The URL can be used to link to this page

2005, 06-07 Study SessionTuesday, June 7, 2005 DISCUSSION LEADER SUBJECT/ACTIVITY Employee Introductions: Ingo Note. Sr. Engineer Traffic Alysa Wiyrir:k Assistant Engineer Development Lisa Bracco. CenterPlace Coordinator 1. Councilrncmbcr De\'Ieming Student Advisory Council (15 minutes) 2. Tim Cmvvlcy (15 minutes) 3. Marina Sukup (20 minutes) Spokane County Comprehensive Plan update and Urban Growth Boundary 4. Steve Worley (10 minutes) 5. Scott Kuhta/Cary Driskcll (15 minutes) AGENDA CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL WORKSHEET STUDY SESSION CITY HALL AT REDWOOD PLAZA 11707 East Sprague Avenue, First Floor (Please Turn ORTAlt Electronic Devices During the (Sleeting) Community Development Block Grant Program Local Agency Agreement and Federal Aid Pmjoct, Argonne Road Draft Ordinance Givenacres Moratorium Request 6. Cary Driskell (15 minutes) Draft Initiative/Refearndum Ordinance 7. Mike Jackson/Cal Wacker Traffic Control/Special Events (20 minutes) 8. Mayer Wilhite (5 minutes) 4. Mayor Wilhite (5 minutci) 10. Dave Mercier (5 minutes) Study Sal "' Arrinia. 06x(17 -0s Advance Agenda Additions Council Check in City Manaiter Comments 6:00 p.m. GOAL Presentation Discussion/lnfom►atian Discussion /In formation Discussion /Information Discussion/lnlormation Discussion/Information Discuss ionlinfrirmat ion Discussion/Information Discussion/Information Discussion/Information :p s Resei Note U atcas otherwise noted above, there wilt be no public comments at Council Study Sessions. Itowerer.Council always reserves the right to request information from the public and staff as appropriate. NOTICE.: Inds Idrtats planning to attend the :txcting who rapine special asse.tan.:c to occlannnodatc ptt)suat. brarmg. or ender unpamnaxv, picot comic the Cite Cleft at 15001071.1000 as soon as passible so that em rots nup be mode Paig 1 oft Tuesday, June 7, 2005 DISCUSSION LEADER SUBJECT/ACTIVITY Employee Introductions: Ingo Note, Sr_ Engineer Traffic Alycsa Wiyrick, Assistant Engineer Development Lisa Bracco, C eiuerPlace Coordinator L Councilmembcr DcVlerning Student Advisory Council (15 minutes) 2. Tim Crowley (I 5 minutes) 3. Marina Sukup (20 minutes) 4. Steve Worley (10 minutes) 5. Scott Kuhta/Cary Driskell (15 minutes) 6. Croy Driskcll (15 minutes) 7. Mike Jackson/Cal Walker (20 minutes) 8. Mayor Wilhite (5 minutes) 9. Mayor Wilhite (5 minutes) 10. Dave Mercier (5 minutes) Study Session Aguas, 1)6-07-0 AGENDA CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL WORKSHEET STUDY SESSION CITY HALL AT REDWOOD PLAZA 11707 East Sprague Avenue, First Floor (Please Turn OIT All Electronic Devices During the Meeting) Community Development Block Grant Program Spokane County Comprehensive Plan Update pdate and Urban Gmvtith Boundary Loud Agency Agreement and Federal Aid Project. Argonne Road Draft Ordinance Greenncres Moratorium Request Draft Initiative/Referendum Ordinance Traffic Control/Special Events Advance Agenda Additions Council Check in City Manager Comments 6:00 p.nl. GOAL Presentation Discussion/Information Discussionllnfornuition Discuss i call n format i on Discussion/lnformation D iscu ss ion/In fo rmat ion Discussion/Information Discussion/Information Discussion/In formation Discussion/Information ,Yarn; Unless otherwise noted abode. there will be no public comments at Council Study Sessions. however, Council always reserves the right to request information from the public and staff as appropriate. NOTtCE. Indrviduab pleat ma to attend the meeting who require special assistance to st:aammodate phyncal, hearing, or other tmpaumcnts, plats matters tee City Clerk se (5041 Y21 -1mo0 p soon as possible la that utrangcmcnts may be made Page 1 of 1 Meeting Date: 06 - 07 - 05 City Manager Sign -off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE : Student Advisory Council Presentation GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: Members of the Student Advisory Council will make a presentation of their accomplishments from their first year, and their goals for upcoming years. OPTIONS: RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: STAFF CONTACT: ATTACHMENTS CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: June 7, 2005 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ® information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Update on the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Community Development Block Grant Program. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Spokane Valley has approved the submittal of construction projects for consideration as part of the Spokane County Consortium, administered by Spokane County. BACKGROUND: On May 24, 2004 the Spokane County Housing & Community Development Department held a meeting with representatives of the small cities to discuss 2006 funding allocations. Tim Crowley noted that Spokane County was originally included as an urban entitlement County only as a result of the designation of sole source aquifer and the direct intercession of Rep. Tom Foley. Information concerning allocations to municipal jurisdictions distributed at the meeting is attached. No information was provided for the unincorporated area. The HOME allocations for housing are separate entitlements which use different formulae, and were not presented. Spokane County receives CDBG funding based on Formula A while the funding formula for entitlement cities is the greater of Formula A or Formula B, reduced as necessary for all entitlement jurisdictions to avoid exceeding the amount of congressional appropriation.. Using a hypothetical based on the 2005 allocation, Spokane Valley would receive $530,000 under Formula A and $335,000 under Formula B. The latter estimate was prepared by the Department of Housing & Urban Development. The $530,000 was developed using the formula by Spokane County staff. Preliminary estimates in the $700 -$800K range were developed by City staff based only on cities of similar size and composition within the state. A similar estimate prepared by Spokane County and regional DHUD staff was similar, but was based on 2000 Census population numbers, rather than 2004. The 2006 CDBG appropriation has -not been established at this time, although the expectation is that the amount will not exceed the 2005 total, and may be reduced. The allocation of HOME funds will likely follow the decision on the options shown. The three options outlined in the material describe the possible altematives affecting City. OPTION 1: The City would defer entitlement status and remain a part of the consortium. The City could not opt out during the three year period 2006 -2009. CDBG administration for the Consortium would continue. OPTION 2: The City elects.entitlement status and would be required to prepare its own Consolidated Plan. Funding would not be available until the Plan had been approved by DHUD. The City would assume responsibility for program administration. The City could opt in to the Consortium, but entitlement funding would be returned to the State. It Population Poverty Overcrowding Growth Lag Housing built prior to 1940 Formula A 25% 50% 25% nisi nla Formula B 1 ala 30% nla 20% 50% Meeting Date: June 7, 2005 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ® information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Update on the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Community Development Block Grant Program. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Spokane Valley has approved the submittal of construction projects for consideration as part of the Spokane County Consortium, administered by Spokane County. BACKGROUND: On May 24, 2004 the Spokane County Housing & Community Development Department held a meeting with representatives of the small cities to discuss 2006 funding allocations. Tim Crowley noted that Spokane County was originally included as an urban entitlement County only as a result of the designation of sole source aquifer and the direct intercession of Rep. Tom Foley. Information concerning allocations to municipal jurisdictions distributed at the meeting is attached. No information was provided for the unincorporated area. The HOME allocations for housing are separate entitlements which use different formulae, and were not presented. Spokane County receives CDBG funding based on Formula A while the funding formula for entitlement cities is the greater of Formula A or Formula B, reduced as necessary for all entitlement jurisdictions to avoid exceeding the amount of congressional appropriation.. Using a hypothetical based on the 2005 allocation, Spokane Valley would receive $530,000 under Formula A and $335,000 under Formula B. The latter estimate was prepared by the Department of Housing & Urban Development. The $530,000 was developed using the formula by Spokane County staff. Preliminary estimates in the $700 -$800K range were developed by City staff based only on cities of similar size and composition within the state. A similar estimate prepared by Spokane County and regional DHUD staff was similar, but was based on 2000 Census population numbers, rather than 2004. The 2006 CDBG appropriation has -not been established at this time, although the expectation is that the amount will not exceed the 2005 total, and may be reduced. The allocation of HOME funds will likely follow the decision on the options shown. The three options outlined in the material describe the possible altematives affecting City. OPTION 1: The City would defer entitlement status and remain a part of the consortium. The City could not opt out during the three year period 2006 -2009. CDBG administration for the Consortium would continue. OPTION 2: The City elects.entitlement status and would be required to prepare its own Consolidated Plan. Funding would not be available until the Plan had been approved by DHUD. The City would assume responsibility for program administration. The City could opt in to the Consortium, but entitlement funding would be returned to the State. It Administrative Report CDBG Page 2 of 2 is not clear whether this would apply to funds for the remaining three year period, or just the year when the City opted in. OPTION 3: The City elects entitlement status but enters into a pass- through agreement with the County. The City would be bound by the agreement for the program period. The City would be required to develop a Consolidated Plan. The City has not yet received formal notification of entitlement eligibility, nor an official estimate of the funding that would be available as an entitlement City. The County has approved a Consolidated Plan which presently includes Spokane Valley as part of the Consortium. Under either Option 2 or Option 3 it will be necessary for the County to amend the Plan and for the City to develop its own Plan. The Consolidated Plan establishes funding priorities. Under the hypothetical case, the amount of funding would be established under Formula A. As an entitlement city the City would have more control over the funds it received as a result of the development of a Consolidated Plan, but at the same time would be responsible for administrative functions presently shared with other members of the Consortium. OPTIONS: Provide staff with direction on the City's continued participation on the Spokane County CDBG Consortium for the 2006 -2008 fiscal period. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Provide Staff with direction. BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Specified. STAFF CONTACT: Manna Sukup, Community Development Director ATTACHMENTS: Historical allocation summaries. J Spokane County Housing and Community Development Department Tuesday, May 24, 2005 10:30 a.m. - 12:00 Noon 5 Floor, Community Services Building - 312 W. 8 Avenue Spokane, WA Urban County Qualification Agenda I. Introductions Tim Crowley, Manager II. Status of C'DBG Appropriations (sample letter to Appropriators) Tim Crowley HI Formula Contributions (handout) Tim Crowley IV. Options (handout) Tim Crowley V. Discussion Adjournment Date Sample Letter to Send to the Appropriators The Honorable (first and last name) U.S. Senate (U.S. House of Representatives Washington, DC 20510 (Senate) 20515 (House) Dear Senator/Representative (last name): As you begin the appropriations process, this letter urges you to provide level funding for t Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program within the U.S. De t he of H and Urban Development (HUD) at $4.7 billion in FY06 with no less than $43 50 billion noosing formula funding to CDBG grantees. ' As you know, for more than thirty years, the CDBG program has been a critical source of support to states and localities, helping them tackle their most serious community develo me challenges, including affordable housing, infrastructure, public services and economic nt development. In 2004, over 95 percent of CDBG fiends went to activities principally low- and moderate- income persons. In 2004 alone, CDBG helped rehabilitate p y 1 ng rental housing units and helped create or retain more than 90,000 jobs. Because sc of CDBG 0 funded assistance, more than 11,000 low - and moderate - income families became new homeowners in 2004. Millions ofAmericans have benetitted from public improvements an public services provides with CDBG funds. In my community, the program has d fund a variety of important community development activities including In au diti , to CDBG provided assistance to more than.....pep ons in the last year. [It is important that Talk about how the program works in your community. Please feel free to add other at you examples. Congressional members want to know how the program is benefitting their constituents.[ Congress expressed strong bipartisan support for CDBG recently by adding language in the conference agreement of the FY06 Budget Resolution to restore funding to CDBG. The FY06 Budget Resolution increased Function 450, the function within which CDBG falls in the budg by $1.5 billion specifically to "maintain economic and community development programs uc as CDBG at 2005 levels." We urge you to support this recommendation and provide level such funding of $4.7 billion for CDBG in FY06, with no less than $4.350 billi formula funding to CDBG grantees. on provided in direct Sincerely, Party D D D D D R D D la D D D D D R D D R D la D D D D Congressional Member Ackerman, Gary Allen, Tom Baca, Joe Baird, Brian Baldwin, Tammy Barrow, John Bean, Melissa Beauprez, Bob 13ecerra, Xavier 13erkley, Shelley Berman, Howard Bishop, Sanford Bishop, Tim Blumenauer, Earl 13oehlert, Sherwood Bordallo, Madeleine Boswell, Leonard I3oustany, Charles Brady, Robert Brown, Corrine Capito, Shelley Moore Capps, Lois Capuano, Michael Cardin, Ben Cardoza, Dennis Carnahan, Russ Carson, Julia Case, Ed Chandler, Ben Clay, William Lacy Cleaver, Emanuel State NY -05 ME-01 CA -43 WA -03 W1 -02 GA -12 EL -08 CO -07 CA -31 NV-01 CA -28 GA -02 NY -01 OR -03 MA -04 GU IA -03 LA -03 PA -01 FL -03 WV -02 CA -23 MA -08 MD -03 CA -18 MO -03 IN -07 141 -02 KY -06 MO -01 MO -05 Conyers, John M1 -14 Costa, Jim CA -20 Costello, Jerry 1L -02 C) Cr owley, Joseph NY -07 Cubin, Barbara WY Cummings, Elijah MD -07 Davis, Artur AL -07 Davis, Danny IL -07 .D Davis, Jim FL-11 D Davis, Susan • CA -53 D DeFazio, Peter OR -04 0 DeGette, Diana C0-01 D Delahunt, William MA -10 DeLauro, Rosa CT -03 R Dent, Charles PA -15 D Dicks, Norman WA -06 D Dingell, John M1 -15 D Doggett, Lloyd TX -25 D Doyle, Mike PA -14 D Emanuel, Rahm IL - 05 D Engel, Eliot NY -17 D Fshoo, Anna CA -14 D Fattah, Chaka PA -02 D Filner, Bob CA -51 R Fitzpatrick, Michael PA -08 0 Ford, Harold TN -09 D Frank, l3arney MA -04 R Gingrey, Phil GA -11 D Gonzalez, Charles TX -20 D Gordon, Bart TN -06 D Green, Al TX-09 D Grijalva, Raul AZ -07 D Gutierrez, Luis 1L -04 R Hall, Ralph TX -04 1) Harman, Jane CA -36 R Hayworth, J.D. AZ -05 D Herseth, Stephanie SD D Higgins,'Brian NY -27 D Hinchey, Maurice • NY-22 D Holden, Tim PA -17 D Holmes- Norton, Eleanor DC D Halt, Rush NJ- 12 D Honda, Mike CA -15 D Hooley, Darlene OR -05 D Inslee, Jay WA-01 D Israel, Steve NY -02 D Johnson, Eddie Bernice TX -30 R Johnson, Nancy CT -05 R Kelly, Sue NY -19 D Kennedy, Patrick R.1 -01 D Kildee, Dale M1 -05 R King, Peter NY -03 D Kind, Ron W1 -03 D Kucinich, Dennis O11 -10 Langevin, James R1 -02 D Lantos, Tom CA -12 R LaTourette, Steven OH -14 D Lee, Barbara CA -09 D Levin, Sander MI- 12 D Lewis, John GA -05 D Lipinski, Daniel 1 -03 D Lofgren, Zoe CA -16 D Lynch, Stephen MA -09 • D Markey, Edward MA -07 D D D D R D D R 17 R D D D D D D D D D 17 D D D D R D D D D u D Marshall, Jini Matsui, Doris McCarthy, Carolyn McCollum, Betty McCotter, Thaddeus McDermott, Jim McGovern, James McHugh, John McIntyre, Mike McKeon, Buck McNulty, Michael Meehan, Martin Meck, Kendrick Mclancon, Charlie Menendez, Robert Michaud, Michael Miller, Brad Miller, George Millender- McDonald, Juanita Moore, Gwen Moran, Jim Nadler, Jerrold N Grace Neal, Richard Ney, Robert Oberstar, James Owens, Major Pallone, Frank Pascrell, Bill Payne, Donald Pelosi, Nancy Peterson, Collin GA -03 CA -05 NY -04 MN -04 MI -11 WA -07 MA -03 NY -23 NC -07 CA -25 NY-21 MA -05 FL -17 LA -03 NJ -13 ME-02 NC -13 CA -07 CA -37 W1 -04 VA -08 NY -08 CA -38 MA -02 OH -18 MN -08 NY -1 NJ -06 NJ -08 NJ -10 CA -08 MN -07 r� R D D D D D D 'Thompson, Mike Tierney, John Towns, Edolphus Udall, Tom Upton, Fred NE -02 CA -01 MA -06 OH -11 Tubbs- Jones, Stephanie CO2 en M1-06 MD-08 Van 1ollen, Chris Watson, Diane Watt, Melvin CA -30 D R 0 Weiner, Anthony Wexler, Robert Whitfield, Ed Woolsey, Lynn Wu, David W Albert KY -01 CA -06 OR -01 MD -04 INN AIN onsilim NY -09 2005 Formula Contributions by Geography (CDBG Entitlement = $1,737,347) City of Airway Heights $ 49,594 Town of Fairfield $ 6,068 City of Cheney $150,130 Town of Latah $ 1,544 City of Deer Park $ 35,065 Town of Millwood $14,471 City of Liberty Lake $ 16,744 Town of Rockford $ 3,820 City of Medical Lake $ 35,818 Town of Spangle $ 3,344 City of Spokane Valley $530,000 Town of Waverly $ 852 Unincorporated County $889,897 City of Spokane N/A 1. Spokane County receives funding based on the formula -A originally established for allocating CDBG funds. The formula has only three variables — population weighted at 25 percent, poverty weighted at 50 percent and overcrowding weighted at 25 percent. 