served on the person responsible for a code violation in
conformity with this chapter.
14.406.240 — Citation — remedy — civil penalties. A citation shall carry a civil penalty to be
determined with reference to the schedule contained in SVZC 14.406.500.
14.406.300 — Notice and order — authority. When the Director has reason to believe, based on
investigation of documents and /or physical evidence, that a code violation exists or has occurred,
or that the civil code violations cited in a citation have not been corrected, or that the terms of a
voluntary compliance agreement have not been met, the Director is authorized to issue a notice
and order to any person responsible for a code violation. The Director shall make a
determination whether or not to issue a notice and order within twenty (20) days of receiving a
complaint alleging a violation or otherwise discovering that a violation may potentially exist, or
within ten (10) days of the end of a voluntary compliance agreement time period which has not
been met. Subsequent complaints shall be treated as new complaints for the purposes of this
chapter. Issuance of a citation is not a condition precedent to the issuance of a notice and order.
14..406.305 — Notice and order — effect.
- 13 -
Planning Commission Recommendation — with revised abatement procedure
8 -12 -03
A. A notice and order represents a determination that a civil code violation has occurred,
that the cited party is a person responsible for a code violation, and that the violations set out in
the notice and order require the assessment of penalties and other remedies that may be specified
in the notice and order.
B. Upon a determination by the Director that a civil code violation has occurred pursuant to
a notice and order, the Director is authorized to impose appropriate civil penalties pursuant to
SVZC 14.406.500 -580.
C. Any person identified in the notice and order as responsible for a code violation may
appeal the notice and order within twenty (20) days according to the procedures described in
SVZC 14.406.600 -630.
D. Failure to appeal the notice and order within the applicable time limits shall render the
notice and order a final determination that the conditions described in the notice and order
existed and constituted a civil code violation, and that the named party is liable as a person
responsible for a code violation.
L. Issuance of a notice and order in no way limits a Director's authority to issue a citation or
stop work order to a person previously cited through the notice and order process pursuant to this
chapter.
14.406.310 — Notice and order — contents. The notice and order shall contain the following
information:
A. The address, when available, or location of the civil code violation;
13. A legal description of the real property or the Spokane County tax parcel number where
the violation occurred or is located, or a description identifying the property by commonly used
locators;
C. A statement that the Director has found the named person(s) to have committed a civil
code violation and a brief description of the violation(s) found;
D. A statement of the specific provisions of the ordinance, resolution, regulation, public rule,
permit condition, notice and order provision or stop work order that was or is being violated;
L. A statement that a civil penalty is being assessed, including the dollar amount of the civil
penalties per separate violation, and that any assessed penalties must be paid within twenty (20)
days of service of the notice and order;
F. A statement advising that any costs of enforcement incurred by the City shall also be
assessed against the person to whom the notice and order is directed;
G. A statement that payment of the civil penalties assessed under this chapter does not
relieve a person found to be responsible for a code violation of his or her duty to correct the
violation and /or to pay any and all civil penalties or other cost assessments issued pursuant to
this chapter;
- 14-
Planning Commission Recommendation — with revised abatement procedure
8 -12 -03
H. A statement advising that the notice and order will be recorded against the property in the
Spokane County Auditor's Office subsequent to service;
1. A statement of the corrective or abatement action required to be taken and that all
required permits to perform the corrective action must be obtained from the proper issuing
agency;
J. A statement advising that, if any required work is not commenced or completed within
the time specified by the notice and order, the Director may proceed to seek a judicial abatement
order from Spokane County Superior Court to abate the violation pursuant to S\'ZC 14.406.580;
K. A statement advising that, if any assessed penalty, fee or cost is not paid on or before the
due date, the Director may charge the unpaid amount as a lien against the property where the
civil code violation occurred if owned by a person responsible for a code violation, and as a joint
and several personal obligation of all persons responsible for a code violation;
L. A statement advising that any person named in the notice and order, or having arty record
or equitable title in the property against which the notice and order is recorded may appeal from
the notice and order to the Hearing Examiner within twenty (20) days of the date of service of
the notice and order;
M. A statement advising that a failure to correct the violations cited in the notice and order
could lead to the denial of subsequent Spokane Valley permit applications on the subject
property;
N. A statement advising that a failure to appeal the notice and order within the applicable
time limits renders the notice and order a final determination that the conditions described in the
notice and order existed and constituted a civil code violation, and that the named party is liable
as a person responsible for a code violation; and
O. A statement advising the person responsible for a code violation of his/her duty to notify
the Director of any actions taken to achieve compliance with the notice and order.
P. A statement advising that a willful and knowing violation may be referred to the Office
of the City Attorney for prosecution pursuant to SVZC 14.406.025.
14.406.320 — Notice and order — recording.
A. When a notice and order is served on a person responsible for a code violation, the
Director shall file a copy of the same with the Spokane County Auditor's Office.
B. When all violations specified in the notice and order have been corrected or abated to the
satisfaction of the Director, the Director shall file a certificate of compliance with the Spokane
County Auditor's Office within five days of receiving evidence of abatement. The certificate
shall include a legal description of the property where the violation occurred and shall state
whether any unpaid civil penalties for which liens have been filed are still outstanding and, if so,
shall continue as liens on the property.
- 15 -
Planning Commission Recommendation — with revised abatement procedure
8 -12 -03
C. After all liens have been satisfied, the Director shall file a notice of satisfaction of lien
with the Spokane County Auditor's Office within five days of final payment to City.
14.406.330 — Notice and order — supplementation, revocation, modification.
A. The Director may add to, revoke in whole or in part, or otherwise modify a notice and
order by issuing a written supplemental notice and order. The supplemental notice and order
shall be governed by the same procedures and time limits applicable to all notice and orders
contained in this chapter.
13. The Director may issue a supplemental notice and order, or revoke a notice and order
issued under this chapter:
1. If the original notice and order was issued in error;
2. Whenever there is new information or change of circumstances; or
3. If a party to an order was incorrectly named.
C. Such revocation or modification shall identify the reasons and underlying facts for
modification or revocation, and shall be filed with the Spokane County Auditor's Office.
14.406.335 — Notice and order - administrative conference. An informal administrative
conference may be conducted by the Director at any time for the purpose of facilitating
communication among concerned persons and providing a forum for efficient resolution of any
violation. Interested parties shall not unreasonably be excluded from such conferences.
14.406.340 — Notice and order — remedies — suspension, revocation or limitation of permit.
