2009, 01-13 Regular Meeting
AMENDEn AGENDA
SPOkANT N%ALLEYCITY COLTl~,`CIL
REGULAR NIEETING
Council Meeting #151
Tuesday, JanuAry 13, 2009 6:00 p.m.
Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers
11707 E Sprague Avenue
Cvunci! Requesls Please Silence Your Cell Plrones During Council Meeting
CALL TO ORDER:
INVOCATION: Pastor Manuel Denning of Fountain Ministries
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
ROLL CALL:
APPROV 4L OF AGENDA:
INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS:
CONflVQTTEE. BOARD, LIAISON SIiM[MARY REPORTS:
MAYOR'S REPORT:
PUBLIC COMMENTS: This is an opportunity for the public to speak on any subject not on the agenda
for action. When }tou come to the podium, please state your name and address for the record and limit
remarks to three minutes.
1. CONSENT AGENDA: Consists of items considered routine which are approved as agroup. A
Councilmember may remove an item from the Consent Agenda to be considered separately.
a. Claim Voucher List # 16242 16293, $3,113,928.59
b. Payroll for pay period ending December 31, 2008: $342,334.54
c. Approval of Public Defender Re-Licensing Amendment
cl. Approval of Council Study Session Meeting Minutes oF December 16, 2008
e. Approval of Council Special Emergency Meeting Minutes of December 23, 2008
f. Approval of Council Regular Meeting Minutes of December 30, 2008
g. Approval af Council Retreat Meeting Minutes of January 5, 2009
Resotation 09-001 Deeiarin2 Fnteraencv Cunditions Ahated - Cary Driskel) (public comnient]
AD N1 I ti' Is"I'RATIVE REPORTS:
2. Dist-rict ourt - Cary Driskell
3. Transportation Infrastrvcture Stimulus Projects - Diana Wilhite
4. DELIBER.A►TION: Sprague/Appleway Revitalization Plan - Scott Kuhta
INFORMt1TION ONLl': Ratification of _a[licndments tci GNtA ,loint Planning lnterlocal 11greemEnt
5. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Pending Litigation
ADJOURNMENT
\`OTICE: Individuals planning to attend the meeting who require special assistance to aeeommodate physical, hearing, or other
impairments, ple~ce contact the City Clerk at (509) 921-1000 as soon as possible so that arrangements may be made.
Council Agenda 01-13-09 [tegular Mecting Pac;. I of 1
_ ~
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: January 13, 2009 City Manager Sign-off.
Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ~ new business ❑ public
hearing ❑ information ❑ admin report ❑ pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Resolution 09-001 declaring emergency conditions abated.
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 38.52 and RCW 35A 33
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN. Proclamation of emergency under Resolution 08-023
on December 23, 2008.
BACKGROUND: On December 23, the City Council passed Resolution 08-023 declaring that
emergency conditions existed in the City due to a series of severe winter weather events. After
consultation with fire, police, road and school officials, the Council has determined that those
conditions have abated sufficiently to declare the emergency over.
OPTIONS: Pass Resolution 09-001; request additional information from staff.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: I move that we pass Resolution 09-001 declaring that
the emergency conditions which gave rise to the passage of Resolution 08-023 have abated.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: NA .
STAFF CONTACT: Dave Mercier, City Manager; Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney
ATTACHMENTS Proposed Resolution 09-001
CITY OF SPOK:ANE VALLEY
SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON
RESOLUTION NO. 09-001
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY,
WASHINGTON, REi VOHII~TG THE EMERGENCY SPENDING AUTHORITY ANll
DECLARING THAT TFIE CONDITIONS GIVING RISE TO EMERGENCY PROCLAMATION
ADOPTED THROUGH CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY RESOLUTION NO. 08-023 ON
DECEMBER 23, 2008, HAVE ABATED.
WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley issued an emergency proclamation on December 23,
2008, due to a series of severe winter storms beginning December 17, 2008 at approximately 1•00 p.m.,
which deposited very significant amounts of snow on the City, and because the weather forecasts
anticipated significant additional snow over the next five days, conditions which severely disrupted the
health, safety and welfare within the City of Spokane Valley and caused extensive damage in parts of the
City of Spokane Valley; and
WIHEREAS, based upon updated reports from police, fire, meteorological and road officials, the
City Council believes the conditions whicll gave rise to the need fio issue the emergency proclamation
have abated, and that it is now appropriate to pass a resolution proclaiming that the conditions have
abated.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Spokane Valley City Council that:
SECTION 1- Purpose and intent. The purpose and intent of this Resolution is to declare that
the conditions which gave rise to the emergency proclamation on December 23, 2008, have abated in the
City of Spokane Valley.
SECTION 2- Authoritv for emer2encv spendinQ revoked. Any emergency powers authorized
by Washington State law for the expenditure of public funds by the City in the interest of protecting the
health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the City is hereby revoked. This Resolution is not intended to
restrict any other statutory authority the City may have for expenditure of public funds.
SECTION 3 Effective Date. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect upon adoption.
DATED this day of January, 2009.
Richard Munson, Mayor
ATTEST:
Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk
Approved as to Form:
Office of the City Attorney
Resolution 09-001 Revoking Previous Emergency Declaration Page 1 of 1
.
q 2i r
1 YOv L 6 2008
November 24, 2008
C' tY Oll ~ ~ v^ ~ 1
MEMO TO: Board of County Commissioners and
Mayors of Cities and Towns in Spokane County
RE: Ratification of the Amendments to the GMA loint Planning Interlocal Agreement
At its November 19, 200$ meeting the Steering Comniittee of Elected Of~'icials reviewed
amendments recommended by its subcommittee and voted unanimously to alnend the
Interlvcal Agreement clarifyi.ng its operational procedures as follows:
Paee 3:
1. Typographical Error (Remove inconect text)
2. Election of Chair and Vice Chair (Establish process for rotation)
3. Ad Hoc Committees (Establish process for committee appouatment)
PaRe 3 and 4:
4. Non Voting Members (Set criteria and define composition)
PaLye 4:
5. Technical and A.dministrative Support (Define role of PTAC and Spokane '
County)
PaQe 6: -
6. Transmittal of 0~'icial Actions (Establish procedure for transmitting actions to
Bocc)
7. Public Participation (A.dopt public paxticipation guidelines)
8. Regular Meetings (Set regular meeting time)
PaQe 8:
9. Clarify the amendment procedure (ratify by each jurisdiction)
The Steering Committee is asking that each jurisdiction ratify the above amendlnents
prior to its next meeting on January 21, 2009, ifpossible. You wili note that the
amendments are intended to improve the operations vf the Steering Committee arad it is
with this in mind, that we ask for your timely response.
Please find the completie Inferlocal Agreement with the amendments indicated in strike
through (deletions) ox underlined (additions) and an attached signature page for you to
sign on behalf of your jurisdiction. Please use the enclosed envelape to return the
signature page to Vickie Merriott, Spokane County Building and Planning Department,
1026 West Broadway Avenue, Spokane, WA 99260.
Thank you for your participation ui this very important regional effort.
Sincerely,
c -
Nancy McLaughlin, Chair
Growth Management Steexing Committee of Elected Officials
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Spokane Valley ratifies amendments to the GMA. Joint
Planning Interlocal Agreement as adopted by the Steering Committee of Elected Officials on
November 19, 2008 as of the date shown below this signature block.
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
1Vlayor Richard Munson
Dated:
~
GMA Joint Planning Interlocal Agreement, as amended and approved October 9, 2003
Recommendations of the Subcommittee of the GMSteering Committee of Elected Officials, October 23, 2008
y
. ~
G r o w t h M a n a g e m e n t A c t
. G-A Joint
Planni*ng
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
THIS INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT, is entered into by and among the cities of Ainvay
Heights, Cheney, Deer Park, Fairfield, Latah, Medical Lake, Millwood, Rockford, Spangle, Liberty
Lake, Spokane Valley, Spokane, and Waverly, hereinafter sometimes jointly referred to as "Cities
and the County of Spokane, somefiimes hereinafter referred to as the "County," jointly, hereinafter
refened to along with the Cities as the "Parties," or "Jurisdictions."
FURTHERMORE, THIS INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT, having been finalized at the
Novernber 19, 2008 Steering Committee meeting, will replace the GMA Joint Planning Interlocal
Agreement, as amended, and originally adopfied August 24, 1995 by Resolution 94-1686.
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of RCW Section 36.70A.210, the legislative
authority of a county that plans under the Growth Management Act (Gti1A) shall adopt a
Countywide planning policy or policies in cooperation with the Cities located in whole or in part
within the County; and
WHE REAS, the Parties realize the Countywide Planning Policies call for the continued
collaboration and cooperation among the parties in their respective obligations under the Growth
Management Act (GMA) to adopt comprehensive plans and development regulations implementing
such plans; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of RCW Section 36.70A.110, each county that is
reqtiired or chooses to plan under the Grovvtih Management Act (GMA) shall designate an urban
growth area or areas in consultationlagreement with cities within which urban growth shall be
encouraged and outside of which growth can occur only if it is not uxban in nature; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of chapter 39.34 RCW, fiwo or more public agencies
may enter into agreements with one another for joint or cooperative action; and
GAIA Jotn! Plammng Interlocal Agreemenl, as amended and approved October 9, 1003
Recommendations of the Subcommittee of the GMSteertng Committee of Elected Officials, October 23, 2008
4
~
✓
WHEREAS, pursuant to the above-cited statutory provisions, the parties hereto desire to
enter into an interlocal cooperation agreement pursuant to which the parties will (1) establish a
Steering Committee of elected officials and other comYnittees to perform certain duties and provide
recommendations to the Parties in conjunction with their respective obligations under the Growth
Management Act (GMA); (2) establish the responsibilities of the Steering Committee of elected
officials and other committees; (3) establish a process to amend the adopted Countywide Planning
Policies; (4) establish a distribution formula for grant funds received from Washington State
Department of Commerce, Trade and Economic Development or its successor for growth
management; and (5) provide for other matters related to the preceding items.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual obligations hereinafter set
forth, and as authorized by chapter 39.34 RCW, RCW Section 36.70A.210 and RCW Section
36.70A.110, tlae parties hereto do mutually agree as follows:
Section 1: PURPOSE
The parties hereto recognize that it is in the public's interest that local governments cooperate with
each other and coordinate their respective obligations for planning under the Growth Management
Act (GiMA.). The Growth Management Act (GMA) mandates that the County adopt Countywide
Planning Policies in cooperation with cities located in whole or in part within the cou.nty.
Addifiionally, the Growth Management Act (GMA) mandates that the County designate urban
growth areas in cooperafiion and consultation with Cities lArithin the County.
The parties have entered into prior interlocal cooperation agreement(s) establishing a collaborative
process for the adoption of Countywide Planning Policies and related matters. These interlocal
agreement(s) terminate upon the County's adoption of Countywide Planning Policies. The parties
now desire to enter into another interlocal agreement which will continue the cooperative and
collaborative process in conjunction with their respective obligations Lulder the Growth Management
Act (GMA). The purpose of this interlocal agreement is to (1) establish a steering committee of
elected officials and other committees to perform certain duties and provide recommendations to the
parties in conjunction with their respective obligations under the Growth Management Act (GMA);
(2) establish the responsibilities of the steering committee of elected officials and other committees,
(3) establish a process to amend the adopted Countywide Planning Policies; (4) establish a
distribution formula fox grant funds received from the Washington State Department of Commerce,
Trade and Economic Development or its successor for growth management; and (5) provide for
other matters related to the prcceding items.
GM4 Jotnt Planning Interlocal Agreemenl, as amended and approved October 9, 2003 j
Recommendations of the Subcon:mtttee of the GMSteering Committee of Elected Officials, October 23, 2008
~
Section 2: ESTABLISHN.ENT OF STEEI2ING COMMITTEE OF ELECTED
OFFICIALS, EX-OFFICIO MEMBERS THEREOF, AND A TECHNICAL
SUPPORT COMMITTEE
There is hereby established a steering committee of elected officials, hereinafter referred to as the
Steering Committee, having those responsibilities set forth in Section 3 hereof. The Steering
Committee sha11 consist of three (3) County Commissioners from the Spokane County Boaxd of
Commissioners, three (3) elected officials from the City of Spokane, two (2) elected officials from
the City of Spokane Valley, one (1) elected official each from Liberty Lake, Airway Heights,
Cheney, lleer Park, Medical Lake and Millwood; and one (1) elected official to represent the five
towns of Fairfield, Latah, Rockford, Spangle and Waverly. Representatives will be selected by the
legislative bodies of each jurisdiction in any manner they choose. Jurisdictions may also appoint
alternates, who must be an elected official. Alternates may vote during the absence of the regular
representative.
The Steering Committee will strive for consensus on all matters; however, when a vote is requixed,
each member shall have one vote and a majoriry ef 24 of the voting members in attendance is
required for a motion to succeed, unless otherwise specified within this interlocal agreement. In
order to conduct business, a quorum must be present; a quorum will consist of a simple majority of
the total Steering Committee voting membership.
The Steering Committee shall at the end of its regular meeting in June of each year, elect from
among its voting members a Chair and Vice Chair, each of whom shall serve for a period of one yeax
and thereafter until their respective successors have been elecfied, but the Chair and Vice Chair may
be removed at any time by a vofie of 2/3 of the total voting membership. The Chair and Vice Chair
shall be elected on a rotational basis in the following order: Spokane County, City of Spokane, City
of Spokane Valley, Small City (under 15,000 pop«lation). The Vice Chair is intended to serve as
Chair the following year. In the event of a vacancy in the Chair or Vice Chair, an election of another
Chair or Vice Chair shall be elected from that same category. In the absence of both the Chair and
Vice Chair at a meeting, a Chair Pro Tem shall be selected by a majority of those members present
to serve as Chair.
Subcommittees of the Steering Committee will be appointed by the Chair as needed on an ad hoc
basis. Ad hoc committees are intended to serve a specific purpose for a limited amount of time. "
In addition to the voting members of the Steering Committee, the Steering Committee shall also
include thxee (3) elected officials as non voting members representing the school districts, water
GMA Joint Plammng Interlocal Agreement, as amended and approved October 9, 2003 2
Recommendatcons of the Subcommcttee of the GMSteering Commcttee of Elected Officrals, October 23, 2008
~i
districts, and fire protection districts-and one (1) citizen-at-large member representing the urban
growth areas of Spokane County. Elected non voting members are nominated by consensus
among their peers and are then appointed by the Steering Committee. The citizen-at-large member
shall be nominated by the Board of County Commissioners and appointed by the Steering
Committee at the applicable 3une meeting for a four-year term.
A Planning Technical Advisory Committee (PTAC) is hereby established to advise and provide
support to the Steering Committee. The PTAC shall consist of the staff personnel of the Parties plus
the Spokane Regional Transportation Council. A Chair for the PTAC will be selected by the PTAC
on an annual basis to chair the PTAC meetings a.nd serve as liaison to the Steering Committee. It is
the intention to rotate the chair of the PTAC among jurisdictions and to share responsibilities for
specific tasks among the PTAC members.
Spokane County Building and Planning Department will serve as the repository for all records of the
Steering Committee and will provide administrative staff to work in conjunction with the Chair to
arrange meetings, prepare agendas and minutes, advertise public hearings, and provide notice and
necessary documents to the Steering Committee.
In the cvent that additional general purpose governmental entities are created through incorporation,
they shall become represented in such number(s) as may be hereafter agreed to by the Steering
Committee on the effective date of their incorporation, and their adoption of this document. In all
subsequent decisions, the number of the Steering Committee members needed to reach a decision
will be adjusted to account for the new member(s). However, prior decisions will not be
reconsidered and re-voted. Such entities sha11 be entitled to a non-voting seat until the official date
of incorporation. The Representatives will be selected by the legislative body in any manner it
chooses.
Section 3: RESPONSIBILITYES OF STEERING COMMITTEE
The Steering Committee, as established under Section 2, will have those responsibilities as set forth
in the Countywide Planning Policies adopted under RCW Section 36.70A.21 0. Rather than repeat
those responsibilities verbatim within this section, the parfiies agreed to generally outline those
responsibilities referencing the exact policy. It is expected that the parties, when necessary, will
look to the exact language when further explanation is necessary of any responsibility set forth
hereinafter. The parties further recognize that from time to time the Countywide Planning Policies
may be amended as provided for in section 4 hereinafter. In instances where such amendments
occur, the parties agree that the responsibilities set forth within this section shall automatically be
GMA Joint Planneng lnterlocal Agreement, as amended and approved October 9, 2003 3
Recominendations oJthe Szibcommittee of the GMSteering Commrtlee ofElected Ojji'clals, October 23, 2008
,
t
,
amended, when applicable, to include such changes wTithout the necessity of formal amendment of
the agreement.
The general outline of Steering Committee responsibilities are as follows:
A. Recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) of Spokane County
The Steering Committee will:
1. establish a date by which each jurisdiction will submit proposals for interim Urban Growth
Areas (IUGAs) (Urban Growth Areas #4).
2. analyze each jurisdiction's interim and final Urban Growth Area (UGA) proposal (Urban
Growth Areas 46).
3. analyze each jurisdiction's UGA amendment proposals and population allocations for
recommendation to the Spokane County Board of County Commissioners.
4. oversee development of a carrying capacity study for regional capital facilities (Promotion
of Contiguous and Orderly Developrnent and Provision of Urban Services #8).
5. recommend allocation of population growth to jurisdictions (Promotion of Contiguous and
OYderly Development and Provision of Urban Services #9).
6. review amendment proposals to the Countywide Planni.ng Policies andlor UCrAs (interlocal
agreement).