2. Under the second formula -B with the variables growth lag weighted at 20 percent, poverty weighted at 30 percent, and housing built before 1940 weighted 50 percent. Under the dual - formula system, grants are determined for each entitlement jurisdiction by both formulas. 3. The entitlement jurisdiction automatically receives funds from the formula that generates the higher amount. This amount is then reduced by a pro rata reduction to ensure that the combination of the highest formula amounts does not exceed the amount appropriated. 4. With each amival CDBG entitlement, a maximum of 20 percent is allowable for eligible administration and planning activities. The County makes available 10 percent of the maximum available administration for planning activities through its annual funding process. 5. A maximum of 15 percent of each year's allocation is allowed for human service activities. For every dollar available for human service activities the Department receives three to four dollars in requests for funding. SPOKANE COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDING IN AIRWAY HEIGHTS Project Description Year Amount Water System Inter -tie 1988 $49,000 Street Signs 1989 17,753 Fire Station Improvements 1990 90,000 Sewer System Study 1990 17,750 Park Improvements 1991 36,577 Water Well 1993 140,000 Street Paving 1994 110,000 Traffic Light Installation 1995 115,000 Sewer Improvements 1996 100,000 Joint Cities Planning Project 1996 16,750 Playground Equipment 1997 12,000 Sewer Improvements 1997 17,868 Watermain Improvements 1998 150,000 Watermain Improvements 1999 150,000 Watermain Improvements 2001 151,025 Watermain Improvements 2003 155,477 Housing Plan 2003 15,000 Site Based Youth Mentoring 2004 10,000 Site Based Youth Mentoring 2005 10,550 Total $1,364,750 z_lcntitlmt120051urban quail ficationlcity of airway hcights.doc . Project Description Streets, Sidewalk & Waterline Replacement 1989 $155,190 Streets and Sidewalk Improvements 1990 45,000 Water Well 1991 99,000 Waterline & Fire Hydrants .Replacement 1992 90,000 Water Well 1993 100,000 Park Accessibility Improvements 1994 44,140 Fire Station/Park Accessibility improvement 1995 21,000 Water System, Fire Hydrant Improvement 1996 177,958 Joint Cities Planning Project 1996 16,750 Watermain improvements 1997 110,000 Watennain improvements 1998 92,668 Neighborhood Improvement 1999 150,000 Neighborhood Improvement 2000 100,000 Neighborhood Improvements 2001 99,900 Watermain Improvements 2003 25,902 Cheney Outreach Center 20.03 . 12,000 Cheney Outreach Center 2004 12,000 Street and Water Improvement 2004 100,000 Outreach Center 2005 12,000 Well #4 Rehabilitation 2005 125,000 Total z:lentit1mt12005\tirban qualification\ city of chency.doc SPOKANE COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDING IN CHENEY Year Amount $1,588,508 SPOKANE COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDING IN DEER PARK Year Amount Project Description 8 Water Well and Transmission Line 1988 $290,019 198 $290, Park Improvements 199 199 1 1 125,000 7 7,500 1 ,59 Park Improvements 1991 Sewer System Connections 1 Water Pump Station Improvements 1994 60,000 Water Main Replacements 83,000 Crawford Avenue Water System Improvements 1996 1 830 ,000 Water System Plan 0,000 29 1999 20 1998 50,000 8 8 0, Water Tank Rehabilitation 1998 Skate Park Development 200,000 2001 0 Colville Avenue Street. Improvements Deer Park Fair Association 2003 150,403 0 10 5,00 Street Improvements 2004 1 ,1 ,00 Senior Nutrition Program 2003 1 Senior Nutrition Program 2004 10,000 Senior Nutrition Program 2005 10,000 The Greenhouse - Emergency Assistance 2005 200,000 Street Improvements $1,354,147 Total z:\entitlrnt120051urban yualifentionleity of deer park.dot: Project Description SPOKANE COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDING IN MEDICAL LAKE Small Business Loan Fund 1988 $250,000 Water System Improvements 1988 8,118 Bike/Pedestrian Path 1989 22,922 Water System Improvements 1990 32,200 Storm Water System Improvements 1993 50,000 Planning 1993 6,073 Water System Improvements Program Income 12,783 City I-Iall Accessibility Improvements 1995 22,475 Acquisition of an EMT Vehicle 1995 15,827 Park Improvement Project 1995 8,638 Street and Sidewalk Improvements 1996 50,000 Joint Cities GMA Planning Project 1996 16,750 Lake Street Improvements 1997 93,118 Citywide Curb Cuts & Ramps 1997 18,112 Lake Street Improvements 1998 60,233 Park Improvements 1998 8,500 Fire Truck Acquisition 1999 75,000 Economic Development Planning 2000 ' 5,000 Park Improvements 2001 6,500 Sewer System Improvements 2002 262,200 Community Outreach Center 2003 6,220 Waterline Improvement 2003 232,052 Skate Park 2003 28,916 Community Outreach Center 2004 5,184 Community Outreach Center 2005 5,184 Total $1,302,005 w:lentitlmt120051urban qualificalion\city of medical lake.doc Year Amount SPOKANE COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDING IN THE CITY OF 'SPOKANE VALLEY Project Description Year Amount Spokane Valley Community Center 2004 18,000 Meals on Wheels 2004 20,000 Sewer Connection Assistance 2004 175,000 Weatherwood/Owens Street Improvement 2004 267,803 Carnahan Street Improvement 2004 108,162 CAPA Assessment Assistance 2004 175,000 Housing and Economic Dev. Planning 2004 20,500 Meals on Wheels 2005 20,000 Spokane Valley Community Center 2005 18,000 Street Improvement -I -90 to University 2005 439,850 Economic Development Planning 2005 17,000 Sewer Connection Assistance 2005 437,000 Total $1,716,315 List does not include S375,350 in CDBG funding to Irvin Water District, Carnhope Irrigation District and East Spokane Water District over 2004 and 2005 program years. SPOKANE COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDING IN FAIRFIELD Project Description Year Amount Fire Station Improvements 1988 $17,932 Park Improvements 1989 11,600 Water System Telemetry 1990 33,500 Sewer System Improvements 1991 26,350 Water System Improvements 1993 43,910 Water System Telemetry Contingency Funds 5,000 Wastewater Treatment Monitoring Contingency Funds 24,500 Water Reservoir Monitoring 1994 74,650 CPR Equipment for Fire Department 1995 1,186 Water System Rehabilitation 1995 63,605 Water System Rehabilitation 1996 63,959 Sewer Improvements 1998 155,232 Sewer Lagoon Improvements 1999 57,042 Sewer Lagoon Improvements 2000 456,816 Water System Improvements 2002 184,995 Water Planning 2004 20,500 Sewer System Improvement 2004 100,000 Water Tank Recoating 2005 162,955 Total $1,503,732 w;lcntitlmtl20051urban qualitication\town of fairfield.doc Project Description I Project funds were deobligated in 2002 and reallocated in 2003 w:lentittm1120051urbnn qualification \town of Iatakdoc SPOKANE COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDING IN LATAH Year Amount Water System Improvements 1989 $109,325 Water System Improvements 1992 82,500 Water System Improvements 1995 40,351 Water Reservoir Improvements 1996 142,000 Water Reservoir Improvements 1997 236,687 Water System Improvements 1998 64,395 Backup Generator 1999 30,000 Water System Improvements 2000 64,267 Park Improvements 2001 Water System Improvements 44,492 2001 40,507 Street Improvements 2002 91,612' Street Improvements 2002 91,612 Total $946,136 SPOKANE COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDING IN MILLWOOD Project Description Year Amount Water and Sewer System Planning 1989 $15,500 Sewer System Connection 1990 3,000 Sewer System Improvements 1991 73,200 Water Tank Improvements 1992 77,000 Sewer System Connections 1993 94,400 Sewer System Connections 1994 72,200 Sewer System Connections 1995 76,000 Sewer System Connections 1996 37,000 Joint Cities Planning Project 1996 16,750 Total $465,050 w:\entit1mt12005\urban qualification\ town of millwood.doc Project Description Park Improvements Water Well Sewer Lagoon Improvements Sewer Lagoon Improvements Water Well Sewer Lagoon Dike Rehabilitation Wastewater Treatment Plan Park Improvements Park Improvements Water Treatment Systems Sewer Treatment Facility Sewer Treatment Facility Water System Improvements Main Street Planning Total SPOKANE COUNTY COIVLMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDING IN ROCKFORD z:lentitlnit.20051urban qualiticationitown of rnckford.doc Year 1988 1991 1992 Contingency Funds Contingency Funds 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 2000 2001 2003 Amount $15,417 75,314 41,299 1,016 6,000 41,299 32,500 27,725 30,275 65,000 425,700 137,380 146,900 14,000 $1,059,825 SPOKANE COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDING IN SPANGLE Project Description Year Amount 1988 $84,000 Well and Pump Station 16, 899 Water System Improvements 1989 9 2,899 Pump Station and Transmission Line 3,400 1992 8 8 Water System Improvements 1990 52,800 199 1992 Sewer Lagoon improvements 52,000 Sewer Lagoon Improvements Contingency Hinds 5, Water System Improvements 50,000 199 1995 Sewer Lagoon Improvements 1995 50,000 1997 24 Sewer Lagoon Improvements 5, 1998 Sewer Lagoon Improvements 4 , Water System Plan 8 19,000 2000 Well Rehabilitation (canceled) 189 199 29,0 Well Rehabilitation (Engineering) 63,904 0 Well Rehabilitation 2002 $754,829 Total w:lentitlmt12005turban qualification\town of spangle.dot Project Description Year Amount 198 1988 1988 $15,840 Water Reservoir Improvements 4,570 1990 1 Park Improvements 4,500 Park Improvements, Bus Shelter 1992 34,700 Street Improvements 1993 3,000 62,391 Water System Improvements 1gg4 1,818 Street Sigrta8e 1994 6,427 Park Rehabilitation 1996 42, 27 Well Improvements 1997 36,555 Well Improvements 1998 17,000 Water System Plan , 31815 Water System Improvements 1999 999 31,815 Water System improvements 69,501 2001 Water system Improvements . 2002 94, 8,222 Water System Improvements $502,287 Total SPOKANE COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDING IN WAVER,LY w: \entitlmt\20051urban ctoalifcation \town of waverly.doc OPTIONS "The President's budget for Fiscal Year 2006 does not include funding for the CDBG program. Rather, under the presidents budget proposal, CDBG would be one of 18 programs consolidated into the Strengthening America's Communities Initiative at the Department of Commerce." • Spokane County will retain its urban county status regardless of the option decided on by the City of Spokane Valley. However, the actual amount of CDBG funds will be determined based on each city and town's participation in the consortium. • On April 29, the Department provided notification to eleven of the cities and towns regarding Urban County Qualification process. Notification to the Spokane Valley was delayed until HUD could confirm that Spokane Valley is statistically eligible for CDBG in FY06. Additionally, it was imperative that HUD provided Spokane Valley with an estimate of CDBG funding that could be expected using US Census Bureau data used in formulating grant amounts. Without the official notification of entitlement status and a proximate grant amount, the process would have been unfair to Spokane Valley in meeting the timeliness contained in the instructions. • On May 17 the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County adopted the County's 2005 -2009 Consolidated Plan and Annual Plan of investments for 2005. HUD will have 45 clays to review and issue a determination regarding approval. Option 1: Spokane Valley chooses to defer entitlement status and chooses to continue participation in the Urban County Entitlement. Spokane Valley executes an inter -local Cooperation Agreement with the County. The County is responsible for all aspects of administering the program. All cities and towns remain in the Urban County Entitlement for the three -year period. Option 2: Spokane Valley chooses to accept entitlement status, and opt out of the Urban County Entitlement. The City assumes full administrative responsibility for meeting program requirements. Before funding is available the City will be required to subrnit its Consolidated Plan to HUD for approval. This option triggers a substantial amendment to the County's Consolidated Plan requiring the County to resubmit the plan to the public and HUD. Spokane Valley cannot opt-in-during the three -year period. ., Option 3: Spokane Valley and the County negotiate a "pass- through" using a Joint Agreement with the County. The City will be responsible for submitting a partial Consolidated Plan to the County covering such items as housing and non- housing needs, market conditions, citizen participation, and strategies. The County retains some or all program administration responsibilities for the City. Both the City and County are bound by the Joint - Agreement for the Urban Qualification period. SpoaThane 0 . Valley Memorandum To: Dave Mercier, City Manager, Mayor and Spokane Valley City Council From: Manna Sukup, AICP — Community Development Director Date: June 7, 2005 Re: Spokane County Comprehensive Plan Update 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 • Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.921.1000 • Fax: 509.921.1008 • cityhall @spokanevalley.org Pursuant to the Growth Management Act (GMA) (RCW 36.70A.130(4)), Spokane County is required to update the County's Comprehensive Plan. This update is required to be completed on or before December 1, 2006. In order to meet this GMA deadline, the County has initiated the update process. The County has requested that all jurisdictions within Spokane County and other interested parties review the present comprehensive plan and provide comments regarding goals, policies, maps or implementation to the County for consideration during the update process. A significant issue that is being discussed is related to population allocation on a county -wide basis. The Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFM) is required by state law to provide counties within the state a 20 year population growth projection. This growth projection comes in the form of a range of expected population growth. During the County's initial comprehensive planning process, the Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) adopted a 20 year population growth projection that was in the mid -range of the OFM population range. The County is now considering increasing the 20 year population projection from the mid -range level to the high end of the OFM population range. The estimated 2005 population for all of Spokane County is 419,566. The 20 year growth projection being considered is a year 2025 population of 646,634 or a 54% increase over the 20 year planning horizon. The overall result of this new population estimate is that the existing urban growth area (UGA) would be increased by over 11 square miles or roughly 1/3 of the size of the City of Spokane Valley. The increased population estimate will have impacts on local jurisdictions as well as service providers. For example: Sewer — by increasing the population estimate and subsequently the UGA boundary, the sewer service plan would likely need to be updated to reflect the new population estimate. Future facilities would need to be sized appropriately in anticipation of the increase in population. User fees that are charged would be evaluated and set at a level to cover the capital, operation and maintenance costs of the facilities. If this level of growth does not occur, the overall fee structure would have to be evaluated and increased fees would be likely to cover the additional infrastructure costs. Other service providers would also be affected such as school districts, water providers, fire districts, etc. all of whom have capital plans that are impacted, to a greater or lesser extent, by an increase in population allocation. City staff has attended four meetings with County staff and staff from other jurisdictions in the County to discuss the update process and more specifically the issues of population allocation and UGA boundaries. A meeting of the Steering Committee of Elected Officials (SCEO) will be scheduled during June or July to review the implications of the higher population numbers and proposals for expansion of the UGA boundaries. City staff will continue to monitor the County's process and provide Council with updates as they become available. Meeting Date: June 7, 2005 City Manager Sign -off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent GOVERNING LEGISLATION: N/A CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation 4 AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Local Agency Agreement and Federal Aid Project Prospectus with the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) for Argonne Road Overlay Project. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: 1) Approval of Six Year Transportation Improvement Plan, which includes the Argonne Road Overlay Project, 2) approval of application for federal grant funding for the Argonne Road Overlay Project. BACKGROUND: Public Works recently applied for and received from SRTC a $274,000 grant for the rehabilitation of Argonne Road between Indiana Avenue and Montgomery Avenue. This project was originally planned for construction in 2003. Due to the delay in the federal call for projects the Argonne Road Overlay Project will be constructed during the 2005 construction season. This project will improve 0.21 miles of roadway by grinding and overlaying the road with 2 inches of asphalt concrete pavement. To begin the design phase, the City must enter into a Local Agency Agreement with the WSDOT. A Local Agency Agreement is a standard WSDOT agreement required on all projects where federal funds are received. Once the agreement is executed Preliminary Engineering (PE) funds can be released for the design phase of the project. Attached is a copy of the Local Agency Agreement and Project Prospectus that must be signed by a city official and returned to the WSDOT for processing and approval. OPTIONS: 1) Approve agreement, 2) reject agreement, or 3) provide additional direction to staff. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Place item on the June le consent agenda authorizing the City Manager or designee to execute the Local Agency Agreements (for each phase of the project as needed) and Project Prospectus for the Argonne Road Rehabilitation project. BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The local match funds of $42,600 will come from the 2005 Street Capital Projects Fund budget. The total estimated project cost is $316,600: STAFF CONTACT: Steve Worley, Senior Capital Projects Engineer / Neil Kersten, Public Works Director ATTACHMENTS Local Agency Agreement and Project Prospectus � Washington State � I/ Department of Transportation Agency City of Spokane Valley Address C/O Public Works Department 11707 E. Sprague Avenue The Local Agency having complied, or hereby agreeing to comply, with the terms and conditions set forth in (1) Title 23, U.S. Code Highways, (2) the regulations issued pursuant thereto, (3) Office of Management and Budget Circulars A -102, A -87 and A -133, (4) the policies and procedures promulgated by the Washington State Department of Transportation, and (5) the federal aid project agreement entered into between the State and Federal Government, relative to the above project, the Washington State Department of Transportation will authorize the Local Agency to proud on the project by a separate notification. Federal funds which are to be obligated for the project may not exceed the amount shown herein on line r, column 3, without written authority by the State, subject to the approval of the Federal Highway Administration. All project costs not reimbursed by the Federal Government shall be the responsibility of the Local Agency. Project Description Name Argonne Road Overlay Termini Indiana Avenue to Montgomery Avenue Description of Work This project will improve 0.21 miles of roadway by grinding, patching/repairing and overlaying the road with 2 inches of asphalt concrete pavement Agency Official City Manager Pity of Spokane Valley DOT Form 140 -039 EF Rovtsed 0112004 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 1 Local Agency Agreement CFDA No. 20.205 (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance) Project No. Agreement No. For OSC WSDOT Use Only Length 0.21 miles Washington State Department of Transportation By Assistant Secretary for Highways and Local Programs Date Executed Type of Work Estimate of Funding (1) Estimated Total Project Funds (2) Estimated Agency Funds (3) Estimated Federal Funds 'PE 86.5 % a. Agency 30,800.00 4,030.00 26,670.00 b. Other Federal Aid Participation Ratio for PE c. Other d. State 2,000.00 270.00 1,730.00 e. Total PE Cost Estimate (a +b +c+d) 32,800.00 4,300.00 28,400.00 Right of Way % f. Agency Other Consultant Federal Aid Participation Ratio for RW , h. Other i. State 1. Total R/W Cost Estimate (f+q +h +i) Construction k. Contract I. Other m. Other n. Other o. Agency Federal Aid Participation Ratio for CN p. State I q. Total CN Cost Estimate (k +I +m +n +o +p) ' r. Total Project Cost Estimate (e +j +q) 32,800.00 4,300.00 28,400.00 � Washington State � I/ Department of Transportation Agency City of Spokane Valley Address C/O Public Works Department 11707 E. Sprague Avenue The Local Agency having complied, or hereby agreeing to comply, with the terms and conditions set forth in (1) Title 23, U.S. Code Highways, (2) the regulations issued pursuant thereto, (3) Office of Management and Budget Circulars A -102, A -87 and A -133, (4) the policies and procedures promulgated by the Washington State Department of Transportation, and (5) the federal aid project agreement entered into between the State and Federal Government, relative to the above project, the Washington State Department of Transportation will authorize the Local Agency to proud on the project by a separate notification. Federal funds which are to be obligated for the project may not exceed the amount shown herein on line r, column 3, without written authority by the State, subject to the approval of the Federal Highway Administration. All project costs not reimbursed by the Federal Government shall be the responsibility of the Local Agency. Project Description Name Argonne Road Overlay Termini Indiana Avenue to Montgomery Avenue Description of Work This project will improve 0.21 miles of roadway by grinding, patching/repairing and overlaying the road with 2 inches of asphalt concrete pavement Agency Official City Manager Pity of Spokane Valley DOT Form 140 -039 EF Rovtsed 0112004 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 1 Local Agency Agreement CFDA No. 20.205 (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance) Project No. Agreement No. For OSC WSDOT Use Only Length 0.21 miles Washington State Department of Transportation By Assistant Secretary for Highways and Local Programs Date Executed Construction Method of Financing (Check Method Selected) State Ad and Award ❑ Method A - Advance Payment - Agency Share of total construction cost (based on contract award) ❑ Method B- Withhold from gas tax the Agency's share of total construction cost (line 4, oolumn 2) in the amount of S Local Force or Local Ad and Award ® Method C - Agency cost incurred with partial reimbursement The Local Agency further stipulates that pursuant to said Title 23, regulations and policies and procedures, and as a condition to payment of the federal funds obligated, it accepts and will comply with the applicable provisions set forth below. Adopted by official action on Provisions I. Scope of Work The Agency shall provide all the work, labor, materials, and services necessary to perform the project which is described and set forth in detail in the "Project Description" and "'type of Work." When the State at far and on behalf of the Agency, the State shall be deemed an agent of the Agency and shall perform the services described and indicated in "Type of Work" on the face of this agreement, in accordance with plans and specifications as proposed by the Agency and approved by the State and the Federal Highway Administration. When the State acts for thc Agency but is not subject to the right of control by the Agency, thc State shall have the right to perform the work subject to the ordinary procedures of the State and Federal Flighway Administration. II. Delegation of Authority The State is willing to fulfill the responsiblities to the Federal Government by the administration of this project. The Agency bees that the State shall have the full authority to carry out this administration. The State shall review, process, and approve dncuments required for federal aid reimbursement in accordance with federal requirements. If the State advertises and awards the contract, the State will Darter act for the Agency in all matters concerning the project as requested by the Agency. If the Local Agency advertises and awards the project, the State shall review the work to ensure conformity with the approved plans and specifications. III. Project Administration Certain types of work and services shall be provided by the State on this project as requested by the Agency and described in the Type of Work above. In addition, the State will furnish qualified personnel for the supervision and inspection of the work in progress. On Local Agency advertised and awarded projects, the supervision and inspection shall be limited to ensuring all work is in conformance with approved plans, specifications, and federal aid requirements. The salary of such engineer or other supervisor and all othcr salaries and costs incurred by State forces upon the project will be considered a cost thereof. All costs related to this project incurred by employees of thc State in the customary manner on highway payrolls and vouchers shall be charged as costs of the project. IV. Availability of Records All project records in support of all costs incurred and actual expendinr.res kept by the Agency are to be maintained in accordance with local government accounting procedures prescribed by the Washington State Auditor's Office, the U.S. Department of Transportation, and the Washington State Department of Transportation. The records shall be open to inspection by the State and Federal Government at all reasonable times and shall he retained and made available for such inspection for a period of not less than three years from the final payment of any federal aid funds to the Agency. Copies of said records shall be furnished to the Suite and/or Federal Government upon request V. Compliance with Provisions The Agency shall not incur any federal aid participation costs on any classification of work on this project until authorized in writing by the State for each classification. The classifications of work for projects are! DOT Form 140-039 EF Revised 01i2004 at S per month for 2 , Resolution /Ordinance No. months. 1. Preliminary engineering. 2. Right of way acquisition. 3. Project amstruction. In the event that right of way acquisition, or actual construction of the road, for which preliminary engineering is undertaken is not started by the closing of the tenth fiscal year following the fiscal year in which the agreement is executed, the Agency will repay to the State the sum or sums of federal funds paid to the Agency under the terms of this agreement (sec Section iX). The Agency agrees that all stages of construction necessary to provide the initially planned complete facility within the limits of this project will conform to at least the minimum values set by approval statewide design mendanls applicable to this class of highways, even though such additional work is financed without federal aid participation. The Agency agrees that on federal aid highway construction projects, the current federal aid regulations which apply to liquidated damages relative to I basis of federal participation in the project cost shall be applicable in the evt the contractor fails to complete the contract within the contract tittle. VI. Payment and Partial Reimbursement The total cost of the project, including all review and engineering costs and other expenses of the State, is to be paid by the Agency and by thc Federal Government Federal funding shall be in accordance with the Transportation Equity Act for the 21s1 Century (TEA 21), as amended, and Office of Management and Budget circulars A-102, A -87 and A -133. The State shall not be ultimately responsible for any atilt costs of the project. The Agency shall be ultimately responsible for all costs associated with the project which are not reimbursed by the Federal Government Nothing in this agreement shall be construed as a promise by the State as to the amount or nature of federal participation in this project. The Agency shall bill the state for feden i aid project costs incurred in conformity with applicable federal and state laws. The agency shall tnintimize the time elapsed between receipt of federal aid funds and subsequent payment of incurred costs. Expenditures by the Local Agency for maintenance, general administration, supervision, and other overhead shall not be eligible for federal participation unless an indirect cost plan has been approved by WSDOT. The State will pay for State incurred costs on the project. Following payment, thc State shall bill the Federal Government for reimbursement of those casts eligible for federal participation to the extent that such costs are attributable and properly allocable to this project. The State shall bill the Agency for that portion of State costs which were not reimbursed by the Federal Government (see Section DC). 1. Project Construction Costs Project construction financing will be accomplished by one of the three methods as indicated in this agreement. Method A — The Agency will place with the State, within (20) days alter the execution of the construction contract an advance in the amount oldie Agency's share of the total construction cost based on the contract award. The State will notify the Agency of the exact amount to be deposited with the Stutz. 'Ihe State will pay all costs incurred under the contract upon presentation of - Thbillings front the contractor. Following such payments, the State will submit a billing to the Federal Government for the federal aid participation share of the cost. When the project is substantially completed and final actual costs of the project can be determined, the State will present the Agency with a final billing showing the amount due the State or the arnount due the Agency. This billing will be cleared by either a payment from the Agency to the State or by a refund from the State to the Agency. . Method B — The Agency's share of the total construction cost as shown on the face of this agreement shall be withheld from its monthly fuel tax allotments. The face of this agreement establishes the months in which the withholding shall take place and the exact amount to be withheld each month. The extent of withholding will be confirmed by letter from the State at the time of contract award. Upon receipt of progress billings from the contractor, the State will submit such billings to the Federal Government for payment of its participating portion of such billings. Method C — The Agency may submit vouchers to the Sttte in the fornat prcscribcd by the State, in duplicate, not more than once per month for those costs eligible for Federal participation to thc extent that such costs are directly attributable and property allocable to this project Expenditures by the Local Agency for maintenance, general administration, supervision. and other overhead shall not be eligible for Federal participation unless claimed under a previously approved indirect cost plan. The State shall reimburse the Agency for the Federal share of eligible project costs up to the amount shown on the face of this agreement. At the time of audit, the Agency will provide documentation of all costs incurred on the project. l'he State shall hill the Agency for all costs incurred by thc State relative to thc project The State shall also bill the Agency for the federal funds paid by the State to the Agency for project costs which arc subsequently determined to be ineligible for federal participation (see Section IX). /11. Audit of Federal Consultant Contracts The Agency, if services of a consultant are required, shall he responsible for audit of thc consultant's records to determine eligible federal aid costs on the project The report of said audit shall be in the Agency's files and made available to the State and the Federal Government. An audit shall be conducted by the WSDOT internal Audit Office in accordance with generally accepted governmental auditing standards as issued by thc United States General Accounting Office by the Comptroller General of the United States; WSDOT Manual M 27 -50, Consultant Authorization, Selection, and Agreement Administration; memoranda of understanding between WSDOT and FHWA; and Office of Management and Budget Circular A -I 33. If upon audit it is round that overpayment or participation of federal money in ineligible items of cost has occurred, the Agency shall reimburse the State for the amount of such overpayment or excess participation (see Section IX). VIII. Single Audit Act The Agency, as a subrecipient of federal funds, shall adhere to the federal Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A -133 as well as all applicable federal and state statutes and regulations. A subrecipient who expends $500,000 or more in federal awards from all sources during a given fiscal year shall have a single or program-specific audit performed for that year in accordance with the provisions of OMB Circular A -133. Upon conclusion of the A -133 audit, the Agency shall be responsible for ensuring that a copy of the report is transmitted promptly to the State. IX. Payment of Billing The Agency agrees that if payment or arrrutgement for payment of any of the State's billing relative to the project (e.e., State force work, project cancellation, overpayment, cost ineligible for federal participation, etc.) is not made to the State within 45 days after the Agency has been billed, the State shall effect eimbu semen of the total sum due from the regular monthly fuel tax allotments o the Agency from thc Motor Vehicle Fund. No additional Federal project funding will be approved until full payment is received unless otherwise directed the Assistant Secretary for Highways and Local Programs. DOT Form 140 -039 EF Revised 01/2004 3 X. Traffic Control, Signing, Marking, and Roadway Maintenance The Agency will not permit any changes to be made in the provisions for parking regulations and traffic control on this project without prior approval of the State and Federal Highway Administration. "fhe Agency will nut install or permit to be installed any signs, signals, or markings not in conformance with the standards approved by the Federal Highway Administration and MUTCD. The Agency will, at its own expense, maintain the improvement covered by this agreement XI. Indemnity The Agency shall hold the Federal Government and the State harmless from and shall process and defend at its own expense all claims, demands, or suits, whether at law or equity brought against the Agency, State, or Federal Government, arising from the Agency's execution, performance, or failure to perform any of the provisions of this agreement, or of any other agreement or contract connected with this agreement, or arising by reason of the participation of the State ar Federal Government in the project, PROVIDED, nothing herein shall require the Agency to reimburse the State or the Federal Government for damages arising out of bodily injury to persons or damage to property caused by or resulting from the sole negligence of the Federal Government or the State. XII. Nondiscrimination Provision No liability shall attach to the State or Federal Government cxocpt as expressly provided herein. The Agency shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, or sex in the award and performance of any USDOT- assisted contract and/or agreement or in the administration of its DBE program or the requirements