A. The Director may suspend, revoke or modify any permit issued by such Director
whenever:
1. The permit holder has committed a code violation in the course of performing
activities subject to that permit;
2. The permit holder has interfered with the Director in the performance of his or her
duties related to that permit;
3. The permit was issued in error or on the basis of materially incorrect information
supplied to the City;
4. Permit fees or costs were paid to the City by check and returned from a financial
institution marked non - sufficient funds (NSF) or canceled; or
5. For a permit or approval that is subject to sensitive area review, the applicant has
failed to disclose a change of circumstances on the development proposal site which
materially affects an applicant's ability to meet the permit or approval conditions, or
- 16 -
Planning Commission Recommendation — with revised abatement procedure
8 -12 -03
which makes inaccurate the sensitive area study that was the basis for establishing permit
or approval conditions.
B. Such suspension, revocation, or modification shall be carried out through the notice and
order provisions of this chapter and shall be effective upon the compliance date established by
the notice and order. Such suspension, revocation or modification may be appealed to the
Hearing Examiner using the appeal provisions of this chapter.
C. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Director may immediately
suspend operations under any permit by issuing a stop work order pursuant to SVZC 14.406.400-
430.
14.406.350 — Notice and order — remedies — denial of permit.
A. The City may deny a development proposal permit when, with regard to the site or
project for which the permit is submitted:
1. Any person owning the property or submitting the development proposal has been
found in violation of any ordinance, resolution, regulation or public rule of the City that
regulates or protects the public health, safety and welfare, or the use and development of
land and water; and/or
2. Any person owning the property or submitting the development proposal has been
found in violation and remains in violation of the conditions of any permit, notice. and
order or stop work order issued pursuant to any such ordinance, resolution, regulation or
public rule; and/or
B. 1n order to further the remedial purposes of this chapter, such denial may continue until
the violation is cured by restoration accepted as complete by the City and by payment of any
civil penalty imposed for the violation, except that permits or approvals shall be granted to the
extent necessary to accomplish any required restoration or cure.
14.406.360 — Notice and order — remedies — abatement. In addition, or as an alternative, to
any other judicial or administrative remedy, the Director may use the notice and order provisions
of this chapter to order any person responsible for a code violation to abate the violation and to
complete the work at such time and under such conditions as the Director determines reasonable
under the circumstances. If the required corrective work is not commenced or completed within
the time specified, the Director may seek a judicial abatement order pursuant to this chapter.
14.406.400 — Stop work order — authorized. The Director is authorized to issue a stop work
order to a person responsible for a code violation. Issuance of a citation or notice and order is
not a condition precedent to the issuance of the stop work order.
14.406.410 — Stop work order — effect.
A. A stop work order represents a determination that a civil code violation has occurred or is
occurring, and that any work or activity that caused, is causing or contributing to the violation on
the property where the violation has occurred, or is occurring, must cease.
- 17 -
1. Citations
S250
2. Notice and orders and stop work orders
a. basic initial penalty
$500
b. additional initial penalties may be added where there is:
1. 2Liblic health risk — amount depends on severity
$0 -2,500
$0 -2,500
2. environmental damage - amount depends on severity
3. damage to property - amount depends on severity
$0 -2,500
4. history of similar violations (less than three)
$0 -1,000
5. history of similar violations (three or more)
$0 -5,000
6. economic benefit to person responsible for violation
$0 -5,000
Planning Commission Recommendation — with revised abatement procedure
8 -12 -03
13. A stop work order requires the immediate cessation of the specified work or activity on
the named property. Work activity may not resume unless specifically authorized in writing by
the Director.
C. A stop work order may be appealed according to the procedures prescribed by SVZC
14,406.600-630.
D. Failure to appeal the stop work order within twenty (20) days renders the stop work order
a final determination that the civil code violation occurred and that work was properly ordered to
cease.
F. A stop work order may be enforced by the City Police.
14.406.420 — Stop work order — remedy — civil penalties.
A. In addition to any other judicial or administrative remedy, the Director may assess civil
penalties for the violation of any stop work order according to the civil penalty schedule
established in SVZC 14.406.500.
B. Civil penalties for the violation of any stop work order shall begin to accrue on the first
day the stop work order is violated, and shall cease accruing on the day the work is actually
stopped.
C. Violation of a stop work order shall be a separate violation from any other civil code
violation.
14.406.430 — Stop work order — remedy — criminal penalties. In addition to any other judicial
or administrative remedy, the Director may forward to the Office of City Attorney a detailed
factual background of the alleged violation with a recommendation that a misdemeanor charge
be filed against the person(s) responsible for any willful violation of a stop work order.
14.406.500 — Civil penalties — assessment schedule.
A. Civil penalties for civil code violations shall be imposed for remedial purposes and shall
be assessed for each violation identified in a citation, notice and order or stop work order,
pursuant to the following schedule:
- 18 -
O'14'va
c. the above penalties may be offset by the following compliance
1. full compliance with a voluntary compliance agreement
with prior history of 0 -1 similar violations
$0 -1,500
2. full compliance with a voluntary compliance agreement
and a history of two or more prior similar violations
$0 -250
Planning Commission Recommendation — with revised abatement procedure
13. The total initial penalties assessed for notice and orders and stop work orders pursuant to
this chapter shall apply for the first thirty day period following issuance of the. order, unless
another time period is specified in a voluntary compliance agreement. if a voluntary compliance
agreement is not entered into within that time period, and no appeal is filed, the penalties for the
next fifteen day period shall be one hundred fifty percent (150 %) of the initial penalties, and the
penalties for the next fifteen day period shall be two hundred percent (200 %) the amount of the
initial penalties. The intent of this subsection is to increase penalties beyond the maximum
penalties stated in SVZC 14.406.500(A) as an additional means to achieve timely compliance.
C. Citations shall be subject to a one -time penalty per violation. The Director retains
authority to issue a subsequent notice and order or stop work order for continued non-
compliance. In that event, additional penalties shall be imposed.
D. Civil penalties shall be paid within twenty (20) days of service of the citation, notice and
order or stop work order if not appealed. Payment of the civil penalties assessed under this
chapter does not relieve a person found to be responsible for a code violation of his or her duty to
correct the violation and/or to pay any and all civil penalties or other cost assessments issued
pursuant to this chapter.
E. The Director may suspend civil penalties pursuant to SVZC 14.406.500(A)(c) if the
person responsible for a code violation has entered into a voluntary compliance agreement.
Penalties shall begin to accrue again pursuant to the terms of the voluntary compliance
agreement if any necessary permits applied for are denied, canceled or not pursued, or if
corrective action identified in the voluntary compliance agreement is not completed as specified.
F. Civil penalties assessed create a joint and several personal obligation in all persons
responsible for a code violation.
G. In addition to, or in lieu of any other state or local provision for the recovery of civil
penalties, the City may file for record with the Spokane County Auditor to claim a lien against
the real property for the civil penalties assessed under this chapter if the violation was reasonably
related to the real property. Any such lien can be filed under this chapter if, after the expiration
of thirty (30) days from when a person responsible for a code violation receives the citation,
notice and order or stop work order (excluding any appeal) any civil penalties remain unpaid in
whole or in part.