B. Recommendations to all the jurisdictions
The Steering Committee will:
1. specify minimum levels of service (Uyban Gr•owth Areas 92 and Promotion of Contiguous
and Orderly Development and Provision of Urban Services #1).
2. establish employment projections and ratios in cooperation with the Spokane area business
community (Urban Growth Areas #9).
3. develop regionally consistent programs to protect natural resource lands, critical areas, and
open space (Urban Growth Areas #1 S).
4. oversee preparation of a regional utility corridor plan (Promotion of Contiguous and
Or•derly Development and Provision of Urban Services #11).
5. identify or establish siting and service delivery criteria to locate essential public facilities
(Siting of Capital Facilities of a Countywide or State wide Natur•e #2).
6. establish a process for distributing essential public facilities among jurisdictions (Siting of
Capital Facilities of a Countywide or State-wide Nature 93)
C. Miscellaneous responsibilities
The Steering Committee will:
1. prepare a regional formula to designate and acqu.ire public access to open space corridors
(Promotion of Contiguous and Orderly Development and Provision of Urban Services #4).
2. pursue strategies for regional water resource management (Promotion of Contiguous and
Orderly Development and Provision of Uyban SeYVices #14).
GiVA Joint Planntng Interlocal Agreement, as amended and approved October 9, 2003 ¢
Recommendations of the Sicbcommittee of the GMSteering Commtttee of Eleclecl Ojftcials, October 23, 2008
3. promote a proactive planning approach between `Vashington and Idaho to establish
uniform environrnental protection measures (Economic Development #6).
D. Official Actions
All official actions of the Steering Committee shall be reduced to writing and incorporated in the
official minufies and signed by the Chair. Recommendations from the Steering Committee shall
be transmitted to the Board of County Commissioners by a letter from the Chair of the Steering
Committee and shall include the motion and vote of the Committee including an indication of
which members supported and which did not support the motion.
E. Public Participation Guidelines
The Steering Committee will use the Public Participation Program Guidelines adopted by the
Board of County Commissioners on February 24, 1998 and as amended on September 29, 1998.
F. Regular Meeting
The Steering Committee will set a regular meeting time, date, and place on or before its 3uly
meeting of each year.
Section 4: AlYiiNDMEI'+1TS TO THE C0UN7['YWIlDIE JPI,ANNING POLICZES
Upon initial adoption of Countywide Planriing Policies by the Board of County Commissioners of
Spokane County pursuant to the provisions of RCW Section 36.70A.210, the Parties agree that such
adopted Countywide Planning Policies may be amended only through the following procedures:
1. 7'he Countywide Planning Policies may be reviewed and amendments considered, as
appropriate, once every five years following the initial adoption date of the Countywide Planning
Policies and each successive five year period thereafter. Arriendment proposals must be
submitted for Steering Committee consideration by a voting member af the Steering Committee.
Mernbers of the general public must submit amendment proposals through a voting member of
the Steering Committee. All such amendmenfis shall be considered concurrently so the
cumulative effect of each individual proposal can be ascertained.
2. The Countiywide Pla.n.nang Policies may be reviewed and amended more frequently than
prescribed in paragraph #1 above. Such amendment proposals must be submitted for Steering
Committee consideration by a voting member of the Steering Committee. Members of the
GMA Joint Plannrng Interlocal Agreement, as amended and approved October 9, 2003 5
Recommendations of tl:e Subcommittee of the GM Steering Committee of Elected OJf ctals, Qctober 23, 2008
~
general public must submit amendment proposals thxough a voting member of the Steering
Committee. The Steering Committee must pass a motion by an affirmative vote of 2/3 of the
total voting membership in order to place such an amendment proposal before the Steei-uig
Committee for review and recommendation. The Steering Committee may establish criteria to
help assess the need for processing such amendments.
3. The process of amending the Countywide Planning Policies shall be consistent with the
Growth Management Act (GMA) provisions for original adoption of the Countywide Planning
Policies. The Steering Committee in reviewing and making recommendations on proposed
arnendments to the Countywide Planning Policies shall take into consideration the intent that
Countywide Planning Policies axe a written policy statement or statements used solely for
establishing a Countywide framework from which county and city comprehensive plans are
developed, amended, and adopted. As such, each jurisdiction's comprehensive plan relies upon
the long term goal or vision statement of each policy. There is an expectation of policy stability
which must be weighed, along with the impact to each jurisdiction's comprehensive plan, when
considering an amendment to the Countywide Planning Policies.
4. The Steering Committee shall establish procedures for processing, reviewing, and
recommending amendments to the Countywide Planning Policies.
5. The Steering Committee's recommendation or action on each and every amendment proposal
shall be forwarded, together with all amendment proposals to the Board of County
Commissioners in order for the Board to have the benefit of considering the amendment
proposal(s) concurrently so the cumulative effect of each individual proposal can be ascertained.
Section 5: TERM, AMENDMENT, OR TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT
The term of this interlocal agreement shall commence upon the County's adoption of the
Countywide Planning Policies as provided for in RCW Section 36.70A.210.
This interlocal agreement may be amended or terminated by an affirmative vote of 2/3 of the total
voting membership of the Steering Committee and ratified be each jurisdiction.
Section 6: FUNDING
GMA Jornt Planning Interlocal Agreement, as amended and approved October 9, 2003 6
fZecomrnendations of the Subcommcttee of the GMSteering Committee ojElected Officials, Qctober 23, 2008
~
Grant funds received frorn the Washington Stafe Departrnent of Comrnez~~e., Trade and Econornic
Development ar its successor for Growth Management Act (GMA) responsibilities shall be
distr~b-uted to the Parties pursuant to a distributian formula mutually agreed upon. Priar to the end of
each f scal year, the distributian fomiula will be r~-~,,valuated. Factors included in such re-evaluation
wi11 include per capita a1locatian based on the annual Office of Finaucial Management estimate of
population and the prajected need fox multi-juxisdictivnal progzams requiring special skills
consultants.
Secfion 7: GENERAI1 x'~OVIS~ONS
1. Upon terminatxon of#hzs interlocal agreement, all real or personal property acquired by any
of the Parties heretv vvi,th monies which they have respectively received under Section G herein
above, shall remain the sole property of such Farties.
2. The Clerk of the Boazd of County Cammissionezs of Spokane County, sha11, as parovided far
in RCW Section 39.34.040, file an executed capy of this interlocal agreement with the Secretary of
State and Spokane County AuditOr.
3. T'he sectian headings in this interloca1 agreement have been inserted solely far the purpose of
canvenience and ready xeference. 7n no way do they Purport to, and shall not be deemed ta, define,
limit or extend tbescOpe or Intent of the sections to whrch they appertazn.
4. This lnterIacal agreement cantains a11 the texms and conditivns agreed upon by the Paxties.
No other understanchngs, oral ar ~thervuise, regarding the subject matter of this znterlocal agxeernent
shall be deemed to exist or to bind any of the Parties hereto
5. Should {1} any sectxan or portian tliereof ofthis i.nterlacal agreement be held unlawful azld
unenforceable by any court of competent jurisdiction, andlor (2) should the Washizxgtorr Stafie
Legislature adopt any legislation which is subsequently signed by the Covernor affecting any
sections or poztions tliereaf wit.hi-n tia.s interlocal agreement, andlor (3) shauld the qualified
electorate voters approve acoxra.bined Caty-County form of governmerrt as pz-ovided fva- in
Amendment 58 ofthe Washingtan State Canstitution, the PaCt1e5 agree tQ lmmediate].y meet and
amend this interlocal agreement as may be deerned necessary.
GAMJowt Plannang lnterlocal Agreernenc, As arnended arrd appraved Ocrober 9. 2003 7
RLCommertdadar3nS of lhe FSu bCOmm atteE of thL GMSteert ng COmm i lte2 OfEIecfed Offrcz ads, Octaber 23. 2 008
AGENDA
SYOKANE VALLEN' CIT1' COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
Council Meeting #151
T'uesdav,.lsnuary 13, 2009 6:00 p.m.
Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers
11707 E Sprague Ar-enue
Coui:cil Reyuests Please Silence Your Cell Phones Duriag Counci! Meeting
CALL TO ORDER:
INVOCATION: Pastor iNanuel llcnning of Fountain Ministries
YLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
ROLL CALL:
API'ROV4L OF AGENDA:
INTRODUCTION OFSPEC14L Gt►ESTS AVD PRFSEiV'TA"t'1015:
COMNiITTEF, BUARU. LI.AISON SUMM.ARY REPORTS:
iViAYOR'S REPORT:
PUBLIC COMMEhTS: This is an opportunity for the public: to speak on any subject not on the agenda
for action. Wiien vou come to the podium, please state your name and address for the record and limit
remarks to three minutes.
1. CONSENT AGENnA: C'onsists of itzms considered routiile Nvhich are approvcd as a group. A
Councilmernber may, remove an item from the Conscnt Agenda ta be considered separately.
a. Claim Voucher List # 16242 16293, $3,113,928.59
h. Payroll for pay period endin ; December 31, 2008: $342,334.54
c. Approval of Public Defender Re-Lieensing Amendment
d. Approval of Council Study Session Meeting Minuies aFDecember 16, 2008
e. Approval of Council Special Emergency Meeting Minutes of December 23, 200$
f. Appraval ofCuuncil Regular Meeting Minutes of December 30, 2008
g. Approval of Council Retreat Meetinq h9inutes of January 5, 2009
ADMINISTKA'I'IVE KEPORTS:
2. Municipal Court - Cary Driskell
3. Transportation lnfrashvcture Stimulus Projects - Diana Wilhite
a. DELIBERATI4N: SpraguelApplewuy Revitalization Plan - Scott Kulita
5. EXECLiTIVE SESSION: Pending Litigation
ADJOi:IRNMEN'T
NOTICE: [ndividuuls planning to attend the mecting «•ro rcquire special assistancc to ncc:ommodate physical, hearing, or other
impairtncnts. please rontact the City Clzrk at (509) 921 -1000 u, sc>on as passible so that arrangcmcn~.ti rrtuy be made.
P:1''` I (?l, I
~
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: January 13, 2009 City Manager Sign-off.
ftem: Check all that apply. Z consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing
❑ information ❑ admin report ❑ pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Approval of the Following Vouchers
BACKGROUND:
~ VOUCHER LIST DATE ~ VOUCHER NOS. I TOTAL VOUCHER AMOUNT
12/22/2008 16242 - 16293 I $884,855.90
12/29/2008 16294 - 16350 $2,229,072.69
1 GRAND TOTAL $3,113,928.59 ,
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Approve claims for vouchers as listed above
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS:
STAFF CONTACT. Ken Thompson
ATTACHMENTS Voucher Lists
vchlist Voucher List Page: 1
1212212008 2:45:22PM Spokane Valley
Bank code : apbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # DescriptionlAccount Amount
16242 1212212008 000958 AAA SUVEEPING, LLC 41496 41987 AAA SWEEPING CONTRACT NO 08 39,572.82
Total : 39,572.82
16243 12/22/2008 001534 ALL PRINT 11570 BUSINESS CARDS/NAME PLATES 99.80
11576 BUSINESS CARDS/NAME PLATES 3562
Total : 135.42
16244 12/22/2008 001081 ALSCO LSP0525349 MATS: CITY HALL 14.47
Total : 14.47
16245 12/22J2008 000335 ALTON'S TIRE INC. 6-38702 OIL CHANGE: 40205D 64.19
Total : 64.19
16246 12/22/2008 001012 ASSOC BUSINESS SYSTEMS 160729 COPIER COSTS 896.71
227300 FINAL COPIER COSTS 964.36
248482 COPIER COSTS 53.44
262012 COPIER COSTS 258.01
262013 COPIER COSTS 299.63
262014 COPIER COSTS 90.97
262029 COPIER COSTS 105.64
266266 COPIER COSTS 34.77
266413 COPIER COSTS 54.51
SP1119 COPIER COSTS 108.98
SP1119 COPIER COSTS 163.99
SP1119 COPIER COSTS 111.15
Total : 3,142.16
16247 12/22/2008 001026 BIG BROTHERS-BIG SISTERS Refund REFUND DAMAGE DEPOSIT 120.00
, Total : 120.00
16248 12/22/2008 000173 BINGAMAN, GREG Cell Allowance 4TH QTR 2008: CELL 105.00
Total : 105.00
16249 12/2212008 000796 BUDINGER & ASSOC INC P08335-1 42226 GEOTECH. EXPL. & PAVEMENT DE 4,180.00
P08335-2 42226 GEOTECH. EXPL. & PAVEMENT DE 2,680.00
Total : 6,860.00
Page: 1
vchlist Voucher List Pa9e: 2
1212212008 2:45:22PM Spokane Valley
Bank code : apbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # DescriptionlAccount Amount
16250 12/22/2008 000379 CIN OF SPOKANE VALLEY 05982 PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 0.50
05984 PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 0.75
05985 PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 15.20
05987 PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 0.50
05989 PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 9.23
05991 PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 1.00
05992 PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 1.00
05993 PEfTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 2.33
05996 PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 1.00
05997 PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 3.00
05998 PETTY CASH REIMBURSEMENT 3.00
Total : 37.51
16251 1212212008 001888 COMCAST 8498390050988390 DEC 08: INTERNET SERVICES 108.95
Total : 108.95
16252 12/22/2008 000035 CORPORATE EXPRESS 195151393-001 42208 KITCHEN SUPPLIES 176.96
Total : 176.96
16253 12/22/2008 001603 DEMPSEY, ROSE Cell Allowance 4TH QTR 2008: CELL 135.00
Total : 135.00
16254 12/2212008 000060 DENENNY, RICHARD Cell Allowance 4TH QTR 2008: CELL 135.00
Expenses TRAVEL EXPENSES: NLC 2,193.47
Total : 2,328.47
16255 12l2212008 000693 DEPT OF INFO SERVICES 2008110199 NOV 08: MASTER LICENSE 1,787.43
Total : 1,787.43
16256 12122/2008 001280 DEPT OF LICENSING 00001937 3RD QTR 2008: MLS CREDIT CARD 221.42
Totai : 221.42
16257 12122I2008 001753 DINGUS, ZARECOR & ASSOC 1291 NOV 08: ACCOUNTING SUC 1,820.00
Total : 1,820.00
16258 1212212008 000106 FEDEX 8-998-18482 NOV 08: SHIPPING CHARGES 84.90
Total : 84.90
Page: 2
vchlist . Voucher List Page: 3
1212212008 2:45:22PM Spokane Valley
Bank code : apbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # DescriptionlAccount Amount
16259 12122/2008 001447 FREE PRESS PUBLISHING INC 31344 LEGAL NOTICE 25 00
Total : 25.00
16260 1212212008 001003 GEOENGINEERS INC 0097299 42218 CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS TEST 9,015.25
Total : 9,015.25
16261 12/22/2008 001009 GOTHMANN, WILLIAM Cell Allowance 4TH QTR 2008: CELL 135.00
Total : 135.00
16262 12/2212008 000002 H& H BUSINESS SYSTEMS INC. 177664 COPIES 87.19
177665 COPIES 16.21
178814 COPIES 180.87
178815 COPIES 4.28
178886 COPIES 643.28
178887 COPIES 128.73
178890 COPIES 39.15
178900 COPIES 66.87
178948 COPIES 883.47
178949 COPIES 138.23
178950 COPIES 94.54
178951 COPIES 49.80
178952 COPIES 306.86
178953 COPIES 68.50
178954 COPIES 824.48
178955 COPIES • 165.18
179447 COPIES 55.55
179448 . COPIES 1.79
179485 COPIES 91.96
179486 COPIES 26.02
179488 COPIES 13.30
179508 COPIES 27.79
179564 COPIES 212.81
179565 COPIES 28.11
179568 COPIES 24.66
179569 COPIES 4.62
179570 COPIES 121.18
179571 COPIES 24.74
Page: 3
vchlist VouCher Llst Page: 4
1212212008 2:45:22PM Spokane Valley
Bank code : apbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # DescriptionlAccount Amount
16262 1212212008 000002 H& H BUSINESS SYSTEMS INC. (Continued)
179572 COPIES 240.73
179573 COPIES 56.52
Total : 4,627.42
16263 12/22/2008 000505 H& H FINANCIAL SERVICES INC. 2119 SEPT 08: COPIER LEASE 233.49
2120 SEPT 08: COPIER LEASE 307.34
2121 SEPT 08: COPIER LEASE 412.68
2167 OCT 08: COPIER LEASE 233.71
2168 OCT 08: COPIER LEASE 307.62
2169 OCT 08: COPIER LEASE 413.06
2215 NOV06 COPIER LEASE 233.71
2216 NOV OB: COPIER LEASE 307.62
2217 NOV 08: COPIER LEASE 413.06
2275 DEC 08• COPIER LEASE 233.71
2276 DEC 08: COPIER LEASE 307.62
2277 DEC 06: COPIER LEASE 413.06
Total : 3,816.68
16264 1212212008 000388 IRVIN WATER DIST. #6 10175 42229 SWAL IRRIGATION #0005 31,662.18
Total : 31,662.18
16265 12/2212008 001598 KNIFE RIVER Pmt #8 41953 APPLEWAY AVE #0016 273,484.28
Total : 273,484.28