of 49 CFR Part 26. The Agency shall take all necessary and reasonable steps under 49 CFR Part 26 to ensure nondiscrimination in the award and administration of USDOT - assisted contracts and agreements. The WSDOT's DBE program, as required by 49 CFR Part 26 and as approved by USDOT, is incorporated by reference in this agreement Implementation of this prognnn is a legal obligation and failure to carry out its terms shall be treated as a violation of this agreement. Upon notification to the Agency of its failure to carry out its approved program, the Department may impose sanctions as provided f10 under Part 26 and may, in appropriate cases, refer the matter for enforcement under 18 U.S.C. 1001 and/or the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986 (31 U.S.C. 3801 et seq.). The Agency hereby agrees that it will incorporate or cause to be incorporated into any contract for construction work, or modification thereof, as defined in the rules and regulations ot'the Secretary of Labor in 41 CFR Chapter 60, which is paid for in whole or in part with funds obtained from the Federal Government or borrowed on thc credit of thc Federal Government pursuant to a grant, contract, loan, insurance, or guarantee ar understanding pursuant to any federal program involving such grant, contract, loan, insurance, or guarantee, the required contract provisions for Federal -Aid Contracts (FHWA 1273), located in Chapter 44 of the Local Agency Guidelines. , The Agency further agrees that it will be bound by the above equal opportunity clause with respect to its own emptoymcnt practices when it participates in federally assisted construction work: Provided, that if the applicant sn participating is a State or Local Government, the above equal opportunity clause is not applicable to any agency, instrumentality, or subdivision of such government which does not participate in work on or under the contract. The Agency also agrees: (1) To assist and cooperate actively with the State in obtaining the compliance of contractors and subcontractors with the equal opportunity clause and rules, regulations, and relevant orders of the Secretary of Labor. (2) To furnish the State such inforrnation as it may require for the supervision of such compliance and that it will otherwise assist the State in the discharge of its primary responsibility for securing compliance. (3) To refrain from entering into any contract or contract modification subject to Executive Order 11246 of September 24, 1965, with a contractor debarred from, or who has not demonstrated eligibility for, government contracts and federally assisted construction contracts pursuant to the Executive Order. (4) To carry out such sanctions and penalties for violation of the equal opportunity clause as may be imposed upon convectors and subcontractors by the State, Federal Highway Administration, or the Secretary of Labor pursuant to Pan II, subpart D of the Executive Order. In addition, the Agency agrees that if it faits or reacts to comply with these undertakings, the State may take any or all of the following actions: (a) Cancel, terminate, or suspend this agreement in whole or in part; (b) Refrain from extending any anther assistance to the Agency under the program with respect to which the failure or refusal occurred until satisfactory assurance of future compliance has been received from the Agency, and (c) Refer the case to the Department of Justice for appropriate legal proceedings. XIII. Liquidated Damages The Agency hereby agrees that the liquidated damages provisions of 23 CFR Part b35, Subpart 127, as supplemented, relative to the amount of Federal participation in the project cost, shall be applicable in the event the contractor fails to complete the contract within the contract time. Failure to include liquidated damages provision will not relieve the Agency from reduction of federal participation in accordance with this paragraph. XIV. Termination for Public Convenience The Secretary of the Washington State Department of Transportation may terminate thc contract in whole, or from time to time in part, whenever. (1) The requisite federal funding becomes unavailable through failure of appropriation or otherwise. (2) The contractor is prevented from proceeding with the work as a direct result of an Executive Order of the President with respect to the prosecution of war or in the interest of national defense, or an Executive Order of the President or Governor of the State with respect to the preservation of energy resources. (3) The contractor is prevented from proceeding with the work by reason of a preliminary, special, or permanent restraining order of a court of competent jurisdiction where the issuance of such order is primarily caused by the acts or omissions of persons or agencies othcr than the contractor. (4) The Secretary determines that such termination is in the best interests of thc State. DOT Form 140 -039 EF Revised 01/2004 Additional Provisions 4 XV. Venue for Claims and /or Causes of Action For the convenience of the parties to this contract, it is agreed that any claims and/or causes of action which the Local Agency has against the State of Washington, growing out of this contract or the project with which it concerned, shall be brought only in the Superior Court for Thurston County. r XVI. Certification Regarding the Restrictions of the Use of Federal Funds for Lobbying The approving authority oertifics, to the best of his or her knowledge and belief; thnt (1) No federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any federal agency, a member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any federal contract, the making of any federal grant, the making of any federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal. amendment, or modification of any federal contract, grant, Ivan, or cooperative agreement. (2) If any funds other than federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any federal agency, a member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a member of Congress in connection with this fedora! contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, the undersigned shall complete and submit the Standard Form - L LL, "Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying," in accurdance with its instructions_ (3) The undersigned shall require that the language of this certification be included in the award documents for all subawards at all tiers (including subgrants, and contracts and subcontracts under grants, subgrants, loans, and cooperative agreements) which exceed $100,000, and that all such subrccipicnts shall certify and disclose accordingly. This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was made or entered into. Submission of this certification as a prerequisite fur making or entering into this transaction imposed by Section 1352, Tide 31, U.S. Code Any person who fails to file the required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than S IO,C^^• and not more than S100,000 for each such failure. Phase Total Estimated Cost (Nearest Hundred Dollar) Local Agency Funding (Nearest Hundred Dollar) Federal Funds (Nearest Hundred Dollar) Phase Start Date Month Year P.E. $32,800 $4,300 $28,400 6/05 RNU $0 $0 $0 City Number 1221 Const. $283,800 $38,300 $245,600 7/05 Total $316,600 $42,600 $274,000 Description of Existing Facility (Existing Design and Present Condition) Roadway Width 75' - 100' Number of Lanes 6 Argonne Road between Indiana Avenue and Montgomery Rd. is a six -lane, principal arterial in the City of Spokane Valley's road system that carries approximately 39,600 vehicles per day. Several sections of pavement breakdown represented by severe alligator and longitudinal cracking is evident. The east lanes are showing worse breakdown problems than the west lanes. Description of Proposed Work ■ New Construction 3-R • 2 - Roadway Width 75' - 100' Number or Lanes 6 This project proposes to improve 0.21 miles of roadway by patching/repairing and overlaying the road with 2 inches of asphalt concrete pavement. . Local Agency Contact Person Steve M. Worley, PE Title Senior Engineer (CIP) Phone 921 -1000 Mailing Address 11707 E. Sprague Avenue City Spokane Valley State WA Zip Code 99206 By Design Approval Approving Professional Engineer Title Date Agency City of Spokane Valley Federal Program Title •■ 20.205 • 20.209 • Other Project Title Argonne Road Overlay Start Latitude N47 °40'28" Start Longitude W117 End Latitude N47°44'44" End Longitude W117 Project Termini From Indiana Avenue To Montgomery Avenue From: To: 0.00 0.21 Length of Project 0.21 miles Award Type Local • Local Forces • State • Railroad Federal Agency FHWA • Others City Number 1221 County Number 32 County Name Spokane WSDOT Region EAST Congressional District 5 Legislative Districts 4 Urban Area Number 2 TMA / MPO / RTPO SRTC � Washington State �I/ Department of Transportation Federal Aid Project Number Local Agency Project Number Prefix STPUS SRTC04 -7 Route 4041 WSDOT Use Only) DOT Form 140 -101 EF Revised 12/2002 Page 1 of 3 Local Agency Federal Aid Project Prospectus Date Federal Employer Tax ID Number 6/7/2005 71- 0914170 • Supersedes Previous Editions • Geometric Design Data Description Through Route Preliminary Engineering Will Be Performed By City of Spokane Valley Crossroad Federal Functional Classification •' Principal Arterial Minor Arterial Collector Major Collector Minor Collector Access Street/Road Urban ❑ Principal Arterial • • Minor Arterial ► :i Urban ■ • Collector Agency 0 • Rural • Major Collector ❑ Rural • ❑ Minor Collector • • Access StreetRoad 0 Terrain •• Flat 0 Roll • Mountain • Flat • Roll • Mountain Posted Speed 35 Design Speed 40 Existing ADT 39,600 _ Design Year ADT 54815 Design Year 2015 Design Hourly Volume (DHV) 5482 Performance of Work Preliminary Engineering Will Be Performed By City of Spokane Valley Others 0 % Agency 100 % Construction Will Be Performed By Contractor Contract 100 % Agency 0 % Accident - 3 Year Experience Year Property Damage Accidents Injury Accidents Number of Injuries Fatal Accidents Number of Accidents Number of Fatalities Total Number of Accidents Number of Accidents 2001 -2003 27 18 22 0 0 45 Agency City of Spokane Valley Project Title Argonne Road Overlay Date 6!7/2005 Environmental Classification ® Final ❑ Preliminary ❑ Class I - Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) ❑ Project Involves NEPA/SEPA Section 404 Interagency Agreement ❑ Class III - Environmental Assessment (EA) ❑ Project Involves NEPA/SEPA Section 404 Interagency Agreement ® Class II - Categorically Excluded (CE) ❑ Projects Requiring Documentation (Documented CE) Environmental Considerations DOT Form 140 -101 EF Revised 12!2002 Page 2 of 3 Right of Way No Right of Way Required ' All construction required by the contract can be accomplished within the existing right of way. Right of Way Required ❑ No Relocation ❑Relocation Required ►_� • Agency City of Spokane Valley Project Title Argonne Road Overlay Date 6/7/2005 Description of Utility Relocation or Adjustments and Existing Major Structures Involved in the Project FAA Involvement Is any airport located within 3.2 kilometers (2 miles) of the proposed project? ❑ Yes IN No Remarks This project has been reviewed by the legislative body of the administration agency or agencies, or its designee, and is not inconsistent with the agency's comprehensive plan for community development. Agency City of Spokane Valley By Date DOT Farm 140 -101 SF Revised 12/2002 Page 3of3 Mayor Cha1rpersan Meeting Date: June 7, 2005 City Manager Sign -off: Item: Check all that apply: El consent ►i1 old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ® information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE : Greenacres Moratorium Request GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW Chapter 35A.63.220 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: May 10, 2005 briefing. ATTACHMENTS CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action BACKGROUND: On August 10, 2004, the City Clerk received a petition from resident landowners and primary stakeholders of North Greenacres Community for a "Temporary Moratorium against Development of Densities of more than one house per acre until interim zoning is adopted'. Copies of the petition were distributed to Council and Planning Commissioners on August 13, 2004. At the November 18, 2004, Spokane Valley Planning Commission meeting, the Commission voted unanimously to recommend denial of the moratorium to City Council. On May 10, 2005, Council directed staff to prepare a draft moratorium resolution for consideration at a future meeting. Council also requested that Planning Commission representatives be present at the meeting to respond to questions. Attached to this RCA is a Draft Moratorium Ordinance for Council's consideration, OPTIONS: 1. Approve moratorium as emergency measure. 2. Move ordinance to first reading. 3. Deny the moratorium request. 4. Set a date for a public'hearing. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Direct staff further. BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A STAFF CONTACT: Scott Kuhta, Senior Planner or Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney Draft Ordinance Adopting Moratorium May 2, 2005 letter from Chair David Crosby, relaying the recommendation to Council to deny the requested moratorium. November 18, 2004 Memorandum from Scott Kuhta re 11/18/04 Planning Commission Meeting Greenacres Rezone /Moratorium Approved November 18, 2004 Planning Commission Minutes Copy of Greenacres Resident Petition DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CiTY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASiIINGI'ON, ESTABLISHIiNG A MORATORIUM ON THE FILING AND ACCEPTANCE OF APPLICATIONS FOR LAND USE APPROVALS iN THE GREENACRES NEIGHBORHOOD. WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley incorporated on March 31, 2003; and WHEREAS, the City Council believes it is in the best interest of the citizens to adopt, consider and enact reasonable controls and development standards and criteria that relate to land development; and WHEREAS, prior to incorporation, the City Council adopted interim development regulations, including the Interim Spokane Valley Zoning Code, Zoning Map and Phase 1 Development Regulations; and WHEREAS, on January 25, 2005, the City Council adopted an areawide rezone for the North Greenacres neighborhood, changing the interim zoning from Urban Residential -7* (UR = -7 *) to Urban Residential -3.5 (UR -3.7); and WHEREAS, the City received a petition for "a temporary moratorium against development of densities of more than one house per acre," signed by approximately 52 residents of the Greenacres neighborhood; and WHEREAS, moratoriums enacted under RCW Chapter 35A.63.220 arc a method by which local governments may preserve the status quo so that plans and regulations will not be rendered moot by intervening developments; and Wi•IEREAS, upon consideration and adoption of this moratorium, the City Council shall either prior to adoption hold a public hearing, or within sixty (60) days of adoption, hold a public hearing on the proposed moratorium; and WHEREAS, the moratorium shall not be effective for longer than six (6) months but may be effective for up to one (1) year if a work plan is developed by the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds protection of the public health, safety and welfare supports establishment of a moratorium on applications for subdivisions, short subdivisions and zone reclassifications within the Greenacres neighborhood; and WHEREAS, the City Council adopts the following: FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The City of Spokane Valley expects to adopt a new Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations by the end of 2005. 2. The Greenacres neighborhood is developing a neighborhood specific plan that will address land use densities, transportation circulation and policies to protect neighborhood character while allowing for new development; 3. The Greenacres area is experiencing significant pressure from new development. Current development regulations are not adequate to ensure the neighborhood character is preserved. Draft Ordinance Moratorium, Greenacres Page 1 of 2 J DRAFT follows: 4. New subdivisions proposed for the Greenacres area arc inconsistent with the historic neighborhood character. 5. Infrastructure in the area, including roads, stormwater and sewer facilities, is not adequate to support intense development. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Washington, do ordain as Section 1. Development Moratorium. The City of Spokane Valley imposes a moratorium upon the filing of any and all applications for subdivisions, short subdivisions and zone reclassifications within the Greenacres neighborhood boundary, as depicted in Attachment "A." The City shall not accept any such filings or applications related to the same until this moratorium either expires or is removed by action of the City Council. Section 2. Findings. The City adopts the above findings of fact as support for this moratorium. Section 3. City Administration. City staff shall not accept any applications or issue any permits for subdivisions, short subdivisions and zoning changes within the boundary of the Greenacres neighborhood, as depicted in Attachment "A." Building permits for residential structures on individual, existing lots shall be permitted. City staff shall develop a work plan and report to the City Council a timeline for finalizing land use plans and development regulations for the Greenacres neighborhood. Section 4. Term of Moratorium. This moratorium shall be effective immediately upon passage of this Ordinance and shall continue in full force and effect for six (6) months from the date of this ordinance. Section 5. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance shall be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance. Section 6. Effective Date. The Council declares that a public urgency and emergency exists such that this Ordinance must be immediately effective in order to preserve and protect the public health, public safety, public property and public peace provided this ordinance is adopted by a majority vote plus one of the whole membership of the City Council. PASSED by the City Council this day of June, 2005. ATTEST: Diana Wilhite, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Approved as to Form: Cary P. Driskell, Deputy City Attorney Date of Publication: Effective Date: Draft Ordinance Moratorium, Greenacres Page 2 of 2 Sp6]tne lley 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 • Spokane Valley WA 99206 549.921.1000 • Fax: 509.921.1008 • cityhall ®spokanevalley.org May 2, 2005 Spokane Valley City Council 11707 East Sprague Spokane, WA 99206 RE: Greenacres Moratorium Request Council Members: On November 18, 2004, the Spokane Valley Planning Commission considered a request for a development moratorium in the North Greenacres neighborhood. The moratorium request was forwarded to the Commission via the City Clerk in the form of a petition signed by Greenacres residents. After discussion, the Commission voted unanimously to recommend that the City Council deny the requested moratorium. The Commission did not find that a development moratorium was warranted, but did believe that the Greenacres areawide rezone would address many of the neighborhood's issues. Thank you, David Crosby, Chair Spokane Valley Planning Commission Attachment: November 19', 2004 Planning Commission meeting minutes L8 MEMO S okane p Valle y Date: November 19, 2004 To: Dave Mercier, City Manager Nina Regor, Deputy City Manger Cc: Marina Sukup, Community Development Director Greg McCormick, Long Range Planning Manager Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk From: Scott Kuhta, Senior Planner k RE: 11/18/04 Planning Commission Meeting Greenacres Rezone /Moratorium The Planning Commission voted to bring the Greenacres areawide rezone back on the table for reconsideration at their November 18, 2004 meeting. After • lengthy discussion, the Commission voted 4 -3 to recommend approval of the rezone from UR -7* to UR -3.5. (The October 14, 2004, vote on a motion to approve the rezone resulted in a 3 -3 tie.) City Council will be briefed on this item on November 30, 2004. Community Development Staff proceeded to brief the Commission on the proposed moratorium for the Greenacres area. Staff informed the Commission that the issue was scheduled for discussion and consideration on December 9, 2004, and that public comment would be accepted at that time. The Planning Commission asked if the issue could be considered immediately. Staff informed the Commission that moratoriums do not require a public hearing to be adopted and that they could discuss and make a recommendation on the reqeust. Staff also mentioned that interested Greenacres residents were told that they there would be opportunity to comment on December 9' After discussion, the Commission voted unanimously to approve a motion to recommend denial of the requested moratorium. The Commission did not find an immediate threat to the public and did not believe the issue needed to be extended to December 9' Please let me know if you require further information. 11707 E. Sprague Ave. • Suite 106 • Spokane Valley, WA 99206 (509) 921 -1000 • Fax (509) 921 -1008 • cityhall @spokanevalley.org Spokane Valley Planning Commission Approved Minutes Council Chambers — City Hall 1 1707 E. Sprague Ave. November 18, 2004 I. CALL TO ORDER Planning Commission Chair Gothmann called the meeting to order at 6:32 p.m. 11. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Commission, audience, and staff recited the Pledge of Allegiance. III. ROLL CALL Fred Beaulac — Present Bob Blum — Present David Crosby — Present Gail Kogle — Present 13111 Gothmann — Present Ian Robertson — Present John G. Carroll — Present IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commissioner Gothmann moved that the November 18, 2004 agenda be approved as presented. Commissioner Crosby seconded the motion. Motion passed unanimously. V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Commissioner C_iothmann requested addition of the following sentence to the end of the fifth motion rnade for .REZ- 17 -04, located at the bottom of Page 4: "Motion tied 3 -3. The motion failed." It was moved by Commissioner Robertson and seconded by Commissioner Kogle that the minutes of the October 14, 2004 Planning Commission meeting be approved as amended. Motion passed unanimously. VI. PUBLIC COMMENT There was no public comment. VII. COMMISSION REPORTS Commissioner Crosby reported that the Ad Hoc Sign Committee has completed its immediate work and will be attending the December 9, 2004 Planning Commission meeting for a study session to review changes rnade to the existing Sign Standards. Commissioner Beaulac attended the Parks Master Plan public meeting on November 4, 2004 at Spokane Valley Church of the Nazarene, as did Commissioner Gothmann. Much of the meeting was dominated by equestrian issues. It was obvious that strong support to keep the Mission Horse Arena open exists. Commissioner Gothmann and several other Commissioners attended the Joint Planning Commissioners' meeting recently. County-Wide Planning Policies (CWPPs) were discussed, and he wanted to assure that all Commissioners receive an updated copy. He asked Ms. Alley to provide Commissioners Crosby, Robertson, Blum and Carroll with a copy. VIII. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS M.r. McCormick introduced Mike Basinger to the Commission. Mr. Basinger is an Associate Planner who was recently hired by the City to assist with the Long Range and Current Planning workload. He formerly worked with the Boundary Review Board, and is very familiar with the Spokane Valley and its geographic and governmental evolution. There will be only one P]annning Commission meeting in December. It will be held on Thursday, December 9. The meeting schedule will return to the second and fourth Thursdays of each month beginning on January 13, 2005. The County Commission took new action this past week by making population allocations for the City of Spokane Valley and the City of Liberty Lake based on a recommendation by the Steering Committee of Elected Officials. This allocation is calculated to reflect potential growth within the next five years, using available area and resources, The City of Spokane Valley was allocated an additional 20,666 citizens to its population census. The Liberty Lake atmexation request was denied by the Boundary Review Board. IX. COMMISSION BUSINESS A. OLD BUSINESS: • Continued Public Hearing on Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. CPA- 07 -04. This hearing was continued by motion on October 14, 2004. Mr. Kuhta directed the Commission's attention to a memorandum written by Sandra Raskell, P.E., dated November 12, 2004. In it, Ms. Raskell explained that the City of Spokane Valley Public Works Department received three copies of the Applicants' Traffic impact Analysis for Mansfield Avenue Corridor Assessment and Lawson Property on November 10. The City's Public Works Department requested that the public hearing for CPA -07- 04 be tabled until January 13, 2005 to allow staff sufficient time to review and comment on the study. Conunissioner Carroll requested a copy of the study to review before the public hearing on January 13. Mr. Kuhta explained that the entire document may not be available, but he would endeavor to make an executive summary available to all Commissioners in the near future. Commissioner Gothmann moved that the Planning Commission continue the public hearing on Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. CPA -07 -04 to January 13, 2005. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Robertson. Motion passed unanimously. Greenacres Area -Wide Rezone Application No. REZ- 17 -04. Before moving on to New Business, Chairman Gothmann requested time to discuss what happened at the public hearing on October 14, 2004, for the Greenacres Area -Wide Rezone Application No REZ- 1 7 -04. Several Commissioners expressed dissatisfaction with the tied vote, which resulted in moving the matter to City Council without a recommendation from the Planning Commission. After reviewing "Robert's Rules of Order", Commissioner Gothmann concluded that the Commission could reopen the matter For further discussion if a motion is made to reconsider the original motion. A Motion to R.econsider can be made at the same meeting or at the next meeting if nothing has been done on the motion itself since the last meeting, and a Commissioner on the winning side (Commissioners Crosby, Can•oIl and Blum) or one who did not vote but is well - versed on the matter (Commissioner Kogle) must make the Motion to Reconsider. It was moved by Commissioner Kogle that the original request for a Greenacres Area -Wide Rezone, Application No. REZ- 17 -04, be reconsidered by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Gothmann seconded the motion. Commissioners .Beaulac, Carroll, Crosby, Gothmann and Kogle voted in favor of the motion. Commissioner Blinn voted in opposition of the motion. Commissioner Robertson abstained . from the vote. Motion carried 5 -1. Staff provided the Commissioners copies of handouts from two previous meetings in which the Greenacres Area -Wide Rezone request was heard. There was a discussion among Commissioners regarding the responsibility of a government agency to honor original zoning designations which were intended for 'development in residential areas equally to the zoning requests of residents who wish to limit development in their residential areas. Commissioner Carroll is greatly concerned that if out City does not respect past decisions or is not consistent in its land use decisions, businesses or other investors may not feel confident enough in our government to commit to long term development plans. Commissioners were reminded that City procedures exist which allow landowners to rezone their property if they choose to do so. It was proved by Commissioner Carroll, and seconded by Commissioner Crosby, that the Planning Commission amend the original motion to approve the Greenacres Area -Wide Rezone request as presented by exempting the areas on the map colored in pink, orange and blue -gray. Commissioners Blum, Carroll, and Crosby voted in favor of the amended motion. Commissioners Beaulac, Gothmann, Kogle and Robertson voted in opposition of the amended motion. Motion failed 4- 3. Commissioner Crosby moved that the Planning Commission amend the original motion to approve the Greenacres Area -Wide Rezone request as presented by excluding the area west of Flora and north of Mission and the areas on the map colored pink, orange and blue- „ray. The amended motion was seconded by Commissioner Carroll. Commissioners Carroll and Crosby voted in favor of the amended motion. Commissioners Beaulac, Blum, Gothmann, Kogle and .Robertson voted in opposition of the amended motion. Motion failed 5-2. Chairman Gothmann called for a vote on the original motion for the Planning Commission to approve the Greenacres Area -Wide Rezone Application No. REZ- 17 -04, as presented. Commissioners Beaulac, Gothmann, Kogle and Robertson voted in favor of the original motion. Commissioners Blum, Crosby and Carroll voted in opposition of the original motion. Motion passed 4 -3. The Planning Commission will additionally request that the Council consider a recommendation to allow those landowners in the pink areas of the map be exempted from paying the City's rezone application . fee if they choose to return to the UR -7* Zonin designation within the next two years. Mr. Cary Driskell spoke to the legality of the recommendation for a fee exemption, stating that he would advise against it because it could be construed as a "gift of a fund” by the City to the landowners involved. The Commissioners took a ten - minute break from 7:40 — 7:50 p.m. B. NEW BUSINESS: Greenacres Area Petition Requesting a Moratorium on New Development. The City Clerk received a request for a temporary moratorium on new development in the North Greenacres area on August 10, 2004. The request was delivered to the City in the form of a petition signed by area residents. City Council has requested that the Planning Commission review the request and forward a recommendation to them. The • moratorium request is scheduled to be discussed by the Commission on December 9, 2004. Moratoriums are enacted when there is an immediate threat to the general public's health, safety and welfare. The Commission must decide if current zoning within the North Greenacres area threatens 4 the public's health, safety or welfare and make specific findings reflecting these threats. The Commission discussed the staff report and the issues involved in this request. Mr. Kuhta explained that Mr. Driskell was present to answer any legal questions the Commission might have on this issue. Commissioner Crosby proved that the Planning Commission recommend denial of the moratorium petition to City Council. Mr. Crosby's Motion was seconded by Commissioner .Blum. Motion passed unanimously. The Commission agreed that it may want to revisit this moratorium request if the City Council doesn't agree with its recommendations on the Greenacres Area -Wide Rezone request. .Election of Planning Commission Officers — 2005. Mr. McCormick agreed to facilitate the nominations for Commission Chair. Commissioner Robertson nominated Commissioner Gothmann for the office of Chairman. There was a brief discussion about this nomination because officer positions are limited to two consecutive terms and several Commissioners understood that M.r. Gothmann had served his two terms. Commissioner Blum nominated Commissioner Crosby for the office of Chairman. Commissioner Gothmann received three votes from Commissioners Beaulac, Gothmann and Robertson. Commissioner Crosby received four votes from Commissioners Blum, Carroll, Crosby and Kogle. As a result of majority vote, Commissioner Crosby will serve as Planning Commission Chairnurn, effective January .1, 2005 through December 3.1, 2005. Chairman Gothmann facilitated the nominations for Commission Vice Chair. Commissioner Beaulac nominated Commissioner Carroll for the office of Vice Chairman. Commissioner Gothmann nominated Commissioner Robertson for the office of Vice Chairman. Commissioner Carroll received five votes from Commissioners Beaulac, Blum, Carroll, Crosby and Kogle. Commissioner Robertson abstained from voting, and received one vote from Commissioner Gothmann. As a result of majority vote, Commissioner Carroll will serve as Planning. Commission Vice Chair, effective January 1, 2005 through December 31, 2005. Commissioners Gothmann and Robertson were commended on their work as officers of the Planning Commission for the past two terms. O Deputy Mayor Richard Munson addressed the Commission with regard to a meeting he had attended earlier in the morning. Eastern Washington University has estimated a 5.3% growth in sales tax revenue for all areas of Spokane County except the City of Spokane. He jokingly told Mayor Jim West that the Valley had abandoned its efforts to annex the City of Spokane when they heard that zero growth in sales tax revenues were projected for them. Discussion of Planning Commission Rules of Procedure. This matter was placed on the agenda because of the tie vote at the last Commission meeting regarding the Grccnacres Area -Wide Rezone request. The tie vote enabled a public request to be forwarded to City Council without a recommendation from the Planning Commission. After a brief discussion, the Commission agreed that this will seldom occur. if it does, the Chair has the option to extend discussion after the vote instead of ending Commission deliberations without closure. X. FOR THE GOOD OF THE ORDER There were no matters to discuss. XI. AI)J 0 ITRNMENT There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.rn. S UI3MITTED: ar-44 Debi Alley, Administrat' y ssistant illiam H. othmann, Chairman 6 APPROVED: To the City of Spokane Valley City Council & Planning Dept. We ,the undersigned ,are the resident landowners and primary stakeholders of North Greenacres Community whose boundaries were defined in 1993 as follows: North and West Boundary is the Spokane River and the South Boundary is Mission Avenue and the East Boundary is Barker Road. The Simpson Subdivison in the southeast corner is excluded. The owner occupied plats represents the primary stakeholders who are committed to preserving the traditions, customs and culture and economic stability of our neighborhood. WE ARE PETITIONING FOR A TEMPORARY MORATORIUM AGAINST DEVELOPMENT OF DENSITIES OF MORE THAN ONE HOUSE PER ACRE UNTIL INTERIM ZONING IS ADOPTED. WE ARE ASKING FOR A ZONE CHANGE THAT ACCOMODATES THE RECENT RIGHTS WE HAD UNDER SR -1. We the undersigned agree that this is an old established neighborhood dating back,;_14(:years, sharing a common culture. The keeping of larger lot sizes, gardens ;I all orchards, animals, and some truck farming characterize the historical foundations of this local area. Approximately 85% of parcels are single family residences occupied by owners. We have a tradition of larger parcels with over 5O° Utthese parcels being larger than 1 acre as pursuant to a study done in 1994 by Spokane County.:.. We are committed to the process of writing a Neighborhood Plan for adoption into the Comprehensive Plan Furthermore, we are concerned due to the near proximity of the river, that our health and safety will be compromised without a moratorium. THE ABILITY TO BRING SEWER PIPE OR PROPOSALS FOR NEW WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITIES DOES NOT MEET GMA CONCURRENCY. UNLESS THE PRESENT WASTE MANAGEMENT FACILITY HAS THE CAPACITY TO EFFECTIVELY TREAT ALL THE ADDITIONAL EFFLUENT FROM BOTH CITY AND COUNTY NEW DEVELOPMENTS, IT POSES A PUBLIC SAFETY HAZARD. (The danger as posed by the recent accident provokes serious thought. This issue , by overwhelming evidence must be solved.) WE are also seeking adoption of a resolution for establishing policy that mitigates impacts that effect traditions, culture, and customs, economic stability, and quality of life. (i.e. horse keeping and a PUD side by side) ANAk‘ kW\V\ Vita 4 -tomes . � ' 1h7 \Na- .