14.406.520 - Civil penalties — duty to comply. Persons responsible for a code violation have a
duty to notify the Director in writing of any actions taken to achieve compliance with the notice
and order. I'or purposes of assessing civil penalties, a violation shall be considered ongoing until
the person responsible for a code violation has come into compliance with the notice and order,
Planning Commission Recommendation — with revised abatement procedure
8 -12 -03
voluntary compliance agreement, or stop work order, and has provided sufficient evidence of
such compliance.
14.406.530 - Civil penalties — community service. The Director is authorized to allow a person
responsible for a code violation who accumulates civil penalties as a result of a citation, notice
and order, or for failure to comply with the terms of a voluntary compliance agreement, to
voluntarily participate in community service projects in lieu of paying all or a portion of the
assessed civil penalties. Community service may include, but is not limited to, abatement,
restoration or education programs designed to clean up the City. The amount of community
service will reasonably relate to the comparable value of penalties assessed against the violator.
The rate at which civil penalties are worked off under this subsection is $10.00 per hour. The
Director shall take into consideration the severity of the violation, any history of previous
violations and practical and legal impediments in considering whether to allow community
service in lieu of paying penalties.
14.406.540 - Civil penalties — waivers.
A. Civil penalties may be waived or reimbursed to the payor by the Director under the
following circumstances:
1. The citation, notice and order or stop work order was issued in error; or
2. The civil penalties were assessed in error; or
3. Notice failed to reach the property owner due to unusual circumstances; or
4. New, material information warranting waiver has been presented to the Director
since the citation, notice and order or stop work order was issued.
B. The Director shall state in writing the basis for a decision to waive penalties, and such
statement shall become part of the public record unless privileged.
14.406.550 - Civil penalties — critical areas.
A. The code compliance provisions for critical areas are intended to protect critical areas and
the general public from harm, to meet the requirements of RCW 36.70A (the Growth
Management Act), and to further the remedial purposes of this chapter. To achieve this, persons
responsible for a code violation will not only be required to restore damaged critical areas,
insofar as that is possible and beneficial, but will also be required to pay a civil penalty for the
redress of ecological, recreation, and economic values lost or damaged due to their unlawful
action.
B. The provisions of SVZC 14.406.550 are in addition to, and not in lieu of, any other
penalty, sanction or right of action provided by law for other related violations.
C. Where feasible, the owner of the land on which the violation occurred shall be named as
a party to the notice and order. In addition to any other persons who may be liable for a
Planning Commission Recommendation — with revised abatement procedure
8-12-03
violation, and subject to the exceptions provided in SVZC 14.406.090, the owner shall be jointly
and severally liable for the restoration of a site and payment of any civil penalties imposed.
D. For the purposes of SVZC 14.406.550, violation of the critical area ordinance means:
1. The violation of any provision of City Ordinance number 49 (Interim Critical
Areas Ordinance), or of the administrative rules promulgated thereunder. Ordinance
number 49 adopted Spokane County Code, chapter 11.20, as its interim critical areas
regulations;
2. The failure to obtain a permit required for work in a critical area; or
3. The failure to comply with the conditions of any permit, approval, terms and
conditions of any sensitive area tract or setback area, easement, covenant, plat restriction
or binding assurance, or any notice and order, stop work order, mitigation plan, contract
or agreement issued or concluded pursuant to the above - mentioned provisions.
E. Any person in violation of' the critical areas ordinance may be subject to civil penalties,
costs and fees as follows:
1. According to the civil penalty schedule under SVZC 14.406.500, provided that
the exact amount of the penalty per violation shall be determined by the Director based
on the physical extent and severity of the violation; or
2. The greater of:
a. an amount determined to be equivalent to the economic benefit that
the person responsible for a code violation derives from the
violation, measured as the total of:
14.406.560 - Cost recovery.
1) the resulting increase in market value of the property;
2) the value received by the person responsible for a code violation;
3) the savings of construction costs realized by the person responsible
for a code violation as a result of performing any act in violation of
the critical area ordinance; or
b. code compliance costs (such amount not to exceed $25,000) incurred by
the city to enforce City Ordinance number 49 (Interim Critical Areas
Ordinance) against the person responsible for a code violation.
A. In addition to the other remedies available under this chapter, upon issuance of a notice
and order or stop work order the Director shall charge the costs of pursuing code compliance and
abatement incurred to correct a code violation to the person responsible for a code violation.
These charges include:
Planning Commission Recommendation — with revised abatement procedure
8 -12 -03
1. Reasonable legal fees and costs. For purposes of SVZC 14.406, "reasonable legal
fees and costs" shall include, but is not limited to legal personnel costs, both direct and indirect,
incurred to enforce the provisions of this chapter; and
2. Administrative personnel costs. For purposes of SVZC 14.406, "administrative
personnel costs" shall include, but are not limited to administrative employee costs, both direct
and indirect, incurred to enforce the provisions of this chapter; and
3. Abatement costs. The Director shall keep an itemized account of costs incurred
by the City in the abatement of a violation under this chapter. Upon completion of any
abatement work, the Director shall prepare a report specifying a legal description of the real
property where the abatement work occurred, the work done for each property, the itemized costs
of the work, and interest accrued; and
4. Actual expenses and costs of the City in preparing notices, specifications and
contracts; in accomplishing or contracting and inspecting the work; and the costs of any required
printing, mailing or court filing fees.
B. Such costs are due and payable thirty (30) days from mailing of the invoice.
C. All costs assessed by the City in pursuing code compliance and/or abatement create a
joint and several personal obligation in all persons responsible for a code violation. The Office
of the City Attorney, on behalf of the City, may collect the costs of code compliance efforts by
any appropriate legal means.
D. In addition to, or in lieu of, any other state or local provision for the recovery of costs, the
City may, after abating a code violation pursuant to this chapter, file for record with the Spokane
County Auditor to claim a lien against the real property for the assessed costs identified in this
chapter if the violation was reasonably related to the real property. Such a lien shall be
substantially in accordance with the provision regarding mechanic's liens in RCW 60.04, and
said lien shall be foreclosed in the same manner as such liens.
E. Any lien filed shall be subordinate to all previously existing special assessment liens
imposed on the same property and shall be superior to all other liens, except for state and county
taxes, with which it shall share priority. The City of Spokane Valley may cause a claim for lien to
be filed for record within ninety (90) days from the later of the date that the monetary penalty is due
or the date the work is completed or the nuisance abated. The claim of lien shall contain sufficient
information regarding the notice of violation, a description of the property to be charged with the
lien, the owner of record, and the total of the lien. Any such claim of lien may be amended from
time to time to reflect changed conditions. Any such lien shall bind the affected property for the
period as provided for by state law.