16266 12/22/2008 001021 IARSON'S DEMOLITION, INC. 908 42227 OLD SR CTR DEMO #0072 37,887.30
Total : 37,887.30
16267 12/2212008 001886 LLOYD'S AUTOMOTIVE A37917 OIL CHANGE: 40208D 25.77
Totai : 25.77
16268 12122/2008 001581 MCCLUNG, KATHY Expenses MISC EXPENSES REIMBURSED 7.60
Total : 7.60
16269 1212212008 000073 MCCORMICK, GREG Expenses TRAVEL EXPENSES 31.06
Total : 31.06
16270 12/2212008 000069 MERCIER, DAVID Cell Allowance 4TH QTR 2008: CELL 135.00
Page: 4
vchlist Voucher List Page: 5
12I2212008 2:45:22PM Spokane Valley
Bank code : apbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # DescriptionlAccount Amount
16270 12/2212008 000069 000069 MERCIER, DAVID (Continuetl) Total : 135.00
16271 12122/2008 000062 MUNSON, RICHARD Cell Allowance 4TH QTR 2008- CELL 135.00
Total : 135.00
16272 12/22/2008 001035 NETWORK DESIGN & MANAGEMENT 16481 NOV 08: SERVER MAINTENANCE 3,632.50
Total : 3,632.50
16273 12/2212008 000652 OFFICE DEPOT INC. 453919442-001 42200 OFFICE SUPPLIES 109.41
453920658-001 42200 OFFICE SUPPLIES: PARKS 166.85
42200
453989378-001 OFFICE SUPPLIES: FIN 12.73
454233147-001 OFFICE SUPPLIES: FIN 31.70
454810774-001 OFFICE SUPPLIES: FIN 61.95
Total : 382.64
16274 12/2212008 000512 OFFICETEAM 22924405 STAFFING SERVICES 652.00
22924406 STAFFING SERVICES 652.00
Total : 1,304.00
16275 12/22/2008 000899 ONEEIGHTY NETWORKS 632885 DEC 08: ETHERNET 832.46
Total : 832.46
16276 12/2212008 001849 PLATEAU ARCHAEOLOGICAL 806 42173 ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATI01 5,258.13
Total : 5,258.13
16277 12122/2008 000019 PURRFECT LOGOS, INC. 22691 VEHICLE GRAPHICS POLICE 6,861.14
Total : 6,861.14
16278 12/2212008 000322 QWEST 509-924-4707 740B PHONES: TERRACE VIEW 101.86
Total : 101.86
16279 12l22I2008 000064 SCHIMMELS, GARY Cell Allowance 4TH QTR 2008: CELL 135.00
Total : 135.00
16280 12122I2008 001892 SKILLINGS CONNOLLY INC 5448 42230 REAL ESTATE SERVICES CIP 0088 4,861.91
Total : 4,861.91
Page: 5
vchlist Voucher List Page: 6
1212212008 2:45:22PM Spokane Valley
Bank code : apbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # DescriptionlAccount Amount
16281 12/2212008 001827 SMARTSTUD 2008-1358 42153 SCHOOL TRAFFIC MARKERS 17,014.58
Total : 17,014.58
16282 12/22J2008 000323 SPOKANE CO UTILITIES 0153641065364 DEC OS. SEWER/WASTEWATER 225.72
016631/066631 DEC 08: SEWERIWASTEWATER 33.46
017022/067022 DEC 08: SEWER/WASTEWATER 106.04
0244331074433 DEC 08: SEWER/WASTEWATER 106.04
0271291077129 DEC 08: SEWER/WASTEWATER 51.60
0316081081608 DEC 08: SEWER/WASTEWATER 260.97
0343541106428 DEC 08: SEWER/WASTEWATER 68.46
0370591109325 DEC 08: SEWER/WASTEWATER 68.46
Total : 920.75
16283 /2008 000898 SPOKANE PROCARE 237673 LANDSCAPING SERVICES: PW 105.98
237674 LANDSCAPING SERVICES: PW 78.81
237680 LANDSCAPING SERVICES: PW 451.11
237681 LANDSCAPING SERVICES: PW 195.66
237743 LANDSCAPING SERVICES: PW 195.66
237744 LANDSCAPING SERVICES: PW 141.31
237800 LANDSCAPING SERVICES: PW 157.62
37848 LANDSCAPING SERVICES: PW 244.58
23 g LANDSCAPING SERVICES: PW 163.05
237850 /0/n LANDSCAPING SERVICES: PW 59.79
238059 LANDSCAPING SERVICES: PW 456.54
235112 LANDSCAPING SERVICES: PW 58.70
238721 LANDSCAPING SERVICES: PW 68.48
238722 LANDSCAPING SERVICES: PW 55.44
238887 LANDSCAPING SERVICES: PW 342.41
238994 DSCAPING SERVICES: PW 157.62
239035 LAND PING SERVICES: PW 244.58
239036 LANDSCA %SrERVICES: PW 163.05
239037 LANDSCAPINICES: PW 59.79
239309 LANDSCAPING SER ICF-S: PW 456.54
239374 LANDSCAPING SERVICES'-PW 58.70
239452 LANDSCAPING SERVICES: P 434.80
240332 LANDSCAPING SERVICES: PW 157.62
240378 LANDSCAPING SERVICES• PW 244.58
Page: 6
vchlist Voucher List Page: 7
1212212008 2:45:22PM Spokane Valley
Bank code : apbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # DescriptionlAccount Amount
16283 `=212212008 000898 SPOKANE PROCARE (Continuetl)
240379 IANDSCAPING SERVICES: PW 163.05
240380 LANDSCAPING SERVICES: PW 59.79
~ 240580 LANDSCAPING SERVICES: PW 456.54
. 240627 LANDSCAPING SERVICES: PW 58.70
22'i'703 ~ LANDSCAPING SERVICES: PW 5979
242004 ~ LANDSCAPING SERVICES: PW 456.54
242051 LANDSCAPING SERVICES• PW 58.70
242479 LANDSCAPING SERVICES: PW 61.96
242488 LARDSCAPING ERVICES: PW 59.79
242537 LANDSCAPI VE.~ ICES: PW 706.55
243633 41930 08-003 LANDSCAPING'60 TRACT 193.10
INT. LANDSCAPING SERVICES: P 429.94
Total : 516.87
16284 12/2212008 000093 SPOKESMAN-REVIEW 50869 ADVERTISING: HR 1,583.05
Total : 1,583.05
16285 12/22/2008 000065 STAPLES BUSINESS ADVANTAGE 3111748488 OFFICE SUPPLIES: CD -8.47
3111748489 OFFICE SUPPLIES: CD 236.13
3111748490 OFFICE SUPPLIES: CD 279.21
Total : 506.87
16286 12/2212008 000063 TAYLOR, STEVE Cell Allowance 4TH QTR 2008: CELL 135.00
Total : 135.00
16287 12122/2008 000676 THOMSON WEST 817047253 OCT 08: LEGAL SUBSCRIPTION 514.47
817296985 NOV 08: LEGAL SUBSCRIPTION 514.46
Total : 1,028.93
16288 12/22/2008 000167 VERA WATER 8t POWER 0002-001425.01 NOV 08: UTILITIES 85.37
Total : 85.37
16289 12/2212008 000061 WILHITE, DIANA Cell Allowance 4TH QTR 2008: CELL 135 00
Expenses TRAVEL EXPENSES: NLC 1,732.74
Total : 1,667.74
16290 12/2212008 000152 WSDOT 31C-GC5816ADV PROJECT GCA5816R 3,60000
Page: 7
vchlist Voucher List Page: 8
1212212008 2:45:22PM Spokane Valley
eank code : apbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description/Account Amount
16290 12/22/2008 000152 WSDOT (Continued)
AT681014073 PROJECT GCA5816R 8,685.61
ATB81112065 PROJECT #GCA5816R 12,588.92
Total : 24,874.53
16291 1212212008 000667 WSDOT CASHIER'S OFFICE 01583CN LTAP CLASS REGISTRATIONS 300 00
Total : 300.00
16292 1212212008 000089 XO COMMUNICATIONS 0227148702 DEC 08. INTERNET/DATA LINES 1,802.68
Total : 1,802.68
16293 12122/2008 001885 ZAYO BANDWIDTH LLC 2252 DEC 08: DARK FIBER LEASE 228.27
Total : 228.27
,
11252008 11/25/2008 000497 THE BANK OF NEW YORK 11252008 ~Q S 0~ DEC 08: PAYMENT 393,436.25
Total : 393,436.25
53 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total : 892,372.77
53 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 892,372.77
I, the undersigned, do certify under penalty of perjuzy, Q gL{)$'SS Qc
that the materials have been furnished, the services
xendered, or the labor perfoxmed as descnbed herein
and that the claim is just, due and an unpaid
obligation against the City of Spokane Valley, and that
I am authorized to3 thenticate a.nd cextify said cl.aim.
' Date
Fin tor
,
ay r Date ~
~
Council NZem'ber e
Page: 8
. „ r;
vchlist Voucher List Page: 1
1212912008 3:40:41PM Spokane Valley
Bank code : apbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # DescriptionlAccount Amount
16294 12/24/2008 001035 NETWORK DESIGN & MANAGEMENT 16465 PMT #1 42197 COMPUTER HARDWARE 30,000.00
Total : 30,000.00
16295 12124/2008 001035 NEIINORK DESIGN & MANAGEMENT 16511 ANTI-VIRUS RENEWAL ' 1,252.22
Total : 1,252.22
16296 12/2412008 001377 COMBS, LISA Mdeage MILEAGE 37.78
Total : 37.78
16297 1212912008 000193 NORTHWEST CHRISTIAN SCHOOL INC Dec 08 DEC 08. RENT 36,467.94
Total : 36,467.94
16298 12I2912008 001534 ALL PRINT 11552 BUSINESS CARDS 208.29
Total : 208.29
16299 12/29J2008 000150 ALLIED FIRE & SECURITY IVC20081100 SUPPLIES. CP 27.18
Total : 27.18
16300 12/2912008 001081 ALSCO LSP0529076 FLOOR MATS: PRECINCT 15.22
LSP0529077 FLOOR MATS: PRECINCT 2.75
LSP0532826 FLOOR MATS CITY HALL 14.47
Total : 32.44
16301 12/2912008 000334 ARGUS JANITORIAL LLC 2923 NOV 08 JANITORIAL SERVICES 2,144.64
Total : 2,144.64
16302 12/2912008 000030 AVISTA 010119017 UTILITIES: PARKS 8,788.27
410069444 UTILITIES: PUU 20,216.18
410102159 UTILITIES: PW 57.98
Total : 29,062.43
16303 1212912008 001559 BEACON HILL EVENTS 12052008 CATERING: CP 258.14
Total : 258.14
16304 12129/2008 001648 BERK & ASSOCIATES 5682-11-08 COLLABORATIVE GRANT 747.50
5750-11-08 EMERGING ISSUES GRANT 48750
Page: 1
mchlist Voucher List Page: 2
12129l2008 3:40:41PM Spokane Valley
Bank code : apbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # DescOptionlAccount Amount
16304 1212912008 001648 001648 BERK & ASSOCIATES (Continued) Total : 1,235.00
16305 12/2912008 000168 BLACK BOX NETINORK SVC 156977 SERVICE CALL.CP 204.90
Total : 204.90
16306 12/29/2008 000918 BLUE RIBBON LINEN SUPPLY INC 8978048 LINEN SERVICE: CP 302.31
8979978 LINEN SERVICE: CP 252.06
8981920 LINEN SERVICES: CP 321.08
Total : 875.45
16307 12/2912005 001139 CATS EYE EXCAVATING INC 422 42209 REPLACEIREPAIR DRAIN FIELD 9,154.15
Total : 9,154.15
16308 12129/2008 000863 CENTURY WEST ENG CORP 024174 41996 TRANSPORTATION PIANNING SEF 2,066.79
Total : 2,066.79
16309 12I2912008 001440 CLEARPATH RE, LLC 97 CITY CENTER PROJECT: CD 527.96
Total : 527.96
16310 12129/2008 000109 COFFEE SYSTEMS INC 3820:5070 COFFEE SERVICE: CP 15.95
3820:5070 COFFEE SUPPLIES 288.05
Total : 304.00
16311 12129/2008 000035 CORPORATE EXPRESS 193787483001 OFFICE SUPPLIES 22.60
Total : 22.60
16312 12/29/2008 000683 DAVID EVANS & ASSOCIATES 262251 LONG-SHORT PIJAT REVIEW 2,054.00
262405 42109 DEA TRAFFIC ENG SER. 7,126.42
Total : 9,160.42
16313 12/29/2008 001134 DEPT OF HEALTH 205468 SANITARY SURVEY: SULLIVAN PAf 306.00
Total : 306.00
16314 12129/2008 000912 DEX MEDIA WEST 200353924 ADVERTISING: CP 228.44
Total : 228.44
16315 12/29/2008 000010 FEDEX KINKO'S 289700005668 PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST 50.54
Total : 50.54
Page: 2
ychlist Voucher List Page: 3
1212912008 3:40:41 PM Spokane Valley
Bank code : apbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # DescriptionlAccount Amount
16316 12l2912008 001859 FINANCIAL FORENSICS 3016 LAUV ENFOR. & JAIL SERVICES 7,333.50
3017 PUBLIC RECORDS REQUEST 312.10
Total : 7,645.60
16317 12129I2008 000858 FOOD EQUIPMENT INTL, INC. 6745 FOOD EQUIPMENT:CP 172.83
Total : 172.83
16318 1212912008 001447 FREE PRESS PUBLISHING INC 31218 LEGAL AD: #0103 55.25
Total : 55.25
16319 12l29/2008 001003 GEOENGINEERS INC 0097356 42213 PAVEMENT DESIGN SVC #0102 4,871.70
0097356 42215 PAVEMENT DESIGN SVC #0103 2,763.10
42215
0097356 42214 PAVEMENT DESIGN SVC #0104 4,251.70
42214
Total : 11,886.50
16320 12/2912008 001729 HALME CONSTRUCTION, INC. PMT #5 42101 24TH AVE RECONSTRUCTION #00; 15,310.12
Total : 15,310.12
16321 12129/2008 000009 HEWLETT PACKARD CO 45277380 42203 COMPUTER DESKTOPS & MONITO 7,054.63
Total : 7,054.63
16322 12129/2008 000313 INLAND ASPHALT COMPANY INC. PMT #4 42102 PINESfMANSFIELD CORR #0005 1,029,869.91
Total : 1,029,869.91
16323 1212912008 001635 ISS FACILINlEVENT SERVICES 20206 FACILITYlEVENT SVC: CP 147.89
20216 FACILITY/EVENT SVC: CP 354.60
20241 FACILITY/EVENT SVC: CP 7,136.00
20242 FACILITYlEVENT SVC: CP 197.00
Total : 7,835.49
16324 12/2912008 000492 KERSHAW S INC. 10682-0 COAT RACK: CP 108.70
Total : 108.70
16325 12129/2008 001002 M& L SUPPLY CO., INC. 901346.1 MAINTENANCE SUPPLIES: CP 12.11
Total : 12.11
Page: 3
vchlist Voucher List Page: 4
1D2912008 3:40:41PM Spokane Valley
Bank code : apbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # DescriptionlAccount Amount
16326 12129/2008 001897 MIRABEAU PARK HOTEL Refund REFUND DAMAGE DEPOSIT 200.00
Total : 200.00
16327 12/29/2008 000662 NATL BARRICADE & SIGN CO 62942 41927 BLANKET PO FOR MISC SM TOOL~ 191.31
Total : 191.31
16328 12129/2008 000193 NORTHWEST CHRISTIAN SCHOOL INC 3rd Qtr 2008 3RD QTR 2008: CAM CHARGES 564.63
Total : 564.63
16329 12129/2008 000243 NORTHWEST SIGN SUPPLY INC. 843946 PLOTfER PAPER: CD 26.06
Total : 26.06
16330 12129/2008 000512 OFFICETEAM 22962734 STAFFING SERVICE: LASERFICHE 594.95
22962735 STAFFING SERVICE: LASERFICHE 578.65
Total : 1,173.60
16331 12I2912008 001258 ORB ARCHITECTS INC. 17 41600 DESIGN OF POOL - TERRACE VEIV 2,029.87
17 41601 DESIGN OF POOL - VALLEY MISSIC 4,059.74
41601
Total : 6,089.61
16332 12129/2008 000322 QWEST 509-926-18401946 PHONES: PARK ROAD POOL 101.86
Total : 101.86
16333 12129l2008 000952 RECALL SECURE DESTRUCTION, SERV 3901130680 DOCUMENT DESTRUCTION:CD 60.42
Total: 60.42
16334 12/29l2008 000709 SENSKE LAWN & TREE CARE INC. 3020531 41969 PEST CONTROL SERVICES AT PRE 70.66
3057897 FALL CLEANUP: PRECINCT 326.10
Total : 396.76
16335 12/29/2008 000172 SPOKANE CO ENGINEER VLY0811 NOV 08: ENGINEERING SVC 38,653.77
Total : 38,653.77
16336 12/2912008 000470 SPOKANE CO FAIR! EXPO CTR 2008 Grant LODGING TAX GRANT REIMBURSE 29,770.00
Total : 29,770.00
16337 1212912008 000499 SPOKANE CO LIBRARY DIST 11-13-08 PAST DUE PROPERTY TAX 3,004.97
Page: 4
vchlist Voucher List Page: 5
1212912008 3:40:41PM Spokane Valley
Bank code : apbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # DescriptionlAccount Amount
16337 12/29/2008 000499 000499 SPOKANE CO LIBRARY DIST (Continued) Total : 3,004.97
16338 12/2912008 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER 41500804 WORK CREW NOV 08 4,663.11
41500815 NOV 08: STANDARD HOUSING 21,872.00
Total : 26,535.11
16339• 12/2912008 000898 SPOKANE PROCARE 237673 41930 08-003 LANDSCAPING CONTRACT 105.96
237674 41930 08-003 LANDSCAPING CONTRACT 78.81
237680 41930 08-003 LANDSCAPING CONTRACT 451.11
237681 41930 06-003 LANDSCAPING CONTRACT 195.66
237743 41930 08-003 LANDSCAPING CONTRACT 195.66
237744 41930 08-003 LANDSCAPING CONTRACT 141.31
237800 41930 08-003 LANDSCAPING CONTRACT 157.62
237848 41930 08-003 LANDSCAPING CONTRACT 244.58
237849 41930 08-003 LANDSCAPING CONTRACT 163.05
237850 41930 08-003 LANDSCAPING CONTRACT 59.79
B 41930 08-003 LANDSCAPING CONTRACT 456.54
3 41930 08-003 LANDSCAPING CONTRACT 58.70
23 21 41930 08-003 LANDSCAPING CONTRACT 6848
238 41930 08-003 LANDSCAPING CONTRACT 55.44
238887 41930 08-003 LANDSCAPING CONTRACT 342.41
238994 1930 08-003 LANDSCAPING CONTRACT 157.62
239035 419 0 08-003 LANDSCAPING CONTRACT 244.56
239036 41930 08-003 LANDSCAPING CONTRACT 163.05
239037 41930 08-003 LANDSCAPING CONTRACT 59.79
239309 41930 0 003 LANDSCAPING CONTRACT 456.54
239374 41930 08-00 NDSCAPING CONTRACT 58.70
239452 41930 08-003 LA , %CAPINGCONTRACT 434.80
240332 41930 08-003 LANDNG CONTRACT 157.62
240378 41930 08-003LANDSCAPI (~ONTRACT 244.58
240379 41930 08-003 LANDSCAPING CaNTRACT 163.05
240380 41930 08-003 LANDSCAPING CONT T 59.79
240580 41930 08-003 LANDSCAPING CONTRACT 456.54
240627 41930 08-003 LANDSCAPING CONTRACT 58.70
241703 41930 08-003 LANDSCAPING CONTRACT 59.79
242004 41930 08-003 LANDSCAPING CONTRACT 456.54
242051 41930 08-003 LANDSCAPING CONTRACT 56.70
Page: 5
vchlist Voucher List Page: 6
1212912008 3:40:41 PM Spokane Valley
Bank code : apbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # DescriptionlAccount Amount
16339 12/2912008 00M'S8-SP0{(-AN&RR0.CARE (Continued)
2424 930 08-003 LANDSCAPING CONTRACT 61.96
242 0 08-003 LANDSCAPING CONTRACT 59.79
242537 UtC 0 SPRINKLER WINTERIZATION 706.55
243633 `08-003 LANDSCAPING CONTRACT 193.10
41930
Past Due Bill 41930 08-003 LANDSCA GON.T.MCT 425.11
Total: --7,ki 2.04
16340 12/29/2008 000406 SPOKANE REGIONAL CVB 1612 NOV 08: TOURISM CONTRACT 17,358.36
Total : 17,358.36
16341 12/2912008 001215 SPOKANE RIVER CHAPTER HOG Refund REFUND DAMAGE DEPOSIT 228.00
Total : 228.00
16342 12129/2008 000093 SPOKESMAN-REVIEW 42365 ADVERTISING 601.26
Total : 601.26
16343 12/29/2008 000257 STATE AUDITOR'S OFFICE L74191 AUDITORS 7,611.24
Total : 7,611.24
16344 12/29/2008 001875 STRATA S080525-IN 42216 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 5,112.50
Total : 5,112.50
16345 1212912008 000419 SUMMIT LAW GROUP 40150 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 504.00
Total : 504.00
16346 12/29/2008 000783 VALLEY GLASS 08-54775 42187 GLASS PANEL INSTALL:CP 375.02
Total : 375.02
16347 12I29/2008 001752 VALLEY MEALS ON WHEELS 2008 GRANT 2008 OUTSIDE AGENCY DISBURSE 3,500.00
Total : 3,500.00
16348 12J2912008 001663 VISION TECHNOLOGY LegoLeague FIRST LEGO LEAGUE 2,67120
Total : 2,671.20
16349 1212912008 001797 VPCI 8514 LASERFICHE SOFTINARE 82,166.50
Page: 6
vchlist VouCher LiSt Page: 7
1212912008 3:40:41 PM Spokane Valley
Bank code : apbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # DescriptionlAccount Amount
16349 12/29/2008 001797 001797 VPCI (Continued) Total : 82,166.50
16350 12/2912008 000152 WSDOT ATB81209051 URBAN RAMPS #0099 2,070.49
ATB81209056 APPLEWAY TRUNKLINE #0062 108.08
AT681209105 PINESlMANSFIELD CORR #0005 5,768.83
Total : 7,947.40
1224050018 12/24/2008 001865 MORGEN & OSWOOD CONSTRUCTION PMT #2 42219 BARKER RD BRIDGE #0003 790,630.66
Total : 790,630.66
58 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total : 2,236,584.73
58 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers: 2,236,584.73
a ~Q, 7a
I, the undersigned, do certify under penalty of perjury,
that the materials have been fiumshed, the services
rendered, or the labor perfoxmed as described bexein
and that the claim is just, due and an unpaid
obligation agaixist the City of Spokane Valley, and that
I am authorized to authenticate and certify said clai.m.