■ ••■Mlimi4r■irmmr• 1 liroadwiy rA'''''. mum Attachment: A Greenacres Moratorium Area Legend SIR -5 lit -1 LTR -3.5 UR-7' t R -7 UR- 12 LrR-22 77 8-1 B -2 B -3 1 -1 1-2 GA r Bodes Elate: A LII Girecnacr s Moratorium Boundary Map Location 0 1,000 2,000 fee 1 1 _ I Mime. The reammuti)at atom toa daur 'tw i n IX conipireditum FUn01ea 'Strata/ WWI fi #res lg P r crowds! re on. the Citie dalrtkfar rfca ATM Of g uFanfels crfrrrrat arw aceuttw a,r Cirrcatry niap anti crssteatim rarm3 rr.li? n fae envrs amid o ii rkxu NT 10 erw nir! cvuruttm atVi Jrriur:y rrarvL+Jrt ear { eptSpgarre Yolks E amont+agy L erk1p past tirpartinerti Thal frapo +•afAwning, 009,1 9,71•16 rnHI.Et Ole Coy ut5p4luer 1'u11s].cus ar+.ly DrttinprASarl owitkriwriti CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: June 7, 2005 City Manager Sign -off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information X admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Initiative /referendum by cities in Washington. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 35A.11 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Presentation by legal staff in January, 2005; presentation by legal staff May 10, 2005. BACKGROUND: The City Council previously requested information on the exercise of referendum and initiative power in cities. Legal staff provided a memorandum drafted by former Legal Intern Joshua Leonard that explained the legal the basis for the powers, how they are initiated, and limitations on the exercise of the authority. These materials are being provided again to Council as an update. Staff provided the information again in early May, and revised its statement regarding the ability to adopt one of the powers and not the other. Council asked staff to prepare the resolutions and ordinances that would be required to adopt the powers or power. Those documents are attached, and are drafted so that the Council can choose to move forward with either of the powers individually, or both powers collectively. If the Council wants to proceed with one or both the powers, the process under RCW is to adopt a resolution declaring its intention to provide for one or both of the powers. The City must publish this resolution in a newspaper of general circulation within the City not more than ten days after passage of the resolution. The citizens then have an opportunity to file a referendum to try to block this action by the Council, but only if done within 90 days of publication. If no legally sufficient referendum petition is filed, then the Council must enact an ordinance formally adopting the power of initiative or referendum, or both. If a sufficient referendum petition is filed to try to block the action, then it would be submitted for vote by the citizens. Please note, once the process is started by adoption of the resolution, it must be completed by adoption of an ordinance. The Council also asked if the powers of initiative or referendum could be used to either impose a tax, or to remove a tax imposed by the Council. Generally speaking, initiative or referendum cannot be used to impose or remove a tax. The only exceptions are where a statute authorizing a tax specifically states it is subject to referendum. The examples I am aware of are: - RCW 82.14.340, establishing sales tax imposed for criminal justice purposes; - RCW 35.21.706, relating to imposition or increase of B & 0 tax; - RCW 82.14.046, relating to the imposition or altering of a tax relating to transit; - RCW 82.80.090, relating to an optional vehicle license fee or commercial parking tax. OPTIONS: Do nothing, or choose one of the three options for adoption. vu. j . . ,...o,..... - von /u Ly - Vivy rvuurl scy Resolution to Adopt Initiative Page 1 of I Resolution stating intent to adopt power of initiative May 26, 2005 draft one Cary P. Driskell, Deputy City Attorney CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. O5-*** A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON, DECLARING THE INTENT OF THE CTITY COUNCIL TO ADOPT THE RIGHT OF INITIATIVE FOR THE, QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF THE CITY; PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION OF TIIIS RESOLUTION; AND PROVIDING THAT UPON THE EXPIRATION OF THE NINETIETH DAY AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION THAT MN ORDINANCE ADOPI'hNG THE INITIATIVE PROCESS FOR THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF THE CITY SHALL BE PRESENTED UNLESS A TIMELY AND SUFFICIENT REFERENDUM PETITION HAS BEEN FILED REFERRING THE QUESTION TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF THE CITY FOR APPROVAL OR REJECTION. NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington, as follows: Section .1. Pursuant to RCW 35A.11.080, which permits the legislative body of a non - charter code city, such as the City of Spokane Valley, to provide for the exercise in the City of the power of initiative in accordance with the provisions of state law, set forth in RCW 35A.11.020, et seq, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Washington, a non - charter code city hereby declares its intention to adopt for the City the power of initiative. Section 2. Within ten (10) days following the passage of this Resolution, the City Clerk is instructed to cause this Resolution to be published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation in the City. Section 3. Notice is given that upon the expiration of the ninetieth (90 day from, but excluding the date of first publication of this Resolution, if no timely and sufficient referendum petition is filed pursuant to RCW 35A.02.035, as determined by RCW 35A.29.170, the intent expressed in this resolution shall, at the next regular meeting of the City Council, be effected by an ordinance adopting for the City the power of initiative. Adopted this day of , 2005. ATTEST: Mayor Diane Wilhite Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Approved as to Forni: Cary P. Driskell, Deputy City Attorney City of Spokane Valley Resolution to Adopt Initiative Page 1 of 1 RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Depends upon which of the options the Council wants to proceed on, if any, and would be: Ordinance Adopting Initiative Power AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING THE POWER OF INITIATIVE FOR THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF THE CITY. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Washington, passed Resolution No. 05 -* ** on , 2005, stating its intent to adopt the power of initiative for the qualified electors of the City as provided in RC W Chapter 35A.11, now, therefore, follows: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. NOW, TREREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Washington, ordains as Section 1. Purpose and Intent. The purpose of this Ordinance is to comply with the statement of intent in Spokane Valley Resolution No 05 - * * *. Section 2. A new Chapter 1.02 entitled "Initiative" is hereby added to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code to read as follows Section 1.12.010 Power of Initiative Adopted The City of Spokane Valley hereby adopts the power of initiative for the qualified electors of the city as provided pursuant to RCW 35A.11.080 through 35A.11.100. Such powers are to be exercised as provided in the above referenced sections of the Revised Code of Washington as they now exist or may be amended from time to time and said sections are hereby incorporated in full by this reference. Section 3. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five (5) days after publication of the Ordinance, or a summary thereof, in the official newspaper of the City. ATTEST: PASSED by the City Council this day of , 2005. Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Approved as to Form: Cary P. Driskell, Deputy City Attorney Diana Wilhite, Mayor Date of Publication: Effective Date: Ordinance Adopting Initiative Power Page 1 of 1 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. 05 - * ** Resolution stating intent to adopt power of referendum May 26, 2005 draft one Cary P. Driskell, Deputy City Attorney A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON, DECLARING T1TE INTENT OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO ADOPT THE RIGHT OF REFERENDUM FOR THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF THE CITY; PROVIDING FOR PUILICATION OF THIS RESOLUTION; AND PROVIDING THAT UPON THE EXPIRATION OF THE NINETIETH DAY AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION THAT AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE REFERENDUM PROCESS FOR THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF THE CITY SHALL BE PRESENTED UNLESS A TIMELY AND SUFFICIENT REFERENDUM PETITION HAS BEEN FILED REFERRING THE QUESTION TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF THE CPT "Y FOR APPROVAL OR. REJECTION. NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington, as follows: Section 1. Pursuant to RCW 35A.11.080, which permits the legislative body of a non - charter code city, such as the City of Spokane Valley, to provide for the exercise in the City of the power of referendum in accordance with the provisions of state law, set forth in RCW 35A.11.020, et seq, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Washington, a non - charter code city hereby declares its intention to adopt for the City the power of referendum. Section 2. Within ten (10) days following the passage of this Resolution, the City Clerk is instructed to cause this Resolution to be published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation in the City. Section 3. Notice is given that upon the expiration of the ninetieth (90 day from, but excluding the date of first publication of this Resolution, if no timely and sufficient referendum petition is tiled pursuant to RCW 35A.02.035, as determined by RCW 35A.29.170, the intent expressed in this resolution shall, at the next regular meeting of the City Council, be effected by an ordinance adopting for the City the power of referendum. Adopted this day of , 2005. Al Mayor Diane Wilhite Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Approved as to Form: Cary P. Driskell, Deputy City Attorney City of Spokane Valley Resolution to Adopt Referendum Page 1 of 1 Ordinance Adopting Referendum AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING THE POWER OF REFERENDUM FOR THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF THE CITY. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Washington, passed Resolution No. 05 - * ** on , 2005, stating its intent to adopt the power of referendum for the qualified • electors of the City as provided in RCW Chapter 35A.11, now, therefore, follows: Section 1. Purpose and Intent. The purpose of this Ordinance is to comply with the statement of intent in Spokane Valley Resolution No 05 - * * *. Section 2. A new Chapter 1.02 entitled "Referendum" is hereby added to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code to read as follows The City of Spokane Valley hereby adopts the power of referendum for the qualified electors of the city as provided pursuant to RCW 35A.I 1.080 through 35A.1 1.100. Such power is to be exercised as provided in the above referenced sections of the Revised Code of Washington as they now exist or may be amended from time to time and said sections are hereby incorporated in full by this reference. Section 3. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five (5) days after publication of _ the Ordinance, or a summary thereof, in the official newspaper of the City. ATTEST: NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Washington, ordains as Section 1.12.010 Power of Referendum Adopted PASSED by the City Council this day of , 2005. Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Approved as to Form: Cary P. Driskell, Deputy City Attorney Date of Publication: Effective Date: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. Diana Wilhite, Mayor Ordinance Adopting Referendum Page 1 of 1 Resolution stating intent to adopt powers of initiative and referendum May 26, 2005 draft one Cary P. Driskell, Deputy City Attorney CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. 05-*** A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON, DECLARING THE INTENT OF THE CITY COUNCIL TO ADOPT THE RIGHT OF INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM FOR THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF THE CITY; PROVIDING FOR PUBLICATION OF THIS RESOLUTION; AND PROVIDING THAT UPON THE EXPIRATION OF THE NINETIETH DAY AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION THAT AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM PROCESS FOR THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF THE CITY SHALL BE PRESENTED UNLESS A TIMELY AND SUFFICIENT REFERENDUM PETITION HAS BEEN FILED REFERRING THE QUESTION TO THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF THE CITY FOR APPROVAL OR REJECTION. NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington, as follows: Section I. Pursuant to RCW 35A.11.080, which permits the legislative body of a non - charter code city, such as the City of Spokane Valley, to provide for the exercise in the City of the powers of initiative and referendum in accordance with the provisions of state law, set forth in RCW 35A.11.020, et seq, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Washington, a non - charter code city hereby declares its intention to adopt for the City the powers of initiative and referendum. Section 2. Within ten (10) days following the passage of this Resolution, the City Clerk is instructed to cause this Resolution to be published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation in the City. Section 3. Notice is given that upon the expiration of the ninetieth (90` day from, but excluding the date of first publication of this Resolution, if no timely and sufficient referendum petition is Fled pursuant to RCW 35A.02.035, as determined by RCW 35A.29.170, the intent expressed in this resolution shall, at the next regular meeting of the City Council, be effected by an ordinance adopting for the City the powers of initiative and referendum. Adopted this day of , 2005. ATTEST: Mayor Diane Wilhite Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Approved as to Form: Cary P. Driskell, Deputy City Attorney City of Spokane Valley Resolution Adopting Initiative and Referendum Powers Page 1 of Ordinance Granting Initiative and Referendum AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING THE POWERS OF INITIATIVE AND REFERENDUM FOR THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF THE CITY. WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Washington, passed Resolution No. 05 - * ** on . 2005, stating its intent to adopt the powers of initiative and referendum for the qualified electors of the City as provided in RCW Chapter 35A.11, now, therefore, follows: Section 1. Purpose and Intent. The purpose and intent of this Ordinance is to comply with the statement of intent in Spokane Valley Resolution No 05 - * * *. Section 2. A new Chapter 1.02 entitled "initiative and Referendum" is hereby added to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code to read as follows The City of Spokane Valley hereby adopts the powers of initiative and referendum for the qualified electors of the city as provided pursuant to RCW 35A.11.080 through 35A.11.100. Such powers are to be exercised as provided in the above referenced sections of the Revised Code of Washington as they now exist or may be amended from time to time and said sections are hereby incorporated in full by this reference. Section 3. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five (5) days after publication of the Ordinance, or a summary thereof, in the official newspaper of the City. ATI'EST: NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Washington, ordains as Section 1.12.010 Powers of Initiative and Referendum Adopted PASSED by the City Council this day of , 2005. Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Approved as to Form: Cary P. Driskell, Deputy City Attorney • Date of Publication: Effective Date: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. Diana Wilhite, Mayor Ordinance Granting Initiative and Referendum Page 1 of 1 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: City Manager Sign -off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE : Traffic Control /Special Events GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Council has adopted Ordinance No. 64 Adopting Regulations for Special Events. BACKGROUND: In the interest of continuous process improvement, administrative staff would like to discuss the Special Events Ordinance with City Council. Specifically, staff has been considering whether or not neighborhood block parties, held on City streets, should be exempted from obtaining a permit and/or providing proof of liability insurance. Staff has had lively discussions on both sides of this issue. On one hand, it is good to encourage neighborhood gatherings that foster a sense of community (and the permitting and insurance requirements may detract from that). On the other hand, Ordinance No. 64 does require issuance of a Special Events Permit and proof of liability insurance for °use" of City streets and other public places. Also, Washington Cities Insurance Authority considers block parties to be a Hazard II Special Event and requests that the user group provide proof of liability insurance to the City. OPTIONS: Explore options for changes to Ordinance No. 64 and seek alternatives to insurance requirements or Leave existing ordinance /policies in place. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: This is the first touch with council on this issue. Staff seeks Council discussion and direction on this matter. BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None to current operating budget. WCIA indicates there is a potential of higher premiums to the City if a claim is brought against the City/WCIA and the user group does not have liability insurance. STAFF CONTACT: Cal Walker, Police Chief, Mike Jackson, Parks and Recreation Director ATTACHMENTS Ordinance No. 64 Washington Cities Insurance Authority (WCIA) Special Event Liability Insurance Guidelines and Procedures. WCIA Tenant/User Program Hazard Schedules WCIA Tenant User Event Rates CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 64 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, ADOPTING REGULATIONS FOR SPECIAL EVENTS. WI-IEREAS, it is in the interests of the City of Spokane Valley to allow community organizations and citizens to sponsor special events within the City; and WHEREAS, reasonable guidelines and a permitting process are necessary to protect the public's health, safety and welfare during special events. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Washington, do ordain as follows: Section 1.. Definitions. A. "Applicant" is the person, fain or entity making application for a permit. B. "Parade" means any march or procession consisting of people, animals, bicycles, vehicles, or combination thereof, except.wedding processions and funeral processions, upon any public street or sidewalk which does not comply with adopted traffic regulations or controls. C. "Run" means an organized procession or race consisting of people, bicycles, or other vehicular devices or combination thereof comprising fifteen (15) or more persons upon the public street or sidewalk. D. "Public Property" means a street or other public place (i.e. Park) under the control and authority of the City. E. "Special Event" means any use, parade, run, street dance, or other demonstration and exhibition on public property. F. "Street" or "Streets" means any public roadway, sidewalk, or portions thereof in the City of Spokane Valley dedicated to the public use. G. "Street Dance" means any organized .dance of five or more persons on any public street, public sidewalk or publicly owned parking lot. H. "Use" means any activity. (including sporting activities), function' or event where fifteen or more people are estimated to attend. Section 2. Permit. No person shall conduct a special event upon public property unless a permit has been obtained from the City Manager or designee. Section 3. Permit- Application -Fee. The fee for a special event shall be determined by Resolution. Section 4. Permit- Application- Contents. Applications for a special events permit S:IOrdinances\Ordinance No.6d.special events.doc shall state: (a) name and address of applicant; (b) date and time of event; (c) name of sponsoring person or organization; (d) probable number of participants; (e) routes to include starting point and termination; (f) required access to public right of way; (g) location of assembly area; (h) copy of general liability insurance stating coverage;•(i) security and traffic control provisions; (j) emergency medical provisions; and (k) a clean up plan. Section 5. Permit - Application- Filing. An application for a special event permit shall be filed with the City Manager not less than fifteen (15) days before the date on which the event will occur. The City Manager shall notify the applicant in writing of approval or disapproval, no later than five (5) days following the date of application. Section 6. Bond Required. The City Manager shall require a cash deposit or performance bond as a guarantee that the public property will be cleaned and returned to the condition in which it was found. The amount shall not be less than $50.00 and no more than $1,000.00. The City Manager shall determine the amount of bond or deposit by considering type of event, projected number of participants and spectators, and the sponsor's experience. For an event where clean up or other potential expenses would likely exceed $1,000.00, the City Manager shall refer the matter to the City Council for consideration. Section 7. Insurance Required. The applicant shall show proof of liability insurance with a combined single limit of one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) per occurrence. Evidence of insurance shall be filed with the application and shall name the City of Spokane Valley as additional named insured. Depending upon the nature of the special event and its risk to the public and.private individuals, the City Manager may reduce the liability limits. Section 8. Permit - Issuance Standards. The City Manager may issue a special event permit unless: (a) the time, route, and size will unreasonably disrupt the movement of traffic along streets; (b) the size or nature of theevent requires supervision by a significant number of police officers that causes unreasonable expense or diversion of police duties; (c) the applicant failed to remit all fees, documents, or bonds. Section 9. Traffic Control. The. City. Manager or designee may require any reasonable and necessary traffic control with the applicant responsible for the expense. The City Manager shall notify the applicant of any City projected traffic control expense and collect this amount before. a permit is issued. Section 10. Appeal Procedure. Upon denial of a permit by the City Manager, an applicant may appeal to the City Council by filing a written notice of the appeal within ten (10) days from the City Manager's decision. Upon such appeal, the City Council may reverse, affirm, or modify the City Manager's determination. Section 11. Permit Revocation or Suspension. The special event permit issued under this ordinance is temporary and vests no permanent rights in the applicant, and may be immediately revoked or suspended by the City Manager if: (a) the applicant has made a misstatement of material fact in the information supplied; (b) the applicant has failed to fulfill a term or condition of the permit in a timely manner; (c) the applicant requests the cancellation of the permit or cancels the event; (d) the activity endangers or threatens persons or property, or otherwise jeopardizes the health, safety or welfare of persons or property; (e) the activity conducted is in violation of any of the terms or conditions of the special event permit; (f) an emergency or occurrence requires the cancellation or termination of the event in order to protect the public health or safety; or (g) the applicant fails to prepay expenses. The City shall refired the permit fee in the event of revocation caused by an emergency or S:\Oitinanocs XDrdinancc No.64,special events.doc supervening occurrence. All other refunds shall be at the discretion of the City Manager. Section 12. Rules and Policy.. To implement the Special Event permit, the City Manager may develop and adopt rules, policies and forms consistent with this ordinance All adopted rules, policies and forms shall be filed with the City Clerk. Section 13. Violation/Penalty. Violation of this ordinance is a Class 1 Civil infraction. Section 14. 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 15. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect five (5) days after the date of publication of this Ordinance or a summary thereof in the official newspaper of the City. PASSED by the City Council this rQ� of April, 2003. ATTEST: EST: Interim City Clerk, Ruth Muller Approved As To Form: City o y, Stanley'M. Schwartz Da e of Publication: A_ gei 3 Effective Date: /yl S., 49.6d3 S:10rdinanccslOrdinance No.64,spccial cvents.doc Mayor,.M:ichael DeVleming 0 SPECIAL EVENT LIABILITY INSURANCE GUIDELINES AND PROCEDURES This manual affords an overview of the Special Event Liability Insurance Program (which includes the Tenant User Liability Program, Instructor/Recreation Class Liability Program and the Nominee Program for Public Entity Sponsored events), and provides instructions to implement coverage for specific events. Please note that additional certificates and reporting forms are provided separately for your use, so you need not remove material from this manual. Should you have any questions or require assistance, . please contact us at (425) 277 -7237. Washington Cities Insurance Authority ANTIQUE SHOWS ART FESTIVALS ART SHOWS AUCTIONS AUTO SHOWS AWARDS PRESENTATIONS BALLETS BANQUETS BAZAARS BEAUTY PAGEANTS BINGO GAMES BOAT SHOWS BODY BUILDING CONTESTS BUSINESS MEETINGS BUSINESS SHOWS CELEBRATIONS CHAMBERS OF COMMERCE EVENTS CHARITY I3ENEFITS,AUCI IONS /SALES CINEMAS CIVIC CLUBS & GROUP MEETINGS CLASSICAL MUSIC CONCERTS (1) CONCERTS, INDOOR (UNDER 1,500) CONSUMERS SHOWS - CONVENTIONS IN BUILDINGS CRAFT SHOWS DANCE SHOWS(Inct rehearsals & dancers) DEBUTANTE BALLS DINNER THEATERS DRILL TEAM EXHIBITIONS EDUCATIONAL EXHIB ELECTRONICS CONVENTIONS EXHIB ITIONS EXH[BTTS IN BUILDINGS EXPOSITIONS - CAPACITY FASHION SHOWS FISHING EVENTS FLOWER SHOWS TENANT/USER PROGRAM HAZARD . SCHEDULE I GARDEN SHOWS GRADUATIONS GUN & KNIFE SHOWS GYMNASTIC COMPETITIONS HARVEST FESTIVALS HOME SHOWS HOUSING SHOWS ICE SKATING SHOWS INSTRUCTIONAL CLASSES (NON- MECHANICAL) LADIES CLUB EVENTS LECTURES LUNCHEONS MEETINGS (INDOORS) MOBILE HOME. SHOWS MOTION PICTURE THEATERS (1) MUSICALS (NOT ROCK) OPERAS OPERETTAS ORGANIZED SIGHT- SEEING TOURS OUTNGS OVERNIGHT CAMPING PAGEANTS "`"PARTIES PLAYS PROMS RV SHOWS SCOUTING JAMBOREES SEMINARS SOCIAL RECEPTIONS SPEAKING ENGAGEMENTS SYMPHONY CONCERTS TELECONFERENCES TELETHONS THEATRICAL STAGE PERFORMANCES TRADE SHOWS LN BUILDINGS VACATION SHOWS XC. WEDDINGS & RECEPTIONS (1) R.EQUIRES PRIOR COMPANY APPROVAL (allow 10 business days) NOTE: Athletic participant's coverage requires prior company approval and signed waiver(s). (/ 7E < 11-74a4 / 24 CaiEDuz 5 4XF vSffp h9 /24-T6 SErmv‘r. T , Ator N e ces. 7 L f Pt9v /Ace/fil� -r pe te 2ivsv r c ra, 6')(14,up L6 S7 4,P s AJOT RCP a iN G ,J�sc // NcC- ' Rho-775 a Wbb b iAle-4 e- *� ( J �t ii P "Ti r AEROBICS & JAZZERCISE CLASSES ANIMAL TRAINING (1) BLOCK PARTIES /STREET CLOSURES (EXCLUDING BLEACHERS) (1) CONCERTS OUTDOOR (NOT ROCK, UNDER 1,500 ADMISSIONS) (1) CORPORATE EVENTS (WITH LIQUOR) DANCES AND PARTIES DEBUTS DOG SHOWS EVANGELISTIC MEETINGS EXHIBITIONS (OUTDOOR) FOOD CONCESSIONS HORSE SHOWS HOTEL SHOWS JAM & JAZZ SESSIONS JOB FAIRS MARATHONS (WALKING, RUNNING, ETC.) MEETINGS (OUTDOORS) NIGHT CLUB SHOWS TENANT/USER PROGRAM HAZARD SCHEDULE II OLD TIMERS EVENTS (1) PARADES (UNDER 500 SPECTATORS) PICNIC GROUNDS WITHOUT POOLS OR LAKES (1) POLITICAL RALLIES (1) QUINCENERAS RELIGIOUS ASSEMBLIES REUNIONS RUMMAGE SALES SCHOOL BANDS SEANCES SIDEWALK SALES SOAP BOX DERBIES SOCIAL GATHERINGS (OUTDOORS) (1) STATE AND COUNTRY FESTIVALS AND FAIRS (1) STREET FAIRS SWAP MEETS TRADE SHOWS (OUTDOORS) VOTER REGISTRATION (1) REQUIRES PRIOR COMPANY APPROVAL (allow 10 business days) NOTE: Athletic participant's coverage requires prior company approval and signed waiver(s). 7 ANIMAL ACTS /SHOWS ARCADES (1,2) BASEBALL (1,2) BASKETALL BICYCLE RALLIES CARNIVALS .(NO RIDES) CASINO & LOUNGE SHOWS (1) CONCERTS (R.00K - UNDER 5,000) COUNTRY WESTERN EVENTS (1) ETHNIC CELEBRATIONS (1) FILM PRODUCTION•(NON- ACTION) HEADS OF STATE EVENTS (1,2) JUNIOR ATHLETIC GAMES NON CONTACT MARTIAL ARTS KIDDIELANDS (NO RIDES) (1) TENANT /USER PROGRAM HAZARD SCHEDULE ICI (1) REQUIRES PRIOR COMPANY APPROVAL (allow 10 business days) (2) LEAGUE BASED EVENTS ARE EXCLUDED NOTE: Athletic participant's coverage requires prior company approval and signed waiver(s). 8 LIVE ENTERTAINMENT LIVESTOCK SHOWS PICNIC GROUNDS WITH POOLS OR LAKES (EXCLUDING SWIMMING OR DIVING LESSONS) DISTANCE FROM WATER REQUIRED PROMOTERS (SUBJECT TO SPECIAL RATING) RECREATIONAL EVENTS SKI EVENTS (1,2) SOCCER (1,2) SOFTBALL (1,2) SPOR LING EVENTS IN BUILDINGS (NON - PROFESSIONAL) (1,2) TENNIS, HANDBALL & RACQUETBALL COURTS THEATRICAL ROAD SHOWS UNION MEETINGS ZOOS PREMIUMS: CLASS I ATTENDANCE 1 -100 101 -500 501 -1500 1501 -3000 3001 -5000 5000 + PREMIUM 5 89.00 5 122.00 $ 180.00 5 230.00 $ 347.00 To Be Determined RATES ARE SUBJECT TO UNDERWRITER REVIEW ON JANUARY 1, 2005 FOR MULTIPLE DAYS: TENANT USER EVENT RATES January 1, 2004 to January 1, 2006 CLASS 11 A l 1 ENDANCE PREMIUM 1 -100 101 -500 501 -1500 1501 -3000 3001 -5000 5000 + $ 128.00 $ 218.00 $ 258.00 $ 425.00 5 542.00 To Be Determined RATES INCLUDE TAXES & FEES. RATES ARE APPLICABLE PER DAY. CLASS 111 ATTENDANCE PREMIUM 1 -100 101 -500 501 -1500 1501 -3000 3001 -5000 5000 + $ 200.00 5 347.00 5 547.00 $ 716.00 5 878.00 To Be Determined • Total the attendance for all days of the event. Refer to rates and charge the premium corresponding to the total attendance. Events over five .days require underwriting approval. Please submit information to Driver Alliant Insurance Services Associates • Alcoholic Beverage premiums are to be separately calculated for each day. Liquor Legal Liability is included in the policy by separate endorsement. Additional premium of 565.65 per day applies to Class 1 events only: Prior underwriter approval and additional charges necessary for Class 11 and Class III events. • Multiple Day Event: Days used exclusively to "set up" or "take down" are to be included as insured days on the coverage certificate. ONE DAY EVENT RATING EXAMPLE: Wedding with 250 people: Refer to Hazard Schedule 1 "Weddings" Attendance Category: 101 -500 Total Premium: 5122.00 MULTIPLE DAY EVENT RATING EXAMPLE: Events of two or more consecutive days: 5 Day Antique Show with 100 people each day: Refer to Hazard Schedule 1 "Antique Shows" Total Attendance 500. Attendance Category: 101 -500 Total Premium: $122.00 9 Exhibitors - No Sales Concessionaires - Non Food Sales Concessionaires - Food Sales These rates are only available in conjunction with a scheduled event. LIQUOR LEGAL. LIABILITY: TENANT USER EVENT RATES (Continued) CONCESSIONAIRE RATE ENDORSEMENT: Premi $45.45 $84.58 $77.0 Per Day/Per Exhibitor Per Day/Per Concessionaire Per Day /Per Concessionaire Alcoholic beverages served charge $65.65 premium for each day of event of Hazard I only. Rate includes taxes and fees. :[hazard Classes II and 11I require prior company approval (allow 10 business days) Liquor Legal Liability coverage is only available in conjunction with a scheduled event. NOTE: Exhibitors and Concessionaires coverage is only available in conjunction with a scheduled event. 10 DRAFT ADVANCE AGENDA For Planning Discussion Purposes Only as of June 2, 2005 9:00 a.m. Please note this is a work in progress; items are tentative To: Council & Staff . From: City Manager Re: Draft Schedule for Upcoming Council Meetings June 11, 2005 — Mid -Year Council /Staff Retreat, 9 a.m. — 3:00 p.m. (Dick Denenny's Cabin" 29897 N. Isle View Road, Spirit Lake, Idaho 83869) Tentative Topics; .Revised Council 2005 Goal on Wastewater; Council identifies budget goals for 2006; Report on Wastewater activities by Dick Denenny; Memo on 2005 Workplan status; Updated Financial Forecast; Customer Service June 14, 2005, Regular Meeting 6:00 p.m. [due date Thursday, June 2] 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) 2006 - 2011— Neil Kersten [15 minutes]_ 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Closed Record Hearing on Appeals APP 01 -05 & APP 02- 05—Cary Driskell [60 inins] 3. Consent Agenda: Minutes, Claims, Payroll, Local Agency Agreement & Fed Aid Project; Motion to Replace Diving Boards; Resolution to Waive Bidding Requirements [5 minutes] 4. Second Reading Proposed Sign Ordinance — Marina Sukup [15 minutes] 5. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance, STV 01 -05 Street Vacation — Marina Sukup [10 minutes] 6. Proposed Resolution: Adopting the TIP for 2006 -2011- Neil Kersten [10 minutes] 7. Proposed Resolution: Amending the Fee Resolution (CenterPlace Fees) — Mike Jackson [10 minutes] 8. Motion Consideration: Law Enforcement 2005 Agreement —Nina Regor /Cal Walker [10 minutes] 9. Administrative Report: b. Community Development Block Grant Program Update — Marina Sukup [10 minutes] [estimated meeting: 145 minutes #] June 21, 2005, NO COUNCIL HEFTING OR STUDY SESSION June 21 -24 AWC 2005 Annual Conference, Tri- Cities June 28, 2005, Regular Meeting 6:00 p.m. [due date Thursday, Julie 16] 1. Consent Agenda: Minutes, Claims, Payroll [5 minutes] 2. Second Reading Proposed Helmet Ordinance — Cary Driskell [10 minutes] 3. First Reading Proposed Ordinance, STV 02 -05 Street Vacation — Marina Sukup [10 minutes] 4. First Reading Proposed Ordinance, Hearing Examiner — Cary Driskell [15 minutes] 5. First Reading Proposed Ordinance, STV 03 -05 Street Vacation — Marina Sukup [10 minutes] 6. Motion Consideration: Community Development Block Grant Program Decision — Marina Sukup[15 min] 7. Motion Consideration: Pavement Cut Policy —Neil Kersten [15 minutes] 8. Administrative Reports: a. Animal Control Update —Nancy Hill [20 minutes] b. Outside Agencies' Presence at CenterPlace — Mike Jackson [15 minutes] 9. Infonnation Only: a. Departmental Monthly Reports; b. Planning Commission Minutes ]estimated meeting: 115 minutes *] July 5, 2005 No Meeting /No Study Session Draft Advance Agenda 6t2/2005 9:27 AM Page 1 of 4 July 12, 2005, Regular Meeting 6:00 p.m. 1. Public Hearing: Cable Franchise — Morgan Koudelka (tentative) 2. Consent Agenda: Minutes, Claims, Payroll 3. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance, STV 02 -05 Street Vacation — Marina Sukup 4. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance, Hearing Examiner — Cary Driskell 5. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance, STV 03 -05 Street Vacation — Marina Sukup 6. Administrative Reports: a. LID/RID (Local Improvement District, Road Improvement District) Presentation — Cary Driskell/Neil Kersten b. Tents & Membrane Structures — Tom Scholtens [30 minutes] [10 minutes] c. Definitions and schedules of permitted uses — Marina Sukup [15 minutes] [estimated meeting: 105 minutes *] July 19, 2005, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. 