14.406.570 — Collection of civil penalties, fees and costs. The Director may use the services of
a collection agency in order to collect any civil penalties, fees, costs and/or interest owing under
this chapter.
14.406.580 - Abatement.
Planninv Commission Recommendation — with revised albatenient procedure
5 -12 -03
A. Emergency Abatement: Whenever a condition, the continued existence of which constitutes
an immediate threat to the public health, safety or welfare or to the environment, is found to exist,
the City may summarily and without prior notice abate the condition. Notice of such abatement,
including the reason for it, shah be given to the person responsible for the violation as soon as
reasonably possible after the abatement.
B. Judicial Abatement_ The City may seek a judicial abatement order .from Spokane County
Superior Court, as deemed necesary, to abate a condition which continues to be a violation of the
Spokane Valley Zoning Code where other methods of remedial action have failed to produce
compliance.
C. The City shall seek to recover the costs of abatement as authorized by this chapter.
14.406.540 - Code compliance abatement fund — authorized.
A. All monies collected front. the assessment of civil penalties and for abatement costs and
work shall be allocated to support expenditures for abatement, and shall be accounted for
through either creation of an account in the fund for such abatement costs, or other appropriate
accounting mechanism.
B. Funds needed to abate a violation by the City shall be obtained from the abatement fund.
14A06.600 - Administrative appeals — standing - filing requirements.
A. Any person issued a citation or named in a notice and order or stop work order, and any
owner of the land where the violation for which a citation, notice and order or stop work order is
issued occurred, may file a notice of appeal of the following:
1- citation;
2, notice and order;
3, stop work order;
B. A complainant who requests to be kept advJsed pursuant to SVZC 14.406- 060Wi} may
appeal a determination of comp] iance by the Director.
C. A person that does not meet the requirements of SVZC 14.406.600(A) or (B) does not
have standing to appeal under this chapter.
D. Any person filing an appeal under this chapter who was issued a citation or order, or is
the owner of the land where the violation occurred, shall do So by obtaining the appeal form from
the .Director and Filing the completed appeal form with the Director within twenty (20) days of
service of the citation, notice and order or stop work order, A comp]ainant who appeals the
determination of compliance by the Director must file any such appeal within twenty (20) days
of service of the determination of compliance.
E. Any administrative appeal considered under this chapter will he determined by the
Hearings Examiner pursuant to Spokane Valley Ordinance 57, unless in conflict with specific
provisions of this chapter, in which case the specific provisions of this chapter shall control.
- 23 -
Planning Commission Recommendation — with revised abatement procedure
8 -12-03
14.406.61.0 — Administrative appeal — notice of hearing. Upon receipt of a notice of appeal,
the City shall provide a hearing notice stating the time, location and date of the hearing on the
issues identified on the violation, notice and order or stop work order. The City shall mail this
notice by certified mail, five -day return receipt requested, to the person(s) responsible for a
violation.
14.406.620 - Administrative appeal — procedures.
A. The appeal hearing shall be conducted as provided for in Spokane Valley Ordinance 57
as adopted or hereafter amended.
13. Enforcement of any notice and order of the Director issued pursuant to this chapter shall
be stayed as to the appealing party during the pendency of any administrative appeal under this
chapter, except when the Director determines that the violation poses a significant threat of
immediate and/or irreparable harm and so states in any notice and order issued.
C. Enforcement of any stop work order issued pursuant to this chapter shall not be stayed
during the pendency of any administrative appeal under this title.
D. When multiple citations, notices and order or stop work orders have been issued
simultaneously for any set of facts constituting a violation, only one appeal of all the
enforcement actions shall be allowed.
14.406.630 — Administrative appeal — final order.
A. Following review of the evidence submitted, the Hearing Examiner shall issue a written
order containing findings and conclusions, and shall affirm or modify the citation, notice and
order or stop work order previously issued if the Hearing Examiner finds that a violation has
occurred. The Hearing Examiner shall uphold the appeal and reverse the citation or order if the
examiner finds that no violation occurred.
13. If an owner of property where the violation has occurred has affirmatively demonstrated
that the violation was caused by another person or entity not the agent of the property owner and
without the owner's knowledge or consent, such property owner shall be responsible only for
abatement of the violation. Strict compliance with permit requirements may be waived regarding
the performance of such abatement in order to avoid doing substantial injustice to a non - culpable
property owner.
C. The Hearing Examiner's final order shall be final and conclusive unless proceedings for
review of the decision are properly conunenced in Spokane County Superior Court within the
time period specified by applicable state law.
D. A final order by the Hearing Examiner affirming, revoking or modifying a citation, notice
and order or stop work order is a final decision.
14.406.640 - Judicial enforcement — petition for enforcement.
rl
y�
Planning Commission Recommendation — with revised abatement procedure
8 -12 -03
A. In addition to any other judicial or administrative remedy, the Office of the City
Attorney, on behalf of the City, may seek enforcement of the Director's order by filing a petition
for enforcement in Spokane County Superior Court.
B. The petition must name as respondent each person against whom the Director seeks to
obtain civil enforcement.
C. A petition for civil enforcement may request monetary relief, declaratory relief,
temporary or permanent injunctive relief, and any other civil remedy provided by law, or any
combination of the foregoing.
14.406.650 - Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance, or any
regulation, rule or order adopted pursuant to the authority thereof be determined invalid or
unconstitutional, it shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence,
clause or phrase of this ordinance.
14.406.660 - Effective date. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect five (5) days after
publication of this ordinance or a summary thereof in the official newspaper of the City as
provided by law.
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: August 19, 2003 City Manager Sign -off:
Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing
X information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Public Participation Program
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A - Growth Management Act
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: N/A
BACKGROUND: A Public Participation Program is a necessary first step in initiating the
City's Comprehensive Plan. The City Council adopted the Spokane County
Comprehensive Plan as the City's Interim Comprehensive Plan prior to incorporation.
The City will be developing a new Plan consistent with the guiding provisions of the
Growth Management Act and the Countywide Planning Policies.
The draft Public Participation Program is aligned with the recommendations enumerated
in WAC 365 - 195 - 600(2) including visioning, the role of the Planning Commission, public
meetings and hearings, notice, solicitation of written comments and the means of
communication to be utilized in soliciting citizen comment.
The draft will be submitted to the Planning Commission for review on August 28, 2003.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: N/A
BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A
STAFF CONTACT: Marina Sukup, AICP, Community Development Director
0"43,
Valley
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Public Participation Program
draft
RCW 36.70A.140 of the Washington Growth Management Act requires that each city "establish
and broadly disseminate to the public a public participation program ... for early and continuous
public participation in the development" of the city's Comprehensive Plan.