Finance Directox Date
Mayor Date
Council Member Date
Finance Director Date
Page: 7
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for ~ouncil Action
Meeting Date: 01-13-09 City Manager Sign-off:
Item Check a!I that apply: 9 consent ❑ old business D new business ❑ public hearing
❑ information ❑ admin repQr# a pending Iegislatlon
AGENDA 1TEM TITLE:
Payroll for Periad Ending December 31, 2008
G0VERNIMG L.EGISLATION:
PRE1lIOUS COIJNCIL ACTION TAKEN:
BACKCROIJND:
OPTIONS:
RECOMMENDED ACTION C)R MOTION:
BUDGETIFIhiANCIAL IMPACTS:
Gross: $ 219,274.95
6errefits: t 123.059.59
TOYAL PAYROLL: $ 342,334.54
STAFF CONTACT: Raba fVirnrr
ATTACHMENTS
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Councii Action
Meeting Date. January 13, 2009 City Manager Sign-off
Item: Check all that apply: X consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing
information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending fegislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE Amendment to Community Relicensing Interlocal - Funds rollover to
2009
GOVERNING LEGISLATION.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN. The City of Spokane Valley, City of Spokane, and
Spokane County executed an interlocal agreement for use of grant funds from the Washington
State Office of Public Defense on July 31, 2008.
BACKGROUND. Not a(( of the funds were used in 2008. OPD has advised the parties that it is
fine to roll any unused funds from 2008 for use in 2009. The attached amendment would
accomplish that. Spokane County has requested immediate action prior to January 15
OPTIONS- Execute amendment; not execute amendment
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION Approve the amended Community Relicensing
Interlocal Agreement, and authorize the City Manager or designee to execute the agreement.
BUDGET/FINANClAL If1l1PACTS NA
STAFF CONTACT: Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney
ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Addendum
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT AMENDMENT
THI5 CONTRACT AMENDMENT is between the CITY OF SPOKANE, a
Washington State municipal corporation, whose address is 808 West Spokane Falls
Boulevard, Spokane, Washington 99201, as "CITY," SPOKANE COUNTY, a political
subdivision of the State of Washington, whose address is 1116 West Broadway Avenue,
Spokane, Washington 99260, as "COUNTY", SPOKANE COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER,
whose address is 1033 West Gardner, Gardner Court building, Spokane, Washington
99260, as "COUNTY PUBLlC DEFENDER," and the CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, a
code city of the State of Washington, whose address is 11707 East Sprague Avenue,
Spokane Valley, Washington 99206, as "CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY"; and jointly
hereinafter referred to as the "PARTIES."
WHEREAS, the PARTIES entered into an interlocal agreement wherein the
PARTIES would utilize the grant funds received from the State Office of the Public
Defense for public defense in the joint City/County Community Relicensing Program, and
WHEREAS, the PARTIES would like to roll any funds not expended under the 2008
grant into the 2009 budget for use in 2009;
NOW, THEREFORE, the PARTIES agree as follows:
1. DOCUMENTS. The original interlocal agreement dated May 7, 2008, May 20, 2008,
and July 30, 2008, is incorporated by reference into this document as though written in full
and shall remain in full force and effect except as provided herein.
2. EFFECTIVE DATE This interlocal agreement amendrnent shall become effective
January 1, 2009
3. AMENDMENT. Section 2 and 3 of the interlocal agreement documents are amended
to read as follows:
1
~
SECTION NO. 2: DURATION ,
This agreement shall be effective on April 14, 2008 and run through ((IDeGemb
, 2008)) June 30, 2009. Any Party may terminate this Agreement for breach of
any provision by any other party. Provided, however, prior to such termination, the
terminating party must give at least thirty (30) days written notice to the breaching
party and all other parties of the basis for the termination. If the breaching party
cures the breach to the satisfaction of the terminating party those matters set forth
in the termination notice, said notice shall be null and void. Provided, further, this
Agreement shall automatically terminate in the event the Grant which is the basis of
the funding is terminated, unless the parties agree in writing otherwise.
SECTIO(V NO. 3. SERVICES
A. COUNTY PUBLIC DEFENDER: The County Public Defender's Office
currently provides defender services on driving while license
suspended cases for the C1TY OF SPOKANE VALLEY through a
separate interlocal agreement. The Spokane County Public
Defender's Office will use the monies under this agreement to hire
additional office assistant 2 help, who will assist in determining
eligibility for the relicensing program for CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
cases and for persons who live in Spokane Valley, or have cases
pending based on a citation from the City of Spokane Valley Police
Department, and for other duties as assigned relating to those cases.
B. CITY OF SPOKANE The City of Spokane Public Defender's Office
will use the monies to hire a temp. seasonal or project employee clerk
who will assist in determining eligibility for the relicensing program on
cases to which the City of Spokane Public Defender's Office has
been assigned by the Municipal Court or Probation Department, and
other duties as assigned relating to driving while license suspended
cases.
C. SPOKANE COUNTY. Spokane County will take appropriate action
to appropriate into the Spokane County Public Defender's budget all
moneys received from the CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY under the
terms of this Agreement. Anv funds not expended under the 2008
qrant allocation shall be rolled into the 2009 budqet for use in 2009.
ll
2
Dated. CITY OF SPOKANE
By- .
Title:
Attest: Approved as to form:
City Clerk Assistant City Attorney
Dated: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF SPOKANE, COUNTY, WASHINGTQN
TODD MIELKE, Chair
ATTEST:
MARK RICHARD, Vice Chair
Daniela Erickson,
Clerk of the Board
BONNIE MAGER, Commissioner
Approved as to form. Approved:
Civil Deputy Prosecuting Attorney Spokane County Public Defender
Dated: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
By:
Title:
Approved as to form:
By: .
Title:
3
DRAFT
MINUTES
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Mayor Munson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. and welcomed everyone to the meeting.
Present:
Councilmembers: Staff: ,
Rich Munson, Mayor Dave Mercier, City Manager
Dick Denenny, Deputy Mayor Mike Connelly, City Attorney
Rose Dempsey, Councilmember Mike Jackson, Deputy City Manager
Bill Gothmann, Councilmember Ken Thompson, Finance Director
Gary Schimmels, Councilmember Kathy McClung, Community Development Dir.
Steve Taylor, Councilmember Mike Stone, Parks & Rec Director
Diana Wilhite, Councilmember Neil Kersten, Public Works Director
Scott Kuhta, Senior Planner - - - Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney
Greg McCormick, Planning Manager
John Whitehead, Human Resources Manager
Morgan Koudelka, Sr. Administrative Analyst
Lori Barlow, Associate Planner
Inga Note, Traffic Engineer
Carolbelle Branch, Public Infonnation Officer
Bill Miller, IT Specialist
Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk
In light of full disclosure, Councilmember Gothmann stated that he owns one of the properties mentioned
in the first agenda item; he stated he was not a proponent of the action, and had no idea it was going to
occur until it got to the Council for consideration; and that he has not discussed this with other
Councilmembers and said he would not take part in this discussion. Councilmember Gothmann then left
the dais and the Council Chambers.
REGULAR STUDY SESSION ITEMS:
1. Partial Release of Interest - Gree McCormick
For each of the Release of Interests, Planning Manager McCormick explained that in 1966 the Ponderosa
Acres Third (and Fourth) addition plat was recorded in Spokane County; that each included a 55' wide
strip of land as shown on the maps; that wording on the face of the plat indicates that the 55' area was
reserved for future right-of-way; and according to County records, this area was never actually dedicated
for right-of-way purposes; that the situation was brought to the City's attention by a property owner who
wanted to construct a detached accessory structure, and when staff researched the plat, this issue was
discovered. Mr. McCormick further explained that since it does not appear that either area was actually
dedicated as right-of-way, a street vacation action is not necessary; and the "Release of Interest" will
suffice in addressing these situations. After brief discussion of the areas in question, there was Council
consensus to place these items on the next Council's consent agenda. Councilmember Gothmann was
invited and returned to the dais.
Other business: Before proceeding with the other agenda items, City Attorney Connelly introduced new
intern Ian Whitney, who will be inteming in our legal department until June of this year; and Mr.
Connelly explained that Mr. Whitney has passed the bar and is waiting for his wife to graduate from
Whitworth, at which time they will be moving. Council greeted and welcomed Mr. Whitney.
Study Session Meeting Minutes: 12-16-08 Page 1 of 10
Approved by Council•
DRAFT
2. Countv's Termination of Road Contract - Mavor Munson
Mayor Munson explained that we were not informed this was going to occur; and since it has, it has
raised a number of questions about future road maintenance; that Mayor Munson explained that he had
been made aware that in the past, some citizens had complained to the Commissioners about the
inadequate snow removal; there was mention of our perceived "interference with the crews or having
inspectors looking at their work, all of which ended with a meeting with Public Works Director Kersten
and City Manager Mercier and the road folks; and that we had assumed everything had been resolved as
there had been no word since; but that the Board of Commissioners met last week and voted to terminate
the contract next October, adding that we were shocked by the form of notice, the phone message. Mayor
Munson also mentioned the gradual moving away from the summer road services, but not the winter
services. City Manager Mercier mentioned the added materials in the council packet of the press release
and road services contract, and the list of ongoing contracts with Spokane County, and said there is an
audio-recording (CD) available from the City Clerk and distributed to Council, of that December 9, 2008
meeting; and he stated that this issue is not represented on the Commissioner's agenda, which is also
included. Mr. Mercier also brought attention to the December 20, 2005 PowerPoint presentation from
_ Neil Kersten and in particular slide 12 which mentions that the "County is not set up to be a contractor
and does not wish to adapt its operations to be a contractor for the long term," and that the "County has
stated that they do not need our work; will help out where needed but prefer that we begin transitioning
away from their services as outlined in the following draft plan;" and he mentioned the phasing out of
snow removal over a five-year period; adding that we have expressed a desire for a three to five year
transition period, and said that last winter was a tough experience in dealing with snow clearing; that the
County did a marvelous job and we repeatedly expressed appreciation and congratulations for the work
they did; and that he and Neil Kersten met with Bob Brueggeman several times last year, and Mr. Mercier
said he expressed that there was some expression of the County not doing winter; but we expressed a
desire for an orderly transition, in that we would want a three to five-year transition period; and we used •
such a three-year period to move to private contractors for our summer services. Councilmember Wilhite
asked if we have received the written notice and Mr. Mercier replied that we have not, as the
Commissioners just voted last Tuesday to authorize the issuance of such.
Council discussion included mention that the County is within their right to seek termination of the
agreement; that we strive to maintain good communication; of the disappointment with the method of
communication concerning this large contract; and that the contract was beneficial to both parties.
Discussion then turned to the list of contracts added to tonight's council packet, and whether to work
toward alternative contracted services for all now, or to develop a plan of transition in order to be
prepared should the County suddeuly and without warning decide to terminate other contracts. lt was
determined that the next step would be a motion at the December 30 council meeting, to authorize the
City Manager to develop an alternate plan for all public services currently provided to us by the County in
accordance with interlocal contract agreements, including timing, specifics, cost, etc., so as not to be
caught unaware, and further for that December 30 meeting, to authorize an assessment of law
enforcement services alternatives analysis presented by ICMA Consulting. Mayor Munson suggested
sending a letter to the Commissioners after the December 30 meeting once the motions had been voted
upon; and Councilmember Wilhite suggested that perhaps a phone call to the three Commissioners of
these upcoming agenda items would be prudent. Councilmember Taylor suggested holding another joint
meeting with the Commissioners to avoid future surprises. It was reiterated that the termination of the
road maintenance contract is not slated to take effect until October of 2009; and Deputy Mayor Denenny
said that we will have an alternative in place in time for winter services for the 2009/2010 season, adding
that we have the resources and the ability to negotiate contracts or find the necessary resources.
Study Session Meeting Minutes 12-16-08 Page 2 of 10
Approved by Council
DRAFT
2a. Stimulus Task Force Update - Neil Kersten
Mayor Munson explained that there are a number of requests to get ready for this stimulus package, and
that staff has made recommendations in that regard; and that we need to inform the Board of County
Commissioners what we would like done with the funding, even though the amount of funding is
unknown. Mr. Mercier further explained that staff receives this as developments occur, and we have been
put on a"quick march" to prepare a list of projects that might be eligible for funding under the stimulus
infrastructure program; and mentioned the need to re-examine the six-year Transportation Improvement
Program (TIP) to perhaps re-order so that we comport with the parameters of this new upcoming
program.