1. Core Values — Nina .Regor 2. PrismlPlus/Padal (Parcel Data Locator) System — Dawn Dompicr, Chris Berg 3. Permitting On -line — Tom Scholtens 4. Update on Development Process, Fee Structure —Nina Regor 5. Massage Parlors/Bath Houses — Cal Walker /Cary Driskell July 26, 2005, Regular Meeting, 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda: Minutes, Claims, Payroll 2. First Reading Proposed.Ordinance, Storage Tanks — Tom Scholtens 3. Administrative Report: a. Governance Manual Committee Report 4. Appleway Signage —Neil Kersten 5. Information Only: a. Departmental Monthly Reports; b. Planning Commission Minutes August 2, 2005, No Study Session or Council Meeting (National "Night Out ") [due date Thursday, June 30 [15 minutes] [5 minutes] [10 minutes] [10 minutes] [10 minutes] ]due date Thursday, July 7] (60 minutes) (15 minutcs) (15 minutes) (15 minutes) (15 minutes) TOTAL MINUTES:120 minutes [due date Thursday, July 14] [5 minutes] [15 minutes] [15 minutes] (15 minutes) [estimated meeting: 50 minutes *] August 9, 2005, Regular Meeting, 6:00 p.m. [due date Thursday, July 28] 1. Consent Agenda: Minutes, Claims, Payroll [5 minutes] 2. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance, Storage Tanks — Tom Scholtens [ 15 minutes] 3. Administrative Reports: a. Hazard Mitigation Plan (Resolution ?) — Marina Sukup [ 15 minutes] August 16, 2005 — Joint CounciUPlanning Commission ]due date Thursday, August 4] Presentation of Comprehensive Plan Planning Commission Recommended Draft August 23, 2005, Regular Meeting, 6:00 p.m. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: 2006 Revenues, including property taxes 2. Consent Agenda: Minutes, Claims, Payroll 3. Resolution: November Ballot Measure — Chris Bainbridge 4. Council sets preliminary budget hearings for Oct 11; final public hearing for Oct 25 5. Presentation of Preliminary Budget — Dave Mercier 6. Information Only: a. Departmental Monthly Reports; b. Planning Commission Minutes [estimated meeting: 55 minutes *] Draft Advance Agenda 6/2/2005 [due date Thursday, August 11] [10 minutes] [5 minutes] [5 minutes] [5 minutes] [30 minutes] 9:27 AM - Page 2 of 4 August 30, 2005, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. [due date Thursday, August 18] Outside Agencies Presentation September 6, 2005, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. General Budget Discussion — Dave Mercier (30 minutes) September 13, 2005, Regular Meeting, 6:00 p.m. 1. 1 Public Hearing on the Comprehensive Plan Planning Commission Recommended Draft 2. Consent Agenda: Minutes, Claims, Payroll 3. Administrative Report: September 15, 2005, Tentative Special Meeting 2" Public Hearing on the Comprehensive Plan Planning Commission Recommended Draft September 20, 2005, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. Continuation of 2 " Public Hearing on the Comprehensive Plan Planning Commission Recom necessary), and begin Council deliberation (dedicate the whole meeting) September 27, 2005, Regular Meeting, 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda: Minutes, Claims, Payroll 2. Departments present highlights of 2006 budget 3. Administrative Report: a. General Budget Discussion — Dave Mercier 4. information Only: a. Departmental Monthly Reports; b. Planning Commission Minutes [estimated meeting: October 4, 2005, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. Council deliberation on the Comprehensive Plan Planning Commission Recommended Draft October 11, 2005, Regular Meeting, 6:00 p.m. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Budget 2. Consent Agenda: Minutes, Claims, Payroll [5 minutes] 3. First reading property tax ordinance [estimated meeting: — minutes *] October 12, 2005, Conversation with the Community, CenterPlace, Room 114, 6:00 p.m. October 18 2005, Study Session, 6:00 Budget Discussion — Dave Mercier Council deliberation on the Comprehensive Plan Planning Commission Recommended Draft November 1, 2005, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. November 8, 2005, Regular Meeting, 6:00 p.m. I . Consent Agenda: Minutes, Claims, Payroll 2. Second reading ordinance adopting budget 3. Adoption of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Draft Advance Agenda 612/2005 9:27 AM Page 3 of 4 [5 minutes] mended Drc ft (if [5 minutes] [30 minutes] minutes*] (150 minutes) (30 minutes) (120 minutes) October 25, 2005, Regular Meeting, 6:00 p.m. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Final Budget Hearing [5 minutes] 2. Public Hearing (tentative—only if Council considers substantive changes to the. Planning Comm.Rccommended draft) [5 mint 3. Consent Agenda: Minutes, Claims, Payroll 4. Second reading of property tax ordinance 5. First reading of ordinance adopting budget 6. Fee Resolution adopted 7. Information Only: a. Departmental Monthly Reports; b. Planning Commission Minutes [estimated meeting: 45 minutes *] [5 minutes] [10 minutes] [10 minutes] [10 minutes] November 1.5, 2005, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. November 22, 2005 — No Meeting November 29, 2005, Regular Meeting 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda: Minutes, Claims, Payroll 2. Departmental Monthly Reports; b. Planning Commission Minutes [estimated meeting: minutes*] December 6, 2005, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. December 13, 2005, Regular Meeting, 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda: Minutes, Claims, Payroll 2. Departmental Monthly Reports December 20, 2005, Study Session, 6:00 p.m. December 27, 2005, No Meeting OTHER PENDING AND /OR UPCOMING ISSUES: Central Valley School District Impact Fee Request School Districts Joint Meeting Second Reading Proposed Sidewalk Ordinance 04 -012 — (first reading 02- 24 -04) . Panhandling — Cal Walker Regional Stormwater Design Manual — John I-iohman Street Paving Funding Option — Neil Kersten (Gary Schimmels) Sewer Collection Systems — Neil Kersten Governance Manual July 11, 2005 - First day candidate filings by mail may be accepted by County July 25, 2005 — First day for all candidates to file for office July 29, 2005 — Last Day for candidates to file for office MEETINGS TO 13F SCHEDULED 1 open house — wastewater issues (To Be Announced) [* estimated meeting time does not include time for public comments] Draft Advance Agenda 6/2/2005 9:27 AM Page 4 of 4 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: June 7, 2005 City Manager Sign -off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business new business ❑ public hearing 0 information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE : "Walk Across Washington" GOVERNING LEGISLATION: N/A PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: None BACKGROUND: An Association of Washington Cities event done in partnership with municipalities to emphasize city workers wellness and to celebrate health in the community. Cities host a 3 mile walk segment to showcase city parks and trails. There are 60 to 80 locations statewide. OPTIONS: The City of Spokane Valley can decide to participate or not. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Council consensus to place on the June 14, 2005 consent agenda. BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Estimated cost is $85 - $100. Funds are available in the Recreation Budget. The AWC is handling participant registration and contributes ,materials toward the marketing of the event; participants are not charged a fee for participating in the event. STAFF CONTACT: Audra Sims /Mike Jackson ATTACHMENTS A one page information sheet regarding the event: "Walk Across Washington" "Walk Across Washington" In partnership with and promoted by the Association of Washington Cities Event Date: One day the week of October 9 —15` Commitment Date:. Partnering cities need to sign -on by June 24 Overview: A statewide event to celebrate health and showcase city parks and trails. Target audience is city employees. Secondary audience is the community. Each city hosts a 3 mile walk segment; Mayors and Council Members are encouraged to participate. More Information: A City's Financial Obligation: A City's Liability: Walk Across Washington www.walkwashineton.org The event occurred once prior in 2002 with 1,500 taking part statewide. Some changes in the administration of the event will be implemented this year; for example, no registration fee will be charged. It will be free to all participants. The Association of Washington Cities will handle the event organization electronically, thus eliminating mailing costs. Also AWC will have sponsor support for marketing and for participant recognition items. *Bottled water for participants. Cost: $84.50, for 300. *OPTIONAL: Glow sticks for 300, $273.75 *Local event staff time to organize/promote the event (marketing materials provided by AWC) *Beyond those two basics, any grander ideas and associated spending is agency /city determined Our liability /risk would be the same as any similar recreation event. Participants sign a liability waiver as part of the registration process with AWC. WCIA has been contacted and notified of the event. City Provides: Date/Time; Route; Facilities; Local event coordinator; Local volunteers; Water; Glow sticks (optional if dusk) AWC Provides: Website; Registration; Pre -event fitness preparation information; Post -event contact with participants; Secures sponsor(s) for t- shirts, marketing/promotional materials pedometer; Walking book and pedometer after the event Memorandum To: Dave Mercier, City Manager CC: Mayor and City Council From: Morgan Koudelka, Administrative Analyst Date: June 7, 2005 Re: Regional ESRI Site License Agreement Introduction History Overview 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 • Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.921.1000 • Fax: 509.921.1008 • cityhall @spokanevalley.org The City has been utilizing ArcView GIS software produced by Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. ("ESRI"). The licenses and maintenance for this software have been purchased through Spokane County. Recently Spokane County entered into a regional enterprise license agreement with ESRI. Spokane County has offered to let the City participate in this agreement and has submitted an interlocal agreement to the City for consideration. The County had some extra licenses of ArcView that they allowed the Cityto use beginning in January 2004. The City was only charged maintenance fees for four ArcView licenses at the cost of $ 1 35.25 per month. Beginning in 2005, the County entered into a regional enterprise license agreement ( "ELA ") with ESRI. The County provided a floating Arcinfo license to the City in January and continued providing the ArcView licenses to the City with the understanding that the City would participate in the enterprise license agreement. The ELA consolidates multi jurisdictional ESRI software usage into one over - arching license that allows all participating jurisdiction to share in the software included in the agreement with ESRI. Such an agreement allows participating jurisdictions to test and utilize many different ESRI products without paying upfront acquisition costs. The license agreement is for five years. The agreement between the City and the County may be terminated at any time with thirty (30) days notice. Regional ESRI Enterprise License Agreement June 7, 2005 Page 2of4 Benefits The enterprise license agreement provides greater flexibility and expanded product availability while stabilizing costs. The City can try out any BSI software available from month -to- month. This capability allows the City to try out ESRI GIS products to determine if they would be beneficial to the City, without incurring the cost of purchasing the software. Floating licenses can be utilized to allow City users to share a license. This is beneficial to employees that are part -time users of GIS software and do not need their own copy of the software. A floating license allows many users to utilize a software license without the cost of individual licenses. The ELA also allows employees to utilize ESRI training through online video and interactive training modules. The training can be viewed an unlimited number of times in a six -month period. The training sessions are allocated out by the County according to the cost allocation percentage and the demand. The benefits of the ELA can be summarized as follows: ■ Greater flexibility • No software purchase costs • Allows software experimentation on month -to -month basis • Included training and user conferences Financial impact The total cost for the Spokane County ESRI enterprise license is $195,000 per year. The County also adds $5,000 per year in administration fees and $16,380 in taxes for a total annual cost of $216,380. The City's portion of the annual cost is determined the first year based on the 2004 ESRI maintenance fees the City paid compared to the total fees paid by all participating agencies. The cost for each year is payable up front so the County charged the City $2,300 in December 2004 for 2005. In subsequent years the City's portion is calculated monthly by determining the City's percentage of the normal maintenance fees associated with the software it is currently using compared to the total maintenance fees of all the participating entities and applying that percentage to the total annual cost of $216,380. The City's current cost is $536.60 /month or $6,439.20 annually. These charges are collected monthly in 2005 so that the 2006 payment can be made by the County in December of 2005. Table 1 (Below) compares the costs associated with four different scenarios for Spokane Valley. Floating licenses can be used by any employee with the software and a license manager installed on the individual's computer. Stand -alone licenses are for one person's use only. Arclnfo comes in floating licenses only. Primary maintenance is charged on the first copy of a license and secondary maintenance is charged on subsequent licenses for a specific type of software. Licenses Software Lltense Costs Primary MaInt. Arclnfo Floating Secondary MaInt. Arclnfo Floating Primary Maint ArcView Single Use Secondary Maint ArcView Single Uso Monthly Annual 3 stand - alone ArcView, 1 floating Arclnfo Current 1 Current 1 2 $ 536.60 $ 6,439.25 59,621.50 534,500.00 Primary Secondary Primary Secondary 54,700.00 $29,200.00 $ 15,053.70 • Maint Maint. Maint. Maint 534,500.00 55,900.00 $40,400.00 $ 18,730.60 Arclnfo Arclnfo ArcView ArcView Option 3 544,500.00 Licenses 551,600.00 Floating Floating Floating Floating Monthly Annual 3 floating ArcViow, 1 floating Arclnfo Option 1 1 1 2 $ 627.24 $ 7,526.85 3 floating Arc-View, 2 floating Arclnfo Option 2 1 1 1 • 2 $ 780.44 $ 9,365.30 3 floating ArcView, 3 floating Arclnfo Option 3 1 2 1 . 2 $ 930.97 $ 11.171.60 Product Software Lltense Costs 2nd Year Maintenance Costs 2 -yoar Total Spokane County ESRI ELA 2 -Year Total 2 -Year Savings 5 -year Total Spoke no County ESRI ELA 5 -Year Total 5 -Yoar Savings Year 1 Year 2 Current 518,500.00 $4,000.00 522,500.00' 5 12,878.50 59,621.50 534,500.00 $ 32,196.25 $2,303.75 Option 1 $24,500.00 54,700.00 $29,200.00 $ 15,053.70 $14,146.30 543,300.00 $ 37,634.25 55,665.75 Option 2 534,500.00 55,900.00 $40,400.00 $ 18,730.60 521,669.40 558,100.00 $ 46,826.50 $11,273.50 517,042.00' Option 3 544,500.00 57,100.00 551,600.00 $ 22,343.20 _ $29,256.80 $72,900.00 5 55,858.00 Product License Primary Maint. Secondary Maint. Floating Arclnfo $14,000.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 1,200.00 Stand -alone ArcView $ 1,500.00 $ 400.00 $ 300.00 Floating ArcView $ 3,500.00 $ 700.00 $ 500.00 Regional ESRI Enterprise License Agreement June 7, 2005 Page 3 of 4 Table 1. Comparative Spokane Valley Costs of ELA GIS Options If the City desires to continue to utilize ESRI GIS software but does not wish to participate in ' the ELA, it would have to purchase the software and licenses and choose whether to purchase maintenance. Maintenance ensures that the City receives software updates to maintain compatibility and provides technical support from ESRI. The costs for the software licenses and maintenance if the City did not participate in the ELA agreement are presented in Table 2 (Below). Table 2. City purchase of GIS Software. If the City purchased its own software it could not try out software on a trial basis nor drop and add licenses on.an as- needed basis. Table 3 (Below) takes a comparative look at the costs associated with the ELA versus the costs associated with the City purchasing ESRI GIS software on its own. Table 3. Cost Comparison of ELA versus to -House Purchase Costs are compared at two -year and five -year timeframes. The maintenance fees for the first year are included in the purchase price if the City purchased the software on its own. The maintenance fees under the in -house purchase option are less than the annual ELA charge but it would take many years to nvercomc the initial outlay for the license purchase. The more software that is acquired the longer the timeframe necessary to catch the ELA cost. Regional ESRi Enterprise License Agreement June 7, 2005 Page 4 of 4 The cost calculation in this memorandum for the E:LA assumes that other participating entities remain static in regard to the number of licenses they are using. If the other agencies increase their number of ESIZI licenses it will reduce Spokane Valley's proportionate share and the resultant cost. Conclusion I conducted a search for any negative comments associated with the ESR.I enterprise license and was unable to locate any. The U.S.D.A, the Department of the Interior, the National Association of Conservation Districts, and many other public entities are utilizing this license arrangement. The flexibility and abundance of software available through this enterprise would seem to make it a worthwhile investment, and the availability to many users in the city that can also take advantage of training greatly increase the benefits of such an agreement. The City can withdraw from the agreement at any time with thirty days notice so there does not seem to be much risk of getting locked into an undesirable agreement. The options available to the City are: 1. Participate in the Enterprise License Agreement with the County 2. Purchase and maintain own GIS software 3. Operate without any GiS software It is my recommendation that the City participate in the regional enterprise license agreement. Staff has placed this item on the June 14 Consent Agenda for Council consideration.