Consistent with the recommendations of the GMA which emphasize the involvement of the
broadest cross - section of the community, including the involvement of groups not previously
involved, the City of Spokane Valley adopts the following program for citizen participation in the
planning process:
1. Visioning Process — This process provides Spokane Valley citizens an opportunity to
establish a framework and context upon which the comprehensive plan will be based.
Planning Commission meetings will provide the forum for the initial community visioning
process. A draft "Vision" will be tested for consistency during the development of the
Plan as the community identifies priorities and implementation strategies and updated
accordingly. The ultimate "Vision" will be established at the conclusion of the planning
process as a result of community participation.
2. Planning Commission. The Planning Commission will play a key role in establishing the
City's dialogue with community members, hosting a series of meetings and workshops
during the development of the Plan. The Planning Commission will evaluate information
provided by the community and develop recommendations for submission to the City
Council.
3. Citizen Survey — The City will conduct a statistically valid survey of the citizens of
Spokane Valley. Survey questions will address specific issues of the comprehensive
plan that will provide city staff, planning commission and city council with meaningful
input for development of the comprehensive plan.
4. Public Meetings. Conduct a series of public meetings hosted by the Planning
Commission on the preliminary draft comprehensive plan. This ensures that the City will
meet the requirement for "early and continuous" public participation in the
comprehensive planning process.
5. Public hearings. A series of Public Hearings (not less than three) will be held before the
Planning Commission to discuss the draft Plan. It is anticipated that at least two public
hearings will be held by the governing body prior to adoption of the Plan. An additional
public hearing will be held if substantive changes are made to the Plan document.
6. Public notice. The City will provide notice of all meetings and hearings pursuant to the
requirements of RCW 36.70A.020, .035, and .140.
8/13/2003 1
draft
7. Written Comment. The public will be invited to submit written comments as each
element of the Plan is developed, as part of any workshops or community meetings.
Comments will be specifically solicited from residents, special interest organizations and
business interests. Comments may be in the form of letters and other correspondence
to the city regarding the plan or comments received electronically on the city's website.
Log in all written comments received according to specific area of comprehensive plan.
8. Communications Programs & Informational Services — As staff and budgetary resources
allow, the activities will be undertaken to ensure broad -based citizen participation:
a. Comprehensive Plan newsletter — updating the community on planned meetings,
workshops or other significant comprehensive plan events. Articles on topics related to
the plan and a request for feedback from the community on topics related to the plan.
The newsletter will be disseminated via the city's website, emailed to a mailing list and /or
provided in paper copy as appropriate.
b. Interest Groups — Contact local interest groups (i.e. Chamber of Commerce, home
builders, environmental, neighborhoods, etc.) and arrange to meet and discuss relevant
comprehensive plan issues.
c. Community Workshops — Conduct community workshops hosted by the Planning
Commission in different parts of the city to encourage neighborhood participation in the
development of the comprehensive plan. These meetings will be held at neighborhood
schools, churches or other community facilities.
d. Press Releases & Public Service Announcements — Work with the local newspapers,
radio stations and televisions stations to advertise and promote significant events related
to the comprehensive plan.
e. Provide written articles to local media for publication.
f. Establish a Speaker's Bureau through the Planning Commission which will be
available to address service clubs and interested citizen groups.
g. Develop a database of interested citizens and provide regular correspondence
concerning the status of Plan development.
h. Identify key resource personnel representing agencies and groups whose plans will
be integrated into the Comprehensive Plan, including but not limited to fire districts,
utilities, libraries and school districts.
i. Maintain a log of all public participation meetings, events and actions that the city
engages in to provide documentation on the city's effort to meet the requirements of the
GMA.
8/1312003 2
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: August 19, 2003 City Manager Sign -off:
Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing
X information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Interim Comprehensive Plan/Transportation Presentation
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A - Growth Management Act
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: N/A
BACKGROUND: The City Council adopted the Spokane County Comprehensive Plan as
the City's Interim Comprehensive Plan prior to incorporation. The City will be developing
a new Plan consistent with the guiding provisions of the Growth Management Act and
the Countywide Planning Policies.
This presentation covers the Transportation element of the Interim Comprehensive Plan,
synthesizing the policies for the various transportation modes. The Transportation
element is closely tied to the Land Use element of the Plan. Attached for information is
the history of traffic counts performed by Spokane County at high volume locations.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: NIA
BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A
STAFF CONTACT: Marina Sukup, AICP, Community Development Director
Community Development
S ' rn � r��n� �
f hill 1
Mal le`r
Comprehensive PIn:
TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT
Transportation Planning &
Implementation
• Growth Management Act (GMA)
• Countywide Planning Policies (CWPP)
• Process
A
• Interim Plan Provisions cry
Property Qouripil
• Plan Implementation .$1RTc
Owners' ..
Neighborhood Spokane C Community Valley C ounty e
. hl
Special
�I Ntcts Charri
•
C$
Developers
e rof ...
1
tha
CAINDWIRY uMu„rtem
GMAT Mandate
Steering
Committee
GROWTH
MANAGEMENT ACT
Planning Goals
• Urban Growth - efficient
• Reduce Sprawl
• Transportation- efficient multi -modal
• Housing affordability for all
• Economic Development
• Property Rights
• Permits timely & fair
• Natural Resource Industries
Interim Plan Goals
• Intergovernmental Coordination
• Consistent with land use plans
• Improvement concurrent with development
• Alternative Modes
• Transit
• Bicycle
• Air
• Rail _.
2
Urban Road Classifications
• Principal Arterials
• Minor Arterials
• Collectors
• Local Access Roads
• Special sections
Transportation Planning Theory
• Principal arterials should serve an area of
roughly one square mile
• Minor arterials should be spaced at a mid -point
• Collectors should be placed to channel traffic to
arterials
• Capacity is governed by roadway design,
access control and signalization /signage
• Optimal roadway design will depend on the
type of adjacent land use and traffic
Roadway Design Policies
• Safe and Efficient
• Optimize capacity
• Discourage private streets but encourage
private alleys
• Preserve Neighborhoods- discourage cut -thru
traffic and encourage traffic calming
• Encourage landscaping
Roadway Design Policies
• Reduce right -of -way dedication
• Use border easements for drainage & pedestrians
• Building setbacks from road center line
• Special consideration for elderly, special needs
and low- income
orridor Travel T Level o Service (LOS
•
4
Roadway Design Policies
• Minimize environmental impacts
• Establish Hazardous Cargo routes
• Early and continuous community
participation
Alternate Mode Design Policies
• Transit
• Integrate with Land Use Decisions
• Support park and ride
• Encourage bus, ride - sharing and high capacity transit
• Support intermodal connections
• Bicycle /Pedestrian
• Avoid Conflicts and obstructions
• Bike lanes on arterials
• Convenient bike parking
• Preserve abandoned rail corridors for trails
• , 1 nnectivity of • edestrian_routes
Alternate Mode Design Policies
• Rail
• Safe & Efficient
• Cooperate with railroads for safety and noise
attenuation
• Compatible Land Uses along established rail
corridors
• Banking of right -of -way
6
• Closely aligned with Land Use Element
Techniques to Improve Mobility
• Intersection design
• Progressive signalization and spacing
• Access control
ISSUES
• Availability of collision records
• Network volumes and classifications
•.LOS calculated on corridor basis using
time
` neci.i'i
r)i 54rir.r' e
Spokane Valley
Community
De^ lopei,
f harr r cif
Comte.