Public Works Director Kersten said that we just found out last Tuesday or Wednesday that this was
coming and at that point, had no details; he said that the SRTC Board meeting last Thursday did provide
more details, and he brought Council's attention to page 2 of the handout entitled "2009 Federal Stimulus
Package Proposal." Based on verbal discussion, Mr. Kersten explained, we cannot fund projects that are
fully funded in the 2009 budget; that the first wave of projects must be ready to bid in July; that there
could be a second wave but that is not yet known; that we are looking for projects that have more
disciplines and are longer in terms of construction in order to involve more people for a longer period; he
said preservation projects are similar to the grind and overlays done a few months ago and we are not
seeking that type of project. Mr. Kersten explained that we need to do the design and right-of-way
acquisition and that tbe program will only fund construction; and he proceeded to explain the 2009
adopted budget, proposed amended budget as shown in the handout; that staff has submitted the pavement
preservation projects list as that had to have been submitted by last Friday; but that staff can remove any
project at Council's direction; adding that it is easier to take off a project then add a new project to the list
once the deadline has passed. Mr. Kersten said in order to meet the dates of the schedule, we will need to
request engineering services and select consultants, and would need to amend the budget in January to get
contracts and start designing; and said that this list does not represent a loss of projects, but a change in
priority as we want to be ready to quickly move ahead; that this would mean a delay in Sprague, but it
could wait until another bill if it doesn't get funded in this bill; but said that either way there is a good
chance of getting it fi.inded within the next two years.
Council discussion included mention from Mayor Munson that we don't know what the exact political
process will be or what the stimulus package will look like until we see the final package;
Councilmember Wilhite said that it doesn't hurt to be prepared so if Congress comes through, we could
amend the budget again if needed, and if wouldn't hurt to take that calculated risk of shifting dollars;
adding that SRTC mentioned that they felt that once everyone's priority list was included, if there were
remaining funds, it would go to the second priorities. It was also mentioned that at least in the first wave,
no matching funds will be required; although Mr. Kersten said we will have to do the design, which on a
preservation project is 10% on the right-of-way, so there is a match in that sense, but there are funds in
this year's budget to cover that. Mayor Munson suggested moving ahead cautiously with the expectation
that very little of this will be funded, although there are too many unknowns at this point to further
speculate.
Mr. Mercier said that part of the dilemma is that to get these projects included, we need to have the
appropriate engineering right-of-way work done, that we have to commit funds to do the engineering
right-of-way in January, and we don't know yet how many projects on this list will survive Friday's
interaction as they try to develop a regional list. Mayor Munson said the meeting for this is this Friday at
9 a.m. at the Fairground's Conference Center, and he asked and received Council consensus to offer these
projects as our priority projects.
Mayor Munson called for a five-minute recess at 6:57 p.rn.; and he reconvened the meeting at 7: 08 p.m.
Study Session Meeting Minutes 12-16-08 Page 3 of 10
Approved by Counctl•
DRAFT
3. Sprague/Applewav Revitalization Plan - Scott Kuhta & Kathv McClung
Senior Planner Kuhta mentioned tonight's goal and schedule, and gave a brief outline of tonight's
expectations. Councilmember Gothmann asked if there was previous consensus on Deputy Mayor
Denenny's proposal to cut off the SARP to just east of the center at Sullivan and Sprague, and stated that
he would prefer to see the area continue east. Council confirmed that there was consensus; however, Mr.
Kuhta remarked that the suggestion was to extend the neighborhood to the east a little, but the exact
boundary was not identified, and that discussion will be forthcoming. Mr. Kuhta mentioned his e-mail
concerning a suggested SARP deliberation, which schedule shows holding a public hearing March 3,
thereby giving staff a month to complete the final draft of council recommended changes; with the first
reading set for March 10 and the second reading of the ordinance to adopt the Plan set for March 24th .
Mayor Munson suggested Council consider in the future, the option of holding two Monday meetings if
needed or if we fall behind the proposed schedule, such meetings being held January 12 and January 26.
Mr. Kuhta mentioned that last week Council completed the applicability sections and that draft should be
up on the website soon if not already; and regarding the list of individual requests, he said we need to re-
_ visit the Scott's request; and letters of requests which were discussed included numbers 120, 118, 113,
and 112 which is the Grafos letter, which brought up the question of where exactly the plan would end.
Mr. Kuhta said that the suggestion is to bring the Neighborhood Center (in the pink on the map) to the
east somewhere; and Mayor Munson suggested having it square with the area on the north; and that staff
could examine that suggestion in detail and bring that issue back later showing what is in that area, and
Councilmember Gothmann suggested extending it so the dividing line is south of the dividing line on the
north; and Mr. Kuhta stated that staff will look at property ownership to make sure there arre no problems
and will re-confcrm; and he said that the current zoning is community commercial; and if this is changed
to community center, there would be a few changes such as drive-through type businesses would be
restricted; and the type of retail businesses would be the same but it would affect how one builds the
buildings including the architectural standards, and how buildings would be placed on lots, including
setbacks.
Discussion ensued concerning the individual letters of request/concern:
Seott propertv (letter #126): Mr. Kuhta said this is currently zoned community commercial and the
request is to be completely out of the subarea plan; and it was suggested by Councilmember Gothmann to
leave them in the plan. Mx. Kuhta said the proposed zoning is residential boulevard; and we might need
extra right-of-way along the Scott's property, but that does not affect the decision tonight. After further
discussion, there was a show of hands on whether or not to leave this property in the plan, with Mayor
Munson, Deputy Mayor Denenny, and Councilmembers Taylor and Gothmann opting to leave the
property in the Plan, and Councilmembers Schimmels, Dempsey and Wtlhate to exclude them from the
Plan; therefore, the Scott's property will be left in the plan.
Polka Dot Potterv (letter #111): located at 118 S Pines Road; just to the south of the neighborhood
district zone; in the middle of the sub-area Plan boundary, with the property split with the residential
boulevard and the mixed use avenue zones; the request is to be left out of the Plan (as mentioned in
another letter to the Planning Commission); Mr. Kuhta mentioned to maintain their current use they
would need to be zoned with the mixed use avenue zones; and he mentioned the need to craft language
for later discussion on which district zone an existing use would be placed in situations such as this; and it
was determined to delay this decision until the split zone discussion is held.
Avista aroperties (letter #95): located on Appleway; they have an issue with the current community
facility zone, to be addressed later through the comprehensive plan amendment process; that one property
is in the Cit}, Center and one is in the residential boulevard; and they would like to have the zone all one
zone; and Mr. Kuhta suggested moving the city center over; that this is for two separate individual lots
Study Session Meeting Minutes 12-16-08 Page 4 of 10
Approved by Council
DRAFT
and having them zoned either way would be appropriate; and that they would likely prefer the City Center
as it allows more flexibility in building size. It was Council consefrsus to have tlzis zoned City Center
including t/te lot to the south.
Auto Row, (letter #92): this is the issue of no used car lots, which resulted in a recommendation to
Council to allow used or new vehicle sales in the Gateway area.
Vallev South StoraLye (letter #56): Councilmember Gothmann mentioned several issues in the letter
which are not relevant to this discussion, such as taxes and road issues; and other issues including pre-
located street which will be discussed and reviewed later.
There was some brief discussion on some of the other letters which did not have specific property
questions concerning zoning; or addressed issues to be discussed later, such as enticements or incentives,
or issues which have already been addressed and decided, such as sale of used cars in Auto Row. Mayor
Munson brought up letter #55, which lead to his comments concerning the notification process of what
this plan will do and how it will affect properties; and that staff was going to let Council know the
notification process to property owners along Sprague; and Mr. Kuhta said that will be forthcoming later, _
to be followed by Council discussion on how they would like to handle the final public hearing. Mr.
Kuhta mentioned that some of the public's specific concerns were about notice that zoning would change,
and he said that staff will craft a letter explaining that if this is adopted, zoning will change; and urging
the property owner to contact staff for further information; and that process will be used for the final
public hearing.
Plantation Restaurant, Sprague & Vista (letter #43), Mr. Rilev's propertv: expressed zoning
concerns; and Mr. Kuhta said this property owner's existing restaurant business is conforming to that
district zone under the new regulations; and discussion will be held later regarding the possibility of
adding casinos to that zone; and whether Council wants to include car sales in that district zone.
Letter #42 Pizza Hut: this is the Gateway Commercial Center so full service restaurants are permitted in
that district zone and Pizza Hut could operate in that location; that the property owner wants to use this as
a potential used car lot; and the way the regulations read; is that would not be permitted on the ground
floor on Sprague; and that is a topic for further discussion, whether in the dark blue areas to allow car
sales, which is the theme of that whole area; and Mr. Kuhta said the way it reads, car sales would be
allowed on the second floor but not the ground floor, and Mr. Kuhta said he feels that is an error to be
reviewed later.
Letter #27, Pool World: they have several concerns about the plan and would prefer not being in the
Plan area; and Mr. Kuhta said they can use the existing use, Mixed Use Boulevard, so their use is not
affected but he explained their concern is about the residential boulevard on the south side; and they are
concerned about the new signage requirements being too restrictive; that they have some expansion plans
and/or are buying other property and are concerned about the Plan in general; and said they have been
participating in this process from the beginning. Councilmember Gothmann mentioned that on one
handout in the packet, there was an error on the extreme lower right; that this is the document Mr.
Gothmann provided which compares different uses, and in that lower right side under surface parking, the
last entry should read "front, side and rear for new neighborhood center retail." Councilmember
Gothmann said that the question on this property is, can there be a driveway from Appleway going north
between two houses along Appleway, or two office spaces, that goes north; that this property wwner wants
an access from Appleway; and wants to take advantage of the double frontage. Mr. Kuhta explained that
there are access management regulations that are in the street and open space section which will be
discussed; and it proposes right-in, and right-out on Appleway now; so there would be some limitations
on access on Appleway to properties; according to the proposed regulations.
Study Session Meeting Minutes. 12-16-08 Page 5 of 10
Approved by Council•
DRAFT
Letter #21 Walt's Mailiag Service: it was mentioned that the back page has a suggestion to limit the
scope of the plan to a single city center core area; and if that is established, then fund it, plan it and move
on; and on Walt's Mailing second letter discusses the splitting of their property into combination
residential boulevard and mixed use; if they expand they are concerned about how the residential
boulevard regulations would affect any future plans for their property. Mr. Kuhta said they would be able
to expand their building under the nonconforming provisions adopted if it doesn't meet the threshold for
new construction; and they could expand, but the issue is the concern with the residential boulevard zone;
and that use itself is fine for that mixed use boulevard, but the issue is the expansion; and this should be
further addressed when the split-zone is discussed again. Mr. Kuhta said that the development along
Appleway should face the street; and there is landscaping and screening standards as part of the code, but
in this instance, the question is if this building were extended, would it be required to meet the
requirements of the plan, and if it meets that threshold, once you get toward Appleway development it
would need to adhere to the residential boulevard zone, which is not consistent with the current use of the
property; and that if we require new streets, does Council want backs of buildings along Appleway or to
face Appleway to make it more pedestrian oriented and more aesthetically pleasing. Councilmember
Taylor mentioned that the letter_discusses the possible moving north and not south, and either way, if the
buildmg is going to be expanded, Mr. Kuhta said the one way would bring into play the regulations of
mixed use avenue; and the residential boulevard zone starts the other way; and if the move is north, there
is no issue. Mr. Kuhta said the next deliberation will include some language about giving flexabilttv_ to the
Community Development Director if the regulations are not clear. There was also discussion about
setbacks, or building in expectation for existing businesses which want to do incremental expanston, and
the need to draft such language if that is Council's desire; and it was mentioned by Mayor Munson that he
thought Council had given the Planning Department the latitude to examine exceptions and be logical in
the application of this plan, and this is one of those cases; and Mr. Kuhta confirmed that language needs
to be included affording that flexibility. Councilmember Gothmann stated that perhaps staff could run
scenarios on either this particular piece of property or similar situations and analyze those scenarios.
Mayor Munson asked if staff feels this type of exception will occur very often, and Mr. Kuhta said he
feels this is a case-by-case situation for any existing building along the corridor, how close they are to the
exisfiing setbacks, how much do they want to expand, whether they have to meet the thresholds, or if there
is an easement in the way preventing building closing to the street; or any number of scenarios; similar to
what staff does today with development; and said that staff won't know everything until the development
review process. Mayor Munson said if there are these unique situations, it would be helpful if staff
compiled a"what-if' explanation, keeping the plan's steps in mind with each scenario.
Letter #19. Tavlor Eneineering• nothing specific about the district zone but concerns about frontage
coverage, pre-located street requirements, and the maximum block size which also deals with new streets;
and Mr. Kuhta said this would be a good segue way to begin discussion on the Gateway Commercial
Zones, as all these are imbedded in the district zone regulations; and these issues can be addressed as the
district zone is addressed.
Councilmember Taylor asked about the Clark/Pacific prouerties on the northeast corner of Bowdish and
Sprague, and if perhaps those comments came in after the deadline for comments. Mr. Kuhta said if it is
not included in this package tonight, it came in after the deadline, and mentioned the concern is about the
district zone, the mixed use avenue and the uses in that zone; which is a border between the mixed use
avenue and the city center; with mention of Bowdish as the dividing line for those areas. Councilmember
Taylor said since the issue there dealt with uses allowed in the mixed use zone versus city center, that can
be discussed when Council discusses mixed use avenue.
~
,
Mr. Kuhta then brought Council attention to the large spreadsheet showing consolidated Section 2.2 for
all district zones side-by-side, enabling the ability to compare and contrast across the chart, and all the
Study Session Meeting Minutes: 12-16-08 Page 6 of 10
Approved by Council
DRAFT
regulations for each district zone; he said the discussion will center on the last two, commercial avenue
and gateway commercial centers; that the dark blue areas are where full service restaurant, entertainment
establishments would be, and the light blue areas are more for the commercial sales, vehicle sales, and
other uses. M.r. Gothmann asked why the two zones must be separate and why they could not be
integrated into the same use, and what is the goal for that area. Mr. Kuhta said this came from some of
the focus groups and the testimony from the auto row, where they wanted to have more of a theme area;
and that this blends into the idea of having areas more pedestrian focused; in looking at the regulations,
Council could make the entire area one district zone; that the idea of the auto row folks is to put in a park
and possibly some type of theme park, and he said they have big ideas on how to attract people to auto
row and to get people here as more of a destination instead of just buying cars.
The topic of adult entertainment was mentioned, including comment from Councilmember Taylor who
explained that we are required to have a zone which allows that use somewhere in the city, and he asked
if we are making the Deja vue a nonconforming use, and if they shut down would we have to allow them
into another particular zone. Mr. Kuhta said that this refers to the UDC for Adult Entertainment, and if
we are changing the zone, we might need to look at that to make sure it is adequately addressed, including
_ the required buffers from churches and schools. Councilmember Gothmann said he recalls that none of _
those establishments are permitted, but they are grandfathered in and the actual areas that we allow
permitted entertainment are another place other than along there, similar to an industrial zone; and that he
does not think they are permitted now and neither would they be permitted under the new use. Mr. Kuhta
and Ms. McClung both agreed that they feel that is correct, but staff will verify.
Mr. Kuhta directed Council to page 7 of 38 in Section 2.2 and using the chart and the building use section
together to see what is permitted in the plan area; and under Gateway Commercial Center, there is a"U"
there, and that fihe reference footnotes are on the back making the chart an easy reference, and he pointed
out the section dealing with Gateway Commercial Avenue Retail is allowed on Sprague only on the upper
floors and explained the process to read the chart; and he proposed deleting that "U" which allows car
sales on an upper floor; thereby leaving the regulations to allow that any kind of retail allowed here is
allowed in the dark blue areas. Council concurred Mr. Kuhta said in the light blue areas, full service
restaurants and industrial uses are prohibited; and there has been some question on whether to allow light
industrial uses in the light blue area as there is a lot of vacant land; that the light blue area does allow
medium box retail sale such as art supply, sporting goods, electronics, appliances, uses similar to Costco,
warehouse retail, and there are many retail uses allowed here other than auto sales; adding that auto repair
would be allowed. Full service restaurants would not be allowed as they have been identified to be
included in the dark blue area; and said that the entire area would be better for people to wallc around; and
Mr. Kuhta proposed adding vehicle sales including new and used vehicles to this Gatervay Commercial
Avenue Retail; and all those types of retail would also be allowed in the dark blue areas.
Mr. Kuhta then contrasted the retail allowed in the light blue and dark blue areas; and he mentioned there
is some concern with bars and nightclubs, currently under conditional use bars and nightclubs which are
not clearly ancillary to food service are included; and he mentioned some concern of impacts which might
require some review by the Hearing Examiner, as a conditional use permit requires a public hearing with
a Hearing Examiner. Mr. Kuhta asked if Council wants to keep bars and nightclubs as a conditional use
or move it to the permitted use in the dark blue areas. After Council discussion whether to have this as a
permitted use which can be accomplished by issuing an over-the-counter permit, or have it go to the
Hearing Examiner as a conditional use permit, there was some consensus to have this as an over-the-
counter permit. Mr. Kuhta said another use related to that is the casino, and Council concurred to include
that as well with the other entertainment uses.
Mr. Kuhta asked if there is a desire to add light industrial uses to the light blue area, considering we have
added light industrial uses to the mixed use avenue so there are other areas to have industrial uses; such as
Study Session Meeting Minutes• 12-16-08 Page 7 of 10
Approved by Council.