Val ley
ADT History
Location Date ADT
Sullivan Rd south of Broadway Ave 7/28/2003 30,615
4/22/2002 28,951
7/6/1999 33,861
9/8/1997 28,939
Sullivan Rd north of Mission Ave
Argonne Rd south of Knox Ave
Sprague Ave west of Bowdish Rd
7/28/2003 35,106
4/22/2002 30,928
7/16/2001 31,407
10/5/1999 41,187
9/8/1997 37,532
8/4/2003 35,434
5/6/2002 36,298
10/19/1999 48,905
Argonne Rd north of Montgomery Ave 8/4/2003 35,616
5/20/2002 37,515
10/19/1999 40,770
6/24/1997 37,065
Argonne Rd south of Montgomery Ave 8/4/2003 39,599
5/13/2002 32,724
4/10/2000 38,599
6/24/1997 40,132
Sprague Ave east of University Rd 7/21/2003 25,370
9/23/1997 29,356
5/6/2002 24,325
10/11/1999 27,630
9/23/1997 27,126
Sprague Ave west of SR -27 (Pines Rd) 7/21/2003 25,462
5/6/2002 24,430
7/30/2001 25,307
9/21/1999 29,381
9/22/1997 28,866
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: August 19, 2003 City Manager Sign -off:
Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing
® information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) 2004 Applications
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: TIB Application Process due to TIB by August 29, 2003.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: "Six -Year Transportation Improvement Plan"
approved on June 24, 2003.
" Interlocal Agreement between Spokane County and City of Spokane Valley regarding provision
of engineering services for street, traffic, and storm drainage, capital improvement projects and
other related services" approved on April 22, 2003
BACKGROUND:
The interlocal agreement gives the county the responsibility to submit grant applications.
The Council approved the 2004 - 2009 Six -Year Transportation Improvement Plan and the 2004
Annual Construction Program. Six construction projects were approved for 2004. Park Road,
Evergreen Road, Pines /Mansfield, and 16`" Avenue were approved for funding by TIB last year.
The Barker Road Bridge project was submitted to Bridge Replacement Advisory Committee
(BRAC) by the county last fall prior to incorporation. Barker Road Reconstruction Project
from Boone Avenue to the Spokane River is the remaining unfunded project to be submitted to
TIB this year.
Based on a recommendation from TIB, Public Works Department is working with the county to
consider an application for a Pedestrian Safety and Mobility Program (PSMP) grant through TIB
for the 24 Avenue Sidewalk Project. This project proposes construction of sidewalks along
Bowdish Road between 22 Avenue and 24 Avenue and along the north side of 24 Avenue
between Bowdish Road and Pines Road. Spokane County previously submitted an application
for this project under a different funding program but was not successful. (Spokane County
submitted three applications at that time and was awarded funding for only one of their
projects.) TIB staff has indicated that Spokane Valley has a good chance of receiving a grant
for this project. This project is not in the approved Six -Year Transportation Improvement Plan
but, following TIB staff recommendations Public Works would request adding this project to the
next year's six -year plan if the grant is approved.
Attached are Project Briefing Documents describing the proposed project budget and funding
for each project.
OPTIONS:
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Informational only at this time. If a grant is
awarded, both the grant acceptance and the local match funding proposal will come to Council
for consideration and approval before the project proceeds.
BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Barker Road: estimated $101,000 City match (2004)
$565,640 total project City match (2004 — 2006)
24 Avenue Sidewalk Project: $49,345 total City match (2004)
STAFF CONTACT: Neil Kersten, Dick Thiel, Steve Worley
ATTACHMENTS 1) Project Briefing Document, Barker Road Project
2) Project Briefing Document, 24 Avenue Sidewalk Project
Project Description & Location:
This project will reconstruct Barker Road to a three -lane section with a right turn lane at
Barker Road and Mission Avenue for cast bound traffic. Original plans called for a four-
lane section however, upon further examination of the traffic conditions, growth patterns,
right -of -way acquisitions, and cost effectiveness, a three -lane section was determined to be
sufficient. The required underground electrical for a future signal at this intersection will
be installed as Dart of this project to eliminate any future disturbance to this intersection.
Average daily traffic at Boone Ave. and Barker Road exceeds 10,000 vehicles per day. The
proposed design of the roadway should be adequate for the required 20 -year design period
and projected traffic on this roadway. A vicinity map and typical roadway section are
attached for this project.
'1'110 Grant Application Process:
The City of Spokane alley is applying for a Transportation Partnership Program (TPP)
Grant and an Arterial Improvement Program (MP) Grant to enhance the prospects of
gaining approval of this funding application. The signed grant application must Ipe
submitted to the Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) by August 29, 2003.
Project Budd
Estimated Construction Cost $1,523,500
FrcIirninary Estimated RIW Costs: 950,00D
'Pr eliminxr Engineering: S 152,350
Construction Engineering: $ 152,350
Construction Contingency: $ 22(1.4)00
Project Fundinf2:
Sl�
4 ,0*Ua11ey
Project Briefing Document
Barker. Road Project
August 2003
Total Preliminary Project Cost: $2,998,200
TIB (ATP & TPP) Grant (S0 %): $2,398,560
Spokane Valley Match: $ 565.640
WSDOT Partnership Funding! $ 10.0011
Greenstone Development Partnership Funding: 24,000
Total Project Funding: $2,998,200
TPPIAIP Funding Request
Barker Road Interstate 90 to Spokane River
VICINITY MAP
DEER PARK
MILLW000
ROJECT
VICINITY
SPOKANE
CHENEY
Spokane County Engineers 1026 W Broadway Ave Spokane WA 99260 -0170 (509) 477 -3600
[XIS TING
A/W
2'
.5;
sItito.u.K
(TYP,)
TYPE * Er CUM
( YP )
2'
STEIEWN.K
o3
LONE
LANE
12
TB ATTIC
ASPHALT DONG, P VENEKI
07 .
1
L.
Ot+
SGAL:
70
Kele
(
6' 6
LI:r IvAN
iTE
Spok*Ne County
Ortynarnen1 el PI c W011 I
IC78 7. 68788778 ••■•
SPLVANC., s22E0
[�I 027
TRATTCC
C.S.R.C.
URBAN DESIGN 3 LANE SECTION
STA. 10±00 TO BRIDGE
, 1 WV! • /Oen
3' 2'
5
SIGEWAV
[XIS NG
R/w
2'
BARKER ROAD TYPICAL SECTION
BARKER ROAD I-90 TO SPOKANE. RIVER
(al •In Ir. ben
SHEET
_Lot _L.
"DI q• 111,P■ /01
Project Description & Location:
This project proposes to install curb and sidewalk from 24 Avenue to 23 Avenue on
Bowdish Road on both sides of the street. From 23 Avenue to 22 °d Avenue sidewalk is
proposed on the cast side of the Street. The last sidewalk proposed in this project would be
constructed on the North side of 24`" Avenue from Bowdish Road to Pines Road. This
project will improve safety and comfort for pedestrians and is a very important project to
the City of Spokane Valley since three schools will benefit from this project.
TIB Grant Application Process:
The City of Spokane Valley is applying for a $147,655 Pedestrian Safety and Mobility
Program (PSMI') Grant to improve safer access to local schools for pedestrians. The
maximum grant available for this application is $150,000. The signed grant application
must be submitted to the Transportation Improvement Board (TI 11) by August 29, 2003.
Project Budget:
sh1
�Ualley
Project Briefing Document
24 Avenue Sidewalk Project
August 2003
Estimated Construction Cost: $146,200
Preliminary Engineering: $ 21,930
Construction Engineering: $ 21,930
Construction Contingency: $ 7,310
Total Preliminary Project Cost: $197,370
Project Funding:
PSMP Grant: $147,655
Spokane Valley Match (25 %): 5 49,345
Total: $197,300
20T
BEGINNING
OF PROJEC
TIB Funding Request
(7
z
D
z
z
Bowdish / 24th Ave
Sidewalk Project
VICINITY MAP
END " OF
PROJECT
DEER PARK
MILLWOOD
PROJECT
CINITY
SPOKANE
CHENEY
l.POW CL/M 1
Spokane County Engineers 1116 W Broadway Ave PWK -2 Spokane WA 99260 -0170 (509) 477 -3600
September 7, 2000
Sincerely,
CENTRAL VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO, 356
SOUTH PINES ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
RALPH LARSEN, Principal
(509) 422 -6760
FAX - (509) 921-7983
To whore it may concern,
Please know that we at .South Pines certainly support the addition of a sidewalk on the north side of 24
Avenue, from Bowdish Road to Pines Road The sidewaLk would provide a greatly improved route for
students to follow as they travel to and from school on 24 Avenue.
Although ow school district has no resources to contribute, they too would support a project that would
increase safe travel routes for our students. .Please keep us appraised of the project any anything else we
can do to be of assistance,
12021 Ec st 24th
Spokane, Washington 99206
Meeting Date: August 19, 2003 City Manager Sign -off:
Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing
® information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Regional Waste Water
GOVERNING LEGISLATION:
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN:
BACKGROUND: Follow - up discussion from August 13, 2003 DOE meeting.
OPTIONS:
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION:
BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS:
STAFF CONTACT:
ATTACHMENTS
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
DRAFT
ADVANCE AGENDA
For Planning Discussion Purposes Only
as of August 14, 2003 3:45 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 26 Regular Meeting 6:00 p.m. [due date Aug 151
CONSENT:
PUBLIC HEARINGS: Proposed Extension of Adult Entertainment Moratorium
REGULAR:
1. Proposed Ordinance Extending Adult Entertainment Moratorium — First Reading
2. Proposed Ordinance Authorizing lntcrlocal Agreement with Public Facilities District — First Reading
3. Proposed Budget Amendment Ordinance — First Reading
4. EMAN Franchise Ordinance — First .Reading
5. Proposed Zoning Code Compliance Ordinance — First Reading
6. Proposed Resolution vacating old and granting new easement
7. Proposed Resolution Accepting Conveyance of Park Properties
8. Contract: Motion to Approve Interlocal Agreement between Spokane County and the City of Spokane Valley
Relating to the Ownership, Funding, Operation and Maintenance of Parks, Open Space, Recreation Facilities
and Programs
9. Presentation of Lease Proposal Splash Down
� 1
10, Administrative Reports:
Options for Park Improvement District
Proposed Tourism Promotion Area (TPA)
Budget Retreat Update
Hearings Examiner Update/Discussion
Proposed Emergency Management Services Intcrlocal Agreement
11. Information:
Department Monthly Reports
Minutes of Planning Commission
Wed, August 27, 6:30 p.m. — EMS Communications Mtg. County .Public Works 131dg
September 2 Study Session 6:00 p.m. [due date Aug 221
1 EDC Presentation of Lane Guin and Frank Tombari (15 minutes)
2. Project Access Presentation — Dr. Selinger (10 minutes) .
3. Proposed Ordinance Extending Adult Entertainment Moratorium — Second Reading (5 minutes)
4 Housing Code Violations — Cary Driskell/Tom Scholtens — (15 minutes)
5. Proposed Junk Vehicle Ordinance — Cary Driskell (10 minutes)
6. Proposed Methodology for Street Vacation — Cary Driskell (15 minutes).
7. Police Station Purchase and /or Maintenance and Operation — Cal Walker/Nina Regor (15 minutes)
8. Citizen Participation Plan — Marina Sukup (10 minutes)
9. Comprehensive Plan Economic Development Element Discussion — Marina Sukup (20 minutes)
10. Wastewater Issues Discussion — Neil Kersten ( 20 minutes)
11. Mirabeau Project Update — Nina Regor /Mike Jackson /Ken Thompson — (20 minutes)
12. Council Check in — Dave Mercier (10 minutes)
13. Advance Agenda Additions — Mayor DeVleming (5 minutes)
14. City Manager Comments — Dave Mercier (10 minutes) TOTAL MINUTES: 180
Max mtg time: 150 minutes
Advance Agenda— Draft Pagc 1 of 4
Revised 8/14/2003 3:46 PM
September 9 Regular Meeting 6:00 p,m. [due date Aug 29]
1. Proposed Budget Amendment Ordinance - Second Reading
2. Proposed Ordinance Authorizing Interlocal Agreement with Public Facilities District - Second Reading
3. EMAN Ordinance - Second Reading
4. Proposed Zoning Code Compliance Ordinance - Second Reading
5. Junk Vehicle Ordinance - First Reading
6. Hearing Examiner Ordinance Amendment - First Reading
7. Proposed Towing Memorandum of Understanding
8. Police Station Purchase and/or Maintenance and Operation Agreement
9. Citizen Participation Plan Adoption
10. Administrative Reports:
11. Information:
Status of Previous Public Comments /Concerns
Minutes of Planning Commission
September 16 Study Session 6:011 p.m. [due date Sept 5]
1. Proposed Nuisance abatement ordinance - Cary Driskell (10 minutes)
2. Memorandum of Understanding re Cable TV Advisory Board - Cary Driskell (10 minutes)
3. Probation Services Discussion - Cary Driskell (20 minutes)
4. Proposed Towing Memorandum of Understanding - Cary Driskell (10 minutes)
5. Comprehensive Plan Critical Areas and shoreline Element Discussion - Marina Sukup (20 minutes)
6. Wastewater Issues Discussion -Neil Kersten (20 minutes)
7. Street Lighting Policy - Cal Walker/Neil Kersten (15 minutes)
8. Proposed Agreement for Sewer Extensions and Operation (STEP) -Neil Kersten (20 minutes)
9. Right -of -Way and Cross - Circulation Between Appleway and Sprague - Neil Kersten (20 minutes)
10. Advance Agenda Additions - Mayor DeVleming (5 minutes)
11. City Manager Comments - Dave Mercier (10 minutes) TOTAL MINUTES: 160
Max mtg time: 150 minutes
September 17 "Conversation with the Community" 6:30 p.m. - 8:30 p.m.