DRAFT
plastic molding business, any kind of assembly, some warehousing with the light industrial use; and
mention that the light industrial use should conform with the architectural design of the area. City
Attorney Connelly added that the criteria to include light industrial should be based on impact to adjacent
properties and not on the type of business, even in auto row. It was also mentioned there is a need to have
a more detailed definition of what "outdoor storage" covers; and Community Development Director
McClung said an alternative idea is to accept related cars or vehicles. Deputy Mayor Denenny said in
reference to whether to add light industrial uses to this zone, he would like to re-examine some of those
examples and potential impacts; and Mr. Kuhta said light industrial would be more compatible with an
auto row; and after further discussion, Councilmember Gothmann suggested adding light industrial to
Gateway Commercial Center Retail and further define it later based on impact to the area. Council
concurred. Mr. Kuhta said that banks are not listed in this area and it would be logical to add them to the
dark blue areas, adding that there will be more discussion later on banks and full service restaurants;
followed by discussion on whether to include any type of financial institution and there appeared to be
Council consensus to add that as well, and Mr. Kuhta clarified that is defined as banks and financial
institutions excluding check cashing stores. Council concurred.
Mr. Kuhta said in further examining the zone district chart in the Gateway Commercial Avenue, section
2.1.5, "other uses" are permitted such as civic, quasi-civic and cultural uses; but office, lodging and
residential are not permitted; and in the Gateway Commercial Center, lodging is permitted but office use
is not, and he asked Council if they would like to add offices there as well. After brief discussion about
allowing such office use as attorney offices in this area, Mr. Connelly reminded Council that the analysis
should be whether office use is compatible with the other uses allowed in this zone; and not specific type
of offices or promoting one specific type of business; and Mr. Gothmann recommended leaving office out
of that area since Appleway is designed to be a large office zone; and Mayor Munson suggested adding
office to this area; or specify office use on Appleway only as suggested by Councilmember Gothmann.
There followed discussion on office space, overdevelopment of specific uses, that office is permitted all
along the residential boulevard zone, mixed use avenue, city center, neighborhood centers; which lead to
agreement by Deputy Mayor Denenny and Councilmembers Gothmann, Schimmels and Taylor to leave
office the way it is and out of this particular zone, with Councilmernbers Wilhite, Dempsey and Mayor
Munson preferring to see it dictated by the market. Mr. Kuhta said that ends the use section, and next
time discussion will center on development standards, building heights, and the bottom part of the chart.
4 Advance ALyenda - Mavor Munsoo
Mayor Munson mentioned the previous discussion of the possibility of having additional meetings. Mr.
Mercier said he proposed to have the December 30 meeting include two motions of consideration
regarding alternative analysis, with the first authorizing the preparation of alternative analysis for services
currently delivered under contract by Spokane County, which is the entire range of contracts; and the
second motion would be to authorize the budget to perform the alternative analysis for the law
enforcement agreement; and later staff would provide an informational memo giving Council staff s
initial thouglits on how to prepare for a roads and highways alternative analysis as well as municipal
courts. Mr. Mercier said that he spoke with Sheriff Knezovich tonight and told him of that plan; who
mentioned he is aware and understands why we would be responding in this manner. Mayor Munson said
he will also attempt to call each of the three County Commissioners tomorrow to inform them of this
issue as well. Mr. Mercier added that we would incorporate into the advance agenda, the schedule
outlined and distributed by Mr. Kuhta at the beginning of tonight's discussion; and will tentatively
reserve January 12 and 26 as possible Monday evening meetings depending on the need.
Regarding the Argonne/Indiana intersection, Mayor Munson said he watched cars make illegal turns there
and he would recommend Councilmembers park in the Marie Callender parking lot and observe how
drivers ignore the sign; and he said a motion will be brought on the December 30 agenda to completely
close off the turn. Mayor Munson said there will be upcoming discussion on the regional transportation
Study Session Meeting Minutes 12-16-08 Page 8 of 10
Approved by Council•
DRAFT
issue and how to approach the governance, and Mayor Munson said he was appointed today to be a
member of an ad hoc committee to develop a plan on how we want to do regional governance of regional
transportation projects; and he said he wants to ensure he will reflect Councilmember's wishes in that
discussion.
Councilmember Demosev asked for a point of nrivilege; and she mentioned that several weeks ago
several five-year presentations were made to some employees, but a group that was missed included five
members of this Council, and she then presented certificates of appreciate and a five-year pin to
Councilmembers.
5. Council Check in - Mavor Munson. N/A
6. Citv Manager Comments - Dave Mercier
Mr. Mercier said that the National League of Cities sent an e-mail today concerning them sponsoring a
green cities conference in Portland the end of April, with the primary points to be addressed to include
preparing for climate change, cutting carbon emissions, cost savings strategies, and developing green
jobs; and he said this might be a timely conference to consider attending; and said if Councilmembers are
interested in attending, he askedthat staff be alerted quickly to take advantage of the lower cost deadline
the end of this month, adding that the conference would begin Saturday April 18 and run through
Wednesday April 22; and said he is considering sending some staff to this conference as well.
There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned 8:58 p.m.
ATTEST:
Richard Munson, Mayor
Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk
Study Session Meeting Minutes• 12-16-08 Page 9 of 10
Approved by Council
DRAFT
Notes from Easel Post-It Stickv Notes:
Schedule 1/26 1/12 possible Mondays
Review - last meeting decisions
Complete individual requests
Detailed District Regulations
Gateway Commercial Centers
Gateway Commercial Avenue
Nonconforming - as proposed
Add asses sed/appra i sed value clarification
Scotts - no consensus previously
Nishamora - not in plan
Valley Best Way - keep in plan
Ruby Motors - come back when "use" discussion
Grafos - extend nonconforming south across Sprague at approximately Moore (confirm at boundary
discussion)
Everything as is, keep existing zoning - - -
12/16 - strai2ht south from North Boundarv
Bring back more info on existing uses if any potential problems.
'--*Scotts - leave in plan
Polka Dot - delay until split zoning discussion
Avista - make all City Center + small adjacent lot
Auto Row - N/A - used cars permitted in Auto Row
Valley Self-Storage - streets to be addressed later
Delay - incentives to be discussed later
Bring back info on notification process
Riley-Sprague & Vista - uses allowed questioned - discuss with use
Pizza Hut - discussion with uses
Pool World - general concerns about development regulations. No decision.
Mailing Service - Split Zone discussion
Language about exceptions for existing buildings Run scenario on this property.
Council wants to see redevelopment
Examine options for staff flexibility
Gateway Commercial Zone
Look at impact on adult entertainment
Zoning
Any retail permitted in light blue allowed in dark blue
Mark bars & nightclubs/casinos as permitted use vs. conditional use
Bring back definitions of light industrial - tentatively add to this zone
Add financial institutions to Gateway Centers
Study Session Meeting Minutes. 12-16-08 Page 10 of 10
Approved by Council
DRAFT
MIlVUTES
SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL EMERGENCY MEETING
Tuesday, December 23 2008 4:00 p.m.
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 101
Attendance: City Staff:
Rich Munson, Mayor Mike Jackson, Deputy City Manager
Dick Denenny, Deputy Mayor Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney
Rose Dempsey, Councilmember Patti McConville, Administrative Assistant
Bill Gothmann, Councilmember John Whitehead, Human Resources Director
Diana Wilhite, Councilmember [arrived at 4:09 p.m.] Sarah Richardson, Human Resource Technician
Deanna GrifFith, Administrative Assistant
Neil Kersten, Public Works Director
ABSENT: Tim Klein, Maintenance Superintendent
Councilmamber SchimmCls Henry Allen, Engineer
Councilmember Taylor Darla Arnold, Office Assistant
Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer
Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk
Call to Order: Mayor Munson called the meeting to order at 4:05
Aeenda Topic: To consider a resolution declaring an emergency or disaster in the City of Spokane
Valley. Proposed Motion: To approve Resolution 08-023 Proclaiming an Emergency due to severe
winter storms.
Mayor Munson announced that the purpose of today's meeting is to affirm a proclamation of an
emergency signed by him last night. It tivas moved by Councilmember Gothmann and seconded, to
approve Resolution 08-023 proclaiming an emergency due to severe winter storms. Mayor Munson
explained that early yesterday, we began to receive concerning indications from Spokane County that
they had other needs for the equipment that was being used to plow our streets; that he and Mr. Mercier
decided that due to those obvious other needs, we had to protect our City; and after consultation with the
Governor's Office, with Mr. Mercier, and with Mayor Verner and the County Commissioners, Mayor
Munson said we decided to declare a state of emergency for our city which would be effective at 5•00
p.m. yesterday. Deputy City Manager Jackson further explained that it appears there is a limited amount
of equipment available in the area; there was a meeting with the County present as well as the City of
Spokane, and it does not appear there are untapped resources in the area, so even if we were to identify a
need for a specific number of graders or loaders, that type of equipment is most likely not available to us
or to anyone at this time as the snow storm is so widespread; and there might be available to us in the
future, some monetary compensation. Deputy City Attorney Driskell said that in addition to potential
monetary assistance from the State, there may be, depending on the severity of the situation as determined
by the Governor's Office, some Federal funds as well; and that once the Declaration of Emergency is
issued, if there is available equipment, whether from Fairchild Air Force Base or the National Guard, that
could be made available to us if such equipment is not cunently in use; and he said the authority under
state law is provided by RCW 38.52.070(2) which identifies that under emergency conditions, the City
can dispense with some of the more formal requirements under the bidding laws, and the City can
therefore do what it needs to do to protect the public health, safety and welfare of its citizens and to take
care of that first and to make sure any formalities of the bid laws are followed up after the fact. Mayor
Munson also stated to Chief Thompson that we are hoping if he needs assistance in four-wheel drive
Special Emergency Meeting 12-23-08 Page 1 of 2
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
vehicles in this next upcoming storm, we may be able to get some assistance from Fairchild Air Force
Base, and he asked the Chief to keep everyone informed of his needs. Mayor Munson also mentioned
that a few moments ago he received an e-mail from the National Weather Service in Spokane, indicating a
minimum of eight to ten inches of snow beginning late this evening or early tomorrow morning, which
will turn into a wet snow by the weekend causing even more problems such as ice, all leading to an even
more severe situation. Mayor Munson, on behalf of the Council, thanked all the first responders for their
work, thanked the City workers and said that Mr. Klein and his crews have done a marvelous job; and he
said he realizes that many citizens are helping citizens as well. [Councilmember Wilhite arrived.] Mayor
Munson also voiced his disappointment with the lack of local television coverage of our City's
conditions, and said that the television stations have been contacted and the mix-up on who to send
information to has been straightened out. Mayor Munson also extended thanks to Carolbelle Branch for
her assistance in this situation as well. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed.• Rfone.
Abstentions • 1Vone. Motion carried.
Deputy City Manager Jackson said he also wanted to recognize the work of the entire staff and in
particular Mr. Kersten and Mr. Klein for their efforts during this record snow storm.
e In public comment allowed by Mayor Munson, Mr. Abe Ferris, East 11205 7~' Street, Spokane Valley,
99206, Phone: 924-1696 (home): Wife cell 710-2208 (Barbara), and said he would like to see more sand
put on the streets, and he offered his assistance as someone who has plowed for over twenty years; and
said he would like to volunteer his time for a plan for next year to handle these types of emergencies.
Mayor Munson adjourned the meeting at 4:14 p.m.
A1"TEST: Richard Munson, Mayor
Christtne Bainbridge, City Clerk
Special Emergency Meeting 12-23-08 Page 2 of 2
Approved by Council
DRAFT
MINUTES
City of Spokane Valley
City Council Regular Meeting
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Mayor Munson called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m., and welcomed everyone to the 150`h meeting
Attendance: Citv Stafl.•
Rich Munson, Mayor Mike Jackson, Deputy City Manager
Dick Denenny, Deputy Mayor Mike Connelly, City Attorney
Rose Dempsey, Councilmember Mike Stone, Parks & Rec Director
Bill Gothmann, Councilmember Scott Kuhta, Senior Planner
Steve Taylor, Councilmember Neil Kersten, Public Works Director
Diana Wilhite, Councilmember Ken Thompson, Finance Director
Kathy McClung, Community Development Dir
Absent: Lori Barlow, Associate Planner
Gary Schimmels, Councilmember John Whitehead, Human Resources Manager
Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer
Bill Miller, IT Specialist
Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk
INVOCATION: Councilmember Dempsey gave the invocation.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Councilmember Taylor led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called roll; all Councilmembers were present except
Councilmember Schimmels. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Denenny, seconded and unanimously
agreed to excuse Councilmember Schimmels from tonight's meeting
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Mayor Munson said a Roads Report from Deputy City Manager Jackson
will be added to tonight's agenda. It was moved by Councilmember Wilhite, seconded and unanimously
agreed to approve the agenda as amended
INTRODUCTION OF SPECIA.L GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS: n/a
COIVIlVIITTEE, BOARD, LIAISON SiR'VIlVIARY REPORTS:
Councilmember Taylor: no report
Denutv Mavor Denennv: reported that last Thursday he was asked by Chief Thompson to participate in
the selection of the Deputy Chief; that they spent all day interviewing candidates and the process proved
to be interesting and rewarding, and it gave him insight into the Fire Department and civil service process.
Councilmember Dempsey: no report
Councilmember Gothmann: said that the Regional Affordable Housing Task Force met to do some
final draft language of their report, which report will be presented to council in the future.
Councilmember Wilhite: explained that she attended the Spokane Regional Transportation Committee
meeting where project priorities were discussed, that the deadline was originally the 29`i' but was extended
to January 5; that the eastern region would received an estimated $150 million for different categories,
such as replacement and widening, bridge work, non-motorized, re-paving, reconstruction, and of the list
of priorities, we scored lower on replacement, but we have two projects in the bridge work category and
everything will depend on how much will be allocated; she said the scoring was based on a variety of
criteria and could not be based on population as that would have eliminated the smaller cities; she
mentioned that the group also examined the impact of projects on other jurisdictions, such as the
Council Regular Meeting. 12-30-08 Page 1 of 6
Approved by Council
DRAFT
transportation impact on Sullivan Bridge once Bigelow Gulch is completed. In response to Council
request, Public Works Director Kersten added that they are moving ahead as mentioned and trying to get
all the projects on the list ready for bid by the end of June; and said that our projects are already
prioritized and should get significant funding and we can always look at that again if necessary. '
MAYOR'S REPORT: Mayor Munson reported that he was interviewed by Mike Fitzsimmons regarding
the County cancelling our snow contract for next year, and about the wastewater treatment plant, that
Deputy Mayor Denenny was elected chair of Spokane Transit Authority (STA) Board and the STA
passed their budget, adding that the STA looked at the coming year realistically and cut back in certain
areas to save money without lowering the level of service for 2009, although the year 2010 might be
different.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Munson invited general public comment.
Dick Behm, 3626 S Rids?eview Drive: said he does a lot of snow plowing, and that these last rivo weeks
have been wild and the City is doing a remarkable job; that after the December 18 big storm, he had to dig
out berms over seven feet high across his driveway; and in looking down Sprague, it was obvious the
snow plower took all the snow and pushed it to the north side as there was no berm on the south side of
Sprague Avenue; and he said that it hasn't happened since after he spoke with the Mayor about that; and
he also mentioned that the independent contractors are more appreciative of the problems when they plow
and they try not to leave big berms; he also mentioned his dissatisfaction with Spokane County Engineers
taking Christmas Eve and Christmas day off completely and said that many people have to work holidays,
including public safety people; and that the response times were extended by police and fire due to this
and he said it was unacceptable; adding that he is personally glad the County won't be plowing next year
l.. CONSENT AGENDA: Consists of items considered routine which are approved as a group. A
Councilmember may remove an item from the Consent Agenda to be considered separately.
a. Claim Vouchers, List dated ] 2/OS/2008, Voucher # 16029 through # 16133; $3,147,110.82
b. Payroll for pay period ending December 15, 2008: $241,765.33
c. Approval of Prosecutor Interlocal Memorandum of Understanding
d. Approval of Partial Release o£Interest for Ponderosa Acres Third Addition Subdivision
e. Approval of Partial Release of Interest for Ponderosa Acres Fourth Addition Subdivision
f. Council Regular Meeting Minutes of December 9, 2008
g. Council Special Executive Session lVleeting Minutes of December 16, 2008
Concerning Consent agenda item # 1 d, Councilmember Gothmann stated that he owns one of the
properties mentioned in that agenda item; he stated he was not a proponent of the action, and had no idea
it was going to occur until it got to the Council for consideration; and that he has not discussed this with
other Councilmembers and said he would not take part in this discussion. Councilmember Gothmann then
left the dais and the Council Chambers. It was moved by CouncilmembeY Taylor, seconded, and
unanimously agreed to approve the consent agenda. Councilmember Gothmann returned to the dais.
Update on roa s conditio bv .eputv Citv Mana~er:; [added agenda item] Deputy City Manager
Jackson summarized the recent snow fall and removal efforts, which began December 17 and resulted in
closure of City Hall Dec 18 and 19 due to record setting accumulations, with 59.8 inches of snow for
December which is a record for any month as the previous record was 56.5; he mentioned the additional
graders, Mayor Munson's declaration of an emergency, and of the Council's approved resolution ratifying
that declaration; adding that the City of Spokane declared an emergency on the 24`h, and the Governor's
office declared a state-wide state of emergency. Mr. Jackson said that on December 26, 27 and 28, City
Hall was open and we took approximately 700 phone calls, most of which dealt roads not plowed, or an
emergency. Mr. Jackson stated that we realize there would be another storm behind the current storm and
said we are working with the County as the last situation report was that specific equipment was not
Council Regulaz Meeting 12-30-08 Page 2 of 6
Approved by Council
DRAFT
going to be requested for Spokane Valley, but that we made it clear that when the County puts in their
request, such needs to incorporate our needs as we work through the County; and said that we continue to
work with the Spokane Department of Emergency Operation Center (EOC) regarding need for graders in
the Valley.