Central Park Condo Center, 6011 East 6 Avenue
September 23, Regular Meeting 6:00 p.m. [due date Sept 12]
1. Junk Vehicle Ordinance - Second Reading
2. Hearing Examiner Ordinance Amendment - Second Reading
3. Nuisance Abatement Ordinance - First Reading
4. Memorandum of Understanding re Cable TV Advisory Board
5. Probation Services Agreement
6. Agreement for Sewer Extensions and Operation (STEP)
7. CDBG Application
8. Administrative Reports: Discussion of Proposed Resolutions to Extend Interim Fire District Annexations
with Fire Districts No. 1, 8 and 9
9. Information:
Status of Previous Public Comments /Concerns
Department Monthly Reports
Minutes of Planning Commission
September 24, 2003, 1:00 p.m. Public Transportation Improvement Conference, Spokane Transit Board
Meeting .1230 W Boone Ave, Board Room (notices will be mailed from STA)
Advance Agenda - Draft Paee 2 of 4
Revised 8/14/2003 3:46 PM
September 30, 2003 - no meeting
October 7, 2003 Study Session 6:00 p.m.
1. Wastewater Issues Discussion - Neil Kersten (20 minutes)
2. Comprehensive Plan Housing Element Discussion - Marina Sukup (20 minutes)
3. Council Check in - .Dave Mercier (10 minutes)
4. Advance Agenda Additions - Mayor DeVleming (5 minutes)
5. City Manager Comments - Dave Mercier (10 minutes) TOTAL MINUTES: 65
Max mtg time: 150 minutes
October 14. 2003 Regular Meeting 6:00 p.m.
1. Public Hearing on Budget Revenues/Fee Schedule for 2004
2. Nuisance Abatement Ordinance - Second Reading
3. Proposed Resolutions to Extend Interim Fire District Annexations w/Fi Districts No. 1, 8 and 9
4. Administrative .Reports:
5. Information:
Status of Previous Public Comments/Concerns
Minutes of Planning Commission
October 21.2003 Study Session 6:00 p.m.
1. Proposed Sewer /refuse collection ordinance - Stan Schwartz (15 minutes)
2. Wastewater Issues Discussion -Neil Kersten ( 20 minutes)
3, Comprehensive Plan Utilities Element Discussion - Marina Sukup (20 minutes)
4. City Legislative Agenda Discussion - Dave Mercier (15 minutes)
5. Advance Agenda Additions - Mayor DeVleming (5 minutes)
6. City Manager Comments - Dave Mercier (10 minutes) TOTAL iM:INUTES: 85
Max mtg time: 150 minutes
October 28. 2003 Regular Meeting 6:00 p.m.
1. Sewer/Refuse Collection Ordinance - First Reading
2. Setting of Property Tax Levy
3. Administrative Reports:
4. Information:
Status of Previous Public Comments /Concerns
Department Monthly Reports
Minutes of Planning Commission
November 4. 2003 Study Session 6:00 p.m.
1. Wastewater Issues Discussion - Neil Kersten ( 20 minutes)
2. Comprehensive Plan Parks & Open Space Element: Discussion - Marina Sukup (20 minutes)
3. Council Check in - Dave Mercier (10 minutes)
4. Advance Agenda Additions - Mayor DeVleming (5 minutes)
5. City Manager Comments - Dave Mercier (10 minutes) TOTAL MINUTES: 65
Max mtg time: 150 minutes
(November 11, 2003 Regular Meeting falls on Veteran's Day)
Wed. Nov 12, 2003 Regular Meeting 6:00 p.m.
1. Ordinances: Proposed Sewer /Refuse collection Ordinance - Second Reading
2. Resolutions
3. Motions
4. Administrative Reports
5. Information:
Status of Previous Public Comments /Concerns
Advance Agenda - Draft Page 3 of
Revised 8/14/2003 3:461'4
Minutes of Planning Commission
November 18, 2003 Study Session 6:00 p.m.
1. Proposed Library Agreements —Nina Regor (10 minutes)
2. Comprehensive Plan Capital Facilities Element Discussion — Marina Sukup (20 minutes)
3. Wastewater Issues Discussion —Neil Kersten (20 minutes)
4. Advance Agenda Additions — Mayor DeVleming (5 minutes)
5. City Manager Comments — Dave Mercier (10 minutes) TOTAL MINUTES: 65
Max mtg time: 150 minutes
November 25, 2003 Regular Meeting 6:00 p.m.
1. Final Budget Hearing to Adopt 2004 Budget
2. Annual Appropriation Ordinance — First Reading
3. Administrative Reports:
4, Information:
Status of Previous Public Comments /Concerns
Department Monthly Reports
Minutes of Planning Commission
December 2, 2003 Study Session 6:00 p.m.
1. Wastewater Issues Discussion — Neil Kersten ( 20 minutes)
2. Council Check in — Dave Mercier (10 minutes)
3. Advance Agenda Additions — Mayor DeVleming (5 minutes)
4. City Manager Comments — Dave Mercier (10 minutes)
December 9, 2003 Regular Meeting 6:00 p.m.
1. Annual Appropriation Ordinance — Second Reading
2. Administrative Reports:
3. Information:
Status of Previous Public Comments /Concerns
Minutes of Planning Commission
TOTAL MINUTES: 45
Max mtg time: 150 minutes
December 9 — 13, 2003 National League of Cities (NLC) Congress of Cities. Nashville. Tennessee
Advance Agenda — Draft
Revised 8/14/2003 3:46 PM
Page 4 of 4