Public Works Director Kersten added that the present status is that the arterials, the 1's and 2's (first and
second priorities) are clear and will be de-iced tonight; that the hillsides were cleared today and will be
de-iced tonight, and that there are eight private graders in the city doing the residentials, with about 15%
of the residentials complete, and he said they will continue through the night and tomorrow until all
residentials are cleared, which likely will be this weekend depending on weather; but he said if we gefi
another storm in the meantime, they will be moved to the arterials, adding that he realizes people are
getting bermed up a lot; said that the initial intent was that the County would handle the 1's and 2's and
we would keep the contractors on the hills and floors; but it became clear that the County couldn't handle
all the 1's and 2's so we had to pull the private contractors on the 2's to get it done; and said that
everyone is working to make sure the priority roads stayed plowed in order. Council discussion included
thanks to Mr. Kersten and staff for handling a tough situation; and the comment that this is a good
opportunity to assess working with private contractors and that the private contractors are more
considerate as they try to minimize the amount of snow in front of driveways.
NEW BUSINESS:
2. Proposed Resolution 08-024 Establislliniz Pettv Cash - Ken Thompson
It was moved by Councilmember Taylor and seconded to approve Resolution 08-024 establishing petty
cash. Finance Director Thompson said that the Auditor recommended we adopt petty cash and change
fund practices by resolution; and said that this resolution would also establish a petty cash fund in the
Parks and Recreation Department. Mayor Munson invited public comment; no comments were offered.
Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed: IVone. Abstentaons: None Motion carried
3. Motion Consideration: Mavoral Appointments, Councilmembers to Committees - Mavor Munson
Mayor Munson announced his proposed appointments, and said where an alternative is needed, that all
other Councilmembers will act as alternates in order to have a wider choice of participation. The
following are Mayor Munson's appointment recommendations:
Chamber of Commerce Board: Rich Munson
Convention Center & Visitor's Bureau: Steve Taylor, all other Councilmembers alternate
Greater Spokane, Inc.: Rich Munson, all other Councilrrtembers alternate
Ernergency Communications Board (911): Rich Munson
Finance Committee: Diana Wilhite, Dick Denenny, and Gary Schimmels
Governance ManuaL• Dick Denenny, Bill Gothmann, Rose Dempsey
Growth Mgmt Steering Committee Elected Officials: Rich Munson, Diana Wilhite (all others alternates)
Spokane Regional Health District Board: Dick Denenny, Bill Gothmann
Spokane County Housing & Comm. Development Advisory Committee (HCDAC) Bill Gothmann
International Trade Alliance: Rose Dempsey
Solid Waste Advisory Board• Gary Schimmels, all other Councilmembers alternate
Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC) Diana Wilhite, all other Councilmembers alternate
Spokane Transit Authority (STA): Dick Denenny, Rich Munson
It was moved by Councilmember Taylor and seconded, to confirm the appointments as just stated by the
Mayor to the various boards and commissions. Mayor Munson invited public comment; no comments
were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed.• None. Abstentions: None. lllotion
carried.
Council Regular Meeting 12-30-08 Page 3 of 6
Approved by Council
DRAFT
4. Motion Consideration: Mavoral Appointments, Lodiziniz Taac Advisorv Committee - Mavor Munson
Mayor Munson indicated his desire to appoint Councilmember Wilhite as chair and council liaison for the
2009 calendar year, and to re-appoint Peggy Doering, Lee Cameron, and Cal Clausen for two-year terms
to the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee. It was moved by Councilmember Taylor and seconded to
confirm the ILlayoral appointments to the Lodging Tux Advisory Committee as follows: Councrlmember
Wilhite, Chair; and Peggy Doering, Lee Cameron, and Cal Clausen as members for two year terms
Mayor Munson invited public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor
Unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried.
5. Motion Consideration: Araonne/Indiana Intersection - Neil Kersten
It tivas moved by Councilmember Gothmann and seconded to accept staff's recommendation for placing a
median to prevent left turns north from Argonne to Indian. Public Works Director Kersten explained that
the original proposal was to put in curbing and close off the turn at an estimated cost of $47,000; that we
cannot do not at this point but could place something temporarily, although he said he is uncomfortable in
placing barriers because if someone were to hit that, it would be a major impact; and said therefore he is
considering using the orange barrels filled with sand to block that turn; and when spring comes, will put
the median in place as originally planned. Mr. Kersten also mentioned that jersey barriers are too wide
and would be too close to the travel lane, and therefore would be dangerous. Mayor Munson asked about
using the posts that can be raised and Mr. Kersten said those are very expensive and very hazardous if hit;
and are used more for blocking roadways and are not intended to be used along a higher speed arterial.
Mayor Munson invited public comment; no comments were offered. Councilmember Dempsey expressed
her disappointment in going this route as she had hoped people would have been more responsible and
obeyed the law. Vote by Acclamatron. In Favor: unanimous. Opposed: None. Abstentions: None.
Motio» approved
6. Motion Consideration: Strategic Planning Alternatives Analvsis - Mike Jackson
It was moved by Cozmcilmernber Wilhrte and seconded to authorize and direct the City Manager or
desigrree to provide for the preparation of an alternatives analysis for all public services currently
provided to Spokane Valley by Spokane County in accordance with interlocal contract agreemerrts
Deputy City Manager Jackson explained that as previously mentioned, Mayor M.unson received a voice
mail from the Board of County Commissioners indicating they had voted to terminate our roads
maintenance contract effective October 15, 2009; that this was discussed at our December 16 council
meeting where there was Council consensus that to make sure we receive our other basic services
interrupted, Council should entertain a motion to address that situation. Mayor Munson invited public
comment; no comments were offered. Mayor Munson remarked that this cancellation puts a significant
strain on our ability to provide snow plowing services for next year as it takes time to put a plan together
and purchase equipment, and such is generally a two-year process. Vote by Acclumataon • In Favor •
unanimous Opposed. None Abstentions • None. Motion approved.
7. Motion Consideration: Law Enforcement Assessment Alternatives Analvsis - Mike Jackson
It was moved by Councilmember Wilhite and seconded to authorize a budget of $52,500 for an
assessment of law enforcement services alternatives analysis presented by ICMA Consulting and to
authorize the City Manager to finalize and execute a contract for such services. Deputy City Manager
Jackson explained that of all the contracts staff will be reviewing, this is by far the largest with an annual
cost of $14 million; that since ICMA is already working on this and had previously provided an option;
that now is an opportune time to commission with them. Councilmember Gothmann said that he assumed
we would look at all alternatives, such as paring with the City of Spokane or other Counties, or private
firms; in addition to examining the costs of providing our own services. Mr. Jackson suggested adopting
this for this specific component; and said we can bring this back later to examine other alternatives or to
make a decision about looking at further alternatives. After Council discussion about mention of the
transition committee's research on this topic; including positive and negative impacts; mention that this
Council Regular Meeting 12-30-08 Page 4 of 6
Approved by Council
DRAFT
has no reflection on the excellent service we are currently receiving from the Sheriff's Office and mention
by Mayor IViunson that he and Mr. Mercier spoke with the Sheriff's Office and assured him we are not
doing this to launch our own police department and are doing this as the County could give us a one-year
notice on this agreement as well; and mention by Mayor Munson that the Sheriff s Office supports our
efforts and intends to lobby that termination never takes place. Mayor Munson voiced a need to meet
with the County as it appears there is a lack of trust and said we need to get assurance that we represent
the same people; adding that a meeting could take place in January or February. Mayor Munson invited
public comment; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor. Unanimous. Opposed.
None. Abstentions • 1Vone. Motion passed
PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Munson invited general public comments; no comments were offered.
Mayor Munson called for a recess at 7:10 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 7:20 p.m.
DELIBERATION:
8. Saraizue/Aonlewav Revitalization Plan - Scott Kuhta
Senior Planner Kuhta gave a summary of the December 16 council deliberations, which were also
included in the council packet; and said a report will be presented at the January 6 meeting concerning the
public notice process. Mr. Kuhta also mentioned that regarding the adult entertainment regulations, we
will go back later into the Uniform Development Code of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code to amend
that section to add new zone district boundaries, as the regulations are very restrictive we will need to
clean all that up once adopted. Mr. Kuhta showed the aerial photo and he explained where the boundaries
are; and said that staff proposes to take the neighborhood center boundary just past the vacant area with
the rest still zoned community commercial under the current zone, and he asked for Council discussion
regarding that proposal After Council discussion concerning the Four Seasons business, mention that the
proposed neighborhood center is probably not consistent with that type of use; and whether to keep the
line where it is or move it to the west with Mr. Kuhta explaining the neighborhood center designation is
more for pedestrian activity such as grocery stores, plant stores, etc., there was Council consensus to move
the neighborhood center boundarv one lot over to the other side of the ba»k. Discussion moved to
gateway commercial zoned districts, and of Mr. Kuhta's suggestion to keep the spreadsheet handy for
each meeting's deliberation, it was mentioned that there was a suggestion to add light industrial as a
building use category then decide what is and isn't permitted, and that Mr. Kuhta we will have that as a
separate section next time, although he mentioned that it won't be in the next packet as that council
packet goes out tomorrow.
Discussion was also held concerning amusement parks, and there was consensus to add amusement parks
in the Qatewav commercial centeps. Mr. Kuhta then reviewed and explained some of the regulations in
the gateway commercial avenue and centers, including maximum heights and frontage regulations,
including mention by Deputy Mayor Denenny and other Councilmembers of auto row wanting frontage
on both Appleway and Sprague, and that Council would like to go back and look at some examples that
Mr. Freedman had presented earlier. Mr. Kuhta said he could research those and brinz some slides of that
next time. and said the "big book" plan has some pictures toward the back of the book.
Other discussion included mention of letter # 19 and of the previously approved Street Vacation of First
Avenue and Sipple; and that this letter will be further discussed when the discussion takes place on the
topic of pre-located streets. There was mention in the letter of the concern about requiring a new street
when the maximum block size is used; and that under the Street & Open Space standards, the maximum
block size is four acres and that their lot is larger than that, so development would require a new street to
be located somewhere on their property; and there was also the letter's suggestion of eliminating the
maximum block size or exempting auto dealerships. Councilmember Gothmann said he prefers to say a
street is needed every two blocks, or 700 or 800 feet, and Mayor Munson asked how that concept would
Council Regular Meeting 12-30-08 Page 5 of 6
Approved by Council
DRAFT
work with what we have now. Mr. Kuhta said he would rather discuss this with the future pre-located
street discussion as he would like Public Works available to answer potential questions.
The eastern boundary of the gateway commercial avenue area was discussed, with the ultimate council
consensus to leave it as is, with Mayor Munson in opposition. Other discussion included built-to-corner
regulations in the Gateway Commercial zone, the regulations in the mixed use avenue as shown on the
spreadsheet and discussion of what it includes; that the Planning Commission added light industrial uses
and that we will examine that definition again to see if there are other issues which should be added; and
that we can later determine if it would be appropriate for this zone to include retail with bio-technical
chemicals, if they are stored outside the building; and mention by Councilmember Taylor about gas
stations at major intersections along Sprague. Further mention of vehicle sales was brought up, including
the idea of having all car sales located at auto row, and Mr. Connelly suggested writing it as car sales
instead of new or used car sales; and the desired future discussion of outdoor storage including such
stores as Ace Hardware and others having temporary outdoor storage or taking up parking in limited
parking areas. Community Development Director McClung mentioned special sales, such as putting up
tents in parking lots, and whether to have this done on a permit basis, or have an ordinance for temporary
sales; and said staff would have to look at it to see how it applies, as there are some uses that will come in
for a month, and others may be seasonal, and that it appears most if not all major box stores do that, but
enforcement would be difficult; so options would be to allow it, not allow it, have it screened, permit it
provided it doesn't interfere with parking requirements; or other options.
ADMINISTRATIVE RICiPORTS: N/A
INFORMATYON ONLY: The following items were for information only and were not reported or
dcscussed Update on Office of Public Defense GrantAward, and Department Reports.
EXECUTNE SESSION: Land Acquisition, Pending Litigation
It tivas moved by Councilmember Gothmann, seconded and unanrmously agreed to adjourn to executive
session to dcscuss land acgursition and pending litigation, for not more than thirty minutes, a»d that no
action would be taken thereafter. Council adjourned into Executive Session at 8:45 p.m. At 9:11 p.m.,
Mayor Munson declared Council out of Executive Session, at which time it was moved, seconded and
unanimously agreed to adjourn.
ATTEST:
Richard Munson, Mayor
Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk
Council Regular Meeting 12-30-08 Page 6 of 6
Approved by Council
DRAFT
MINUTES
SPECIAL RETREAT MEETING
SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL
Spokane Valley City Hall
2"a Floor Conference Room
Spokane Valley, Washington
January 05, 2009 5:00 p.m.
Attendance:
Councilmembers Staff
Rich Munson, Mayor Dave Mercier, City Manager
Dick Denenny, Deputy Mayor Mike Jackson, Deputy Crty Manager
Rose Dempsey, Councilmember Katiry McClung, Community Develop. Dir.
Bill Gothmann, Councilmember Ken Thompson, Finance Director
Gary Schimmels, Councilmember Mike Connelly, City Attorney
Steve Taylor, Councilmember Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney
Diana Wilhite, Councilmember Neil Kersten, Public Works Director
Mary Kate Martin, Building Official
Mike Stone, Parks & Rec Director -
Carolbelle Branch, Public Information
Others: Rick VanLeuven, Police Chief
Mike Huffman, Valley News Herald Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk
Mayor Munson opened the meeting at approximately 5:00 p.m.
Roads/Weather Update:
Mayor Munson suggested liaving a discussion and an update of the road/snow situation, and he
mentioned that the decision was made last night to close schools today based on impending snow, lack of
visibility, and that the students would be forced to wait in the street for their bus, and/or would be walking
to school in the streets since the sidewalks were thoroughly obscured. Chief VanLeuven added that the
Sheriff did a live broadcast today and mentioned that the decision for school opening tomonow would be
left to the superintendent' discretion; but that East Valley, Cheney, and others said they would not re-
open; and he said many people are hard at work today to open the sidewalks in front of the schools. Chief
VanLeuven also mentioned that work would be done tonight to remove a berm off the sidewalk from
North Pines Junior High School. City Manager Mercier explained that meanwhile the National Weather
Service indicated rain will be spread out over the next three to four days, but that there is no concern
about the River cresting its banks, and he said the emphasis has been to deploy as much equipment as
necessary to get the roadways open. Mr. Mercier also mentioned that he has copies of "FEMA Snow
Emergency Assistance Policy" and "US Small Business Administration Disaster Assistance Loans"
handouts which will be kept with the City Clerk should anyone wish a copy. Mx. Mercier reported that we
are more likely to see urban flooding as the snow melts and runs down the road, and there will not be easy
access, if access at all, to the drywells; and the melting will result in pockets of pooling, and we will have
equipment to deal with those on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Mercier said there was also discussion about
removing the snow from the sidewalks, although that has never been attempted in the past and at this
point would not be practical as it would result in an astronomical cost; but we have turned our focus on
the more sensitive points for schools and what can be done to reduce the concern there, aside from
bringing in a$70,000 a day grader to widen the roadways, which Mr. Mercier said he opposes doing
unless there are problems with getting emergency crews through, and said that widening the roadways
would also re-clog all the driveways; and said he feels it will be several weeks before we see the
sidewalks again; but that we will try to address problems on a case-by-case basis.
Speaking to non-transportation weather issues, Deputy City Manager Jackson said the other concern of
businesses and homeowners is the snow loading on roofs; and said that especially flat roofs are getting
marginal and that likely even another inch could cause failures. Mr. Jackson said the police precinct roof
Coirncil Meeting Minutes • 01-05-09 Page I of 8
Approved by Councrl:
DRAFT
has been shoveled, and the CenterPlace roof is in good condition; as is the Western Dance Hall, and that it
is his understanding it costs approximately $3,000 to get this building's roof shoveled. Mayor Munson
said that an estimated 75 roofs have caved in throughout the County.
1. Review 2009 Council budget goals - Dave Mercier/Mike Jackson
Goal #1: Continue monitoring wastewateY issues, including governance of wastewater factlities and
pursuit of the most efficient and economical methods to ensure the continuation of wastewater dcscharge
licenses City Manager Mercier explained that we generally begin each retreat with a re-visit of the
council goals; and he asked if there were any suggestions for goal #1. Although no chanizes were
sufmested to the goal, there was brief discussion on the topic of wastewater with mention of the County
voting tomorrow to build the facility, and the TMDL (total maximum daily load) process which everyone
wants solved. Mayor Munson voiced his opinion that this issue could end up in court which might result
in forcing a building moratorium; that Attorney Connelly mentioned his department has begun research
on related issues and what rights we would have if faced with a moratorium decision. Mayor Munson
said he has started preliminary discussions with the City of Spokane for a Plan B as they possibility have
the capacity to assist us, but even if that is the case, the building pipe cost associated with it is a concern;
and he said that in 2003 the estimated cost to build a plant was $100 million.
Goal #2: Seek fundin~? sources for Citv Center that builds upon the City's initial investment in a Ciry Hall
to spur further private investment in the development of a mixed use City Center Mr. Mercier said that
this is likely tlle most challenging goal to deal with as when this goal was constructed last June, it was
hoped that our SARP would be complete by now and we would be focusing on the plan's
tmplementation, but he said we still hope to get there and adopt the Plan in February or March; however,
there are questions about what to do about City Hall, when you pull the trigger on that, and the basic
question of how to go about blending that with other needs and financing in the City Center, and he asked
Council if they would like to modify this language to reflect the current day sense of reality. Council
discussion included the idea of removing this goal for this year; analy7ing design alternatives once the
design has been completed; with the current economy, funding is not likely to be approved by the public
this year; the idea of including some aspect of this project in with the economic stimulus package and
thereby receive federal funding versus public funding; continue investigating alternative funding
mechanisms; waiting until rune to address this goal further; or remove as a goal but keep planning and
researching. Mr. Mercier said regarding possible 2009 accomplishments with this project in 2009
includes negotiating a sales purchase agreement for the property and given the opportunity, perhaps
purchasing the property in 2009; and doing the next phase of architectural planning and design.
Councilmembers expressed their desire to keep this a live goal and to continue to investigate funding
sources, realizing Council will be adopting the Plan which will leave a lot of administrative and code
related components to address, likely by fall or next winter. There was Council consensus to move this
goal to the 6ottom of the list, and to change it to read "Seek-Exvlore future funding sources for City
Center that builds upon the City's initial investment in a City Hall to spurfurther private investment rn
the developnient of a mixed use City Center.
Goal #3: Identrfv performance measures for the Police Devartment and monitor progress in their
attainment. Mr. Mercier said that through the ICMA Consulting and our evaluation of that report, we are
addressing this goal; and he is not sure we need to do anything else in that regard, as the original wording
best describes the underlying intent of the study. There was some discussion on the idea of changing
some of the wording, or to have a new goal to continue to monitor and assess all or some contracts, or to
address having a separate goal later. Mr. Mercier said we are already initiating alternate analysis for
services we derive under contract; and regarding a performance measure, he recommended trying out the
one we have in the business plan, get the citizen's survey results, get the ICMA results, then test drive this
for a while, so this would be phase one of a multi-phase endeavor. No changes were suggested to this
goal.
Goal #4. Implement and evaluate regulations specified in the Sprague/Appleway revitalization Plan as
adopted and arnended by the City Council. There were no suaizested chanpes for this R-oal, and it was
Counctl Meeting Mcnutes 01-05-09 Page 2 of 8
Approved by Counctl
DRAFT
mentioned that the schedule is to adopt the SARP in March following a final public hearing; and to also
allow for thirty day's of "digestion" fiime between the last deliberation and the adoption of the plan.
Mayor Munson said there was agreement today to add a special meeting for Monday January 12 to further
discuss the SARP, and there is still the possibility of adding a meeting for Monday, January 26 if needed.
Goal #S. Evaluate the availability, costs and effects of prrvate sector vendoYS peYforming winter road
maintenance for the Ciry. Discussion included mention that the County accelerated our movement to this
goal, and originally Council felt this would be an initial attempt to do an appropriate alternate analysis
while not under duress; that there are serious concerns with this goal, and a more rational way would have
been to have more than eight or nine months' notice; mention was made that if we go to the private sector
and ask them to make a long term investment decision, they would need to have a sense that this will be
more than one fiscal period. The conversation included mention of the current winter/road conditions, and
Mr. Mercier said that no community in this State could afford to handle events like these last few weeks,
and there has never been an attempt to haul snow off sidewalks, and we have never had to contend with
this amount of snow. Speculation concerning whether the current County contract provisions were
sufficient; and mention that any private contractor would assess the situation differently; however, when
we told Senske of our park expectations, it was easier to determine how to meet expectations rather than
try to regulate precisely how much grass should be allowed before mowing; and thus should be the same
with a winter road contract. Mr. Mercier said that he and Neil Kersten mentioned that to order and have
new trucks would take significant time and there is always the possibility of having another winter next
year, like this year's. Additional discussion included mention of performing this task in-house, the need
for the same amount of equipment, that we don't have summer offset work for these same people; that
such a transition would be better over a three to five-year period; but dealing with the reality of short
notice complicates the matter but does not lessen the need to have rational, affordable responses. There
were no suagested changes for this aoal.
Goal #6 • Complete records indexiniz and phase in a document imaizinQ svstem Caty department by City
department with the goal of achieving city-wide implementation in 2010. As the document imaging
system has now begun and the indexing occurs in tandem with the document imaging, it was suggested to
change this goal to read: E'~~migiet-e--implement records indexiniz and phase in a document irrraQrnQ svstem
City department by City department with the goal of achieving city-wide irnplementation in 2010.
There was brief budget/goal discussion with Councilmember Taylor asking if there is a priority
surrounding any budget need, or a need to streamline the budget, and Mr. Mercier said that it is a little too
early to tell and we don't lcnow yet about the economy, but that we are fortunate to have some financial
strength, and at the half-year retreat, we will address what we know about revenue receipts and the
stimulus package; and will also likely discuss the 2010 budget at that point. Mr. Mercier said there are no
big initiatives in the 2009 budget, and we will simply continue funding the year TTP identified projects,
tivith Mr. Jackson adding that the past goal was to develop a six-year financial plan and integrate that into
the business plan, which continues on an on-going basis.
2. Financial Forecast - Ken Thompson
Mr. Thompson mentioned the general carryover from the prior year should be $16 million instead of the
stated $14 million, which will add $2 million to the other figures; he said we have not included the two
street loans into these figures; that we will likely be fine on our revenues and have a potential increase in
income; that the "x" shown on the sales tax goes away which amounts to $700,000 or $800,000 annually;
as that was the 1/10 of 1% for public safety. Mr. Thompson mentioned the sales tax top line of $18,750,
and said we collected $19,600 in 2007; that property tax went up a little; we have backed away on fihe
gambling tax, and lost one casino and a few others are not paying timely as it appears the big casinos
might be taking business away from the smaller ones; he said our sales tax is down substantially, but the
carryover from the prior year budget helps as we normally don't spend everything budgeted. Mr. Mercier
said we are in the third and final year of the collective bargaining agreement, and will likely re-negotiate
in about six months; and the cost-of-living will be the same for represented and non-represented
employees.
Counctl Meeting Minutes: Ol -OS-09 Page 3 of 8
Approved by Counccl
DRAFT
Mr. Thompson said that the street fund, line #1 would be down around $1 million or less; that we likely
spent a large amount of that $1.5 million in December; that the phone tax will start in January but it is
difficult to get all the telephone utility companies lined up and reporting, so while we don't expect any
resistance, we can't get all the phone companies to respond, even though three letters have been sent out.
Mr. Thompson further eYplained that the motor fuel tax continues to shrink a little and the $2 million is
probably a little high; and we also don't have included in the figures what we might decide to do about
snow plowing next winter, and he said it is likely to cost more. In looking at "Problem Statement #3" Mr.
Thompson explained that we had to back off a little from the revenue, and said these figures don't include
state and federal funds; that we will use about $300,000 for storm drainage projects whether as part of
street projects or stand alone storm program; that we expect some funds from the State for our Universal
Park; and he mentioned the $85,000 insurance settlement figure from when the stables caught fire, and the
subsequent shut off of the fire hydrants (ed to floor damage to the old senior building, and that figure is
what is left from about $109,000. Mr. Thompson said the cost of projects is increasing dramatically, there
are extra costs on the swimming pools, and bridges, all of which moves the deficit up a couple years and
we are probably not at the point where we need to prioritize projects; and in summary he said revenues
are down, expenses are up, and we won't be able to do every project that comes along.
3. Funding Outions Bond Issues - Ken ThomiDson
Mr. Thompson explained that capital needs and parks were included when deciding what projects to do;
and that possible funding decisions/sources include vehicle registration fees, or some kind of voter
approved bond sale which would general income via a properiy tax increase, but he said that is not likely
to occur this year; that there is another general election in November so the numbers are likely to be
smaller, but when Council is ready to explore that possibility, discussion will need to be held concerning
what election date, and whether a committee would be needed. Mayor Munson said in his discussions
with AWC, there is still resistance from the business community for a street utility tax with opposition to
the number of trips and lack of caps; but that he heard from our lobbyist that businesses would be willing
to discuss caps, but that the lobbyist does not expect to see a lot of progress in that regard, and major
cities on the west side are enthusiastic and supportive of this idea as they see this as a larger generator of
income then B&O tax, with Seattle, Olympia, Tacoma, and Bellevue in favor; but he said AWC feels the
issue won't get through without voter approval; and the State legislators don't want to impose a new tax
this year, adding that there has been serious discussion on the state income tax idea, which would have to
be over the Governor's veto.
4. Impact Fee Studv
At Council's request, City Attorney Connelly explained what is allowed by law regarding impact fees;
that it may be used for parks, streets, transportation, schools and fire; that the tax must be based on
improvements anticipated within a set period; and the improvements must be cost out and an assessment
done on those costs on a per unit basis for new development, not for old development; that the money
must be used to do the improvements set forth in the plan; that most cities divide their city into regional
districts, then identify those districts for transportation plans; this procedure is common in northern Idaho
and on the west side of Washington, but it doesn't exist here; he further explained that Spokane City
passed an impact fee ordinance for transportation but did not implement it; so they have an ordinance that
can't yet be enforced and we (and others) are waiting to see if there will be some other type of funding
mechanism proposed by the state, such as a utility tax. There is an alternative, Mr. Connelly said, to
designate the entire city as a district.
City Manager Mercier said that one also needs an engineer study, for transportation in particular, and a
determination must be made on what fee in lieu of actual construction will be assessed; and that
concurrency must still be considered when considering improvements; and that this all has to fit
somewhere into the multi-year program. Mr. Connelly added that the impact fee takes away the direct
impact requirement; for example, you could build up to the level of service F, and the next development
has the problem; and he said that we are running up against a number of failing street intersections,
probably this year or next such intersections as the Sullivan conidor, or some part of Pines will reach the
Council Meetrng Minutes 01-05-09 Page 4 of 8
Approved by Council
DRAFT
point where of not obtaining cunency; then we would be in a position of telling companies they cannot
build; so the impact fee gives a long term method of getting past that, but you have to have a plan; or you
could lower the level of service; or tell them no more building; but just saying "no" he explained, is not a
solution as cities must come up with a plan to say "yes."
Mr. Mercier said that for other impact fees like for schools, they have a plan; they say they need "x"
amount of money so any new development will have a pro-rata share to pay, including new homes, multi-
family dwellings, etc. Mr. Connelly added that the schools and fire district are separate and are not a
burden on the city's general fund, and said that schools cannot implement impact fees as that would be a
decision of the City. After brief discussion on the process Liberty Lake followed, there was comment
concerning the procedure for LIDs (local improvement district), and TBDs (transportation benefit
district), and Mr. Mercier said the LID is a complicated 128-step procedure which is easily challengeable;
that it takes a long time to implement, and can be used but is best used if there are only a few property
owners involved. Deputy City Attorney Driskell explained that a TBD is a smaller zone where you
identify a hot spot where you know there will be specific transportation impacts. Mayor Munson said he
would like to re-focus discussion on a limited type of fee position, or examine a city-wide impact fee.
Councilmember Gothmann added that he would like to find out all he can about impact fees, and he
understands a cost to have a transportation study could be very expensive, and with a tight budget year,
perhaps that could be better spent elsewhere; but that he would still like to find out about it, and if the
economy turns around, this could be something to consider then.
Councilmember Taylor remarked about Sullivan and Sprague, or Barker and the freeway, and said most
impacts are not coming from within the city but are from without, and he speculated about having a
structure in place to make SEPA mitigation more uniform, commenting that perhaps the JPA (joint
planning area) might help that process; and Bigelow Gulch was given as an example of an area outside
our jurisdiction that impacts our city by "dumping" traffic on Sullivan. Mr. Connelly said that Council -
will be briefed later this year or next about not meeting concurrency, and if that occurs, whether we would
deny service or re-define the level of service; that our comp plan defines level of service by wait time at
intersections, or it could be defined by corridor passage time, or by a type of screening method by
drawing a line from a project outwards, and then count the number of arterials that line crosses, and if one
line meets the appropriate level of service, then we would be ok; but other than at intersections, counting
traffic is very expensive; adding that we could define the level of service at Sprague and Sullivan as F, but
there would need to be a basis for doing so. Mayor Munson commented that there is a finite amount of
developable land, and perhaps Sprague could be a major source of funds once the Plan starts to mature.
Other points of discussion included other areas good for establishing impact fees; types of impact fees;
examples of what could or couldn't be done; time to absorb developable areas; costs; importance of doing
the study prior to implementing an impact fee; that there are examples such as Spokane and Pierce
County which might prove beneficial to explore; the need to identify the pros and cons of doing any
particular impact fee; that it amounts to someone having to pay, whether it be developers, homeowners, or
others and that everyone would benefit from the improvements; that there must be some literature
available to study this topic; that an impact fee is not a full problem solver and whatever method might be
used, we would need to bring an educational process to the public so there would be an understanding of
how this would work. Mr. Mercier mentioned the more immediate pressing problem concerns basic
maintenance and replacement, which Council will hear when the J-U-B presentation is made in a few
weeks; and that while impact fees are a legitimate line of inquiry, there are a sequencing of challenging
events within our community, and other things with a greater priority, and that a whole new infrastructure
stimulus plan could introduce an entirely new opportunity for us, and said that perhaps now it is better to
focus on pavement management then on impact fees.
Mayor Munson called for a short break at 7:05 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 7:15 p.m.
Councrl Meeting Mrnutes: Ol -OS-09 Page 5 of 8
Approved by Council
DRAFT
5. Leeislative Agenda
Mr. Mercier mentioned Council's legislative agenda which council adopted last September; and said that
for the upcoming state legislative session, there will likely be between 3,000 and 4,000 bills introduced;
and that as the process continues, there will be a base element of legislative concerns; and said that staff
and council are scheduled to attend this session this year; that our lobbyist is working on perfecting
appointments for us February 17, and said we want to get the most individual meetings possible before
the conference actually begins, as once the committees are established and do their reports, the pace will
be fast and furious. Mr. Mercier said our lobbyist will contact him and he will copy the Mayor if there
are instant decisions which must be made. Mr. Mercier asked Council to look through the items
previously noted and asked if Council has anything new to add.
Mayor Munson mentioned the probability of legislation concerning taping executive sessions and that we
should be prepared to defend adding any such legislation; and Mr. Mercier added that last year Council's
position was to maintain the attorney/client privilege as best as possible, and it would be cumbersome to
accept taping executive sessions. Mayor Munson also mentioned the rumor to district the city again
through legislation action, but that he is not sure who is spearheading that other than the same individual
who brought it up last time. Councilmember Wilhite mentioned she spoke with Joe McKinnon last week
and he said it is out of his hands and he will not be asking for that. Mayor Munson further mentioned that
there will be several climate change issues this year, and that Senator Marr, who is on the Governor's
Task Force, will introduce legislation that will require GMA planning to consider greenhouse gas control,
which will likely be costly and time consuming; that AWC is against this, and there are indications the
Governor's office feels this measure is too expensive, but there has been no press release from her office
yet; adding that the state struggles to clean up Puget Sound, which will be diff'icult as the state's clean
water standards are too demanding based on current technology to actually clean up the Sound. Deputy
Mayor Denenny mentioned modeling, and said that is a premier point on deciding what has to be in effect
and control discharges; that hitting regulations based on modeling is simply information going into the
computer; and we shouldn't use modeling for regulatory purposes but could use it for planning as we
don't know if any of the variables are accurate.
Mayor Munson explained that GSI (Greater Spokane, Inc.) is developing a region-wide legislative agenda
and that bothers him; in that they (GSI) are trying to fill a void in municipalittes by developing their own;
and Councilmember Wilhite mentioned that even more so is the aggressive stand they are taking on
transportation. Further discussion was held concerning GSI's legislative agenda and the magnitude of
their list, and that it might be better if they had a business interest section as it doesn't appear to be very
much business focused. Discussion on this topic ended with mention of the upcoming meetings in
Olympia next month, and that it might be a good idea to schedule a tour, perhaps by chartered bus, of our
Ciry and show some of the legislators our capital projects and give them an overview of our budget
6. Information onlv: VVorkplan; Six-Year Business Plan
Mr. Mercier mentioned the workplan and Six-Year Business Plan are for information only to show how
the goals fifi into the budget; and that the business plan in an ongoing strategic document; and that the
financial presentation from Mr. Thompson includes a line on that; and it isolates the cost associated with
those new variations. Council asked Mr. Jackson to include the Six-Year Business Plan on our website.
7. Brainstorming
Brainstorming resulted in the following suggestions, comments and ideas:
Snow/Weather: Councilmember Gothmann asked if a report could be generated on our snow response;
what we did right and what could we do better; adding that putting up the snow line was a good idea, and
he commended Public Information Officer Carolbelle Branch for her work in that regard, which resulted
in doubling the number of people who subscribe to our e-newsletter. Deputy Mayor Denenny mentioned
he feels there is nothing wrong in making some adjustments regarding letting people use their own
equipment, but safety is a major concern especially dealing with trucks and limited visibility.
Councilmember Gothmann suggested putting aside a percentage of winter funds to plan for snow
Councrl Meetrng Mrnutes. 01-05-09 Page 6 of 8
Approved by Council •
DRAFT
plowing, and he commended Mayor Munson for a job well done. Mayor Munson said when someone had
to spealc, he did, and there were many opportunities to do so; that he had discussions about dealing with
the County and he became very dissatisfied with their level of performance; that it all became very
political and it was difficult not to get involved with the discussion; that he mentioned Mr. Mercier's idea
of talking to the County about extending the contract for another year, but the County did not live up to
our expectations, and having one driver on Christmas was not good; and that he personally prefers not
going back to the County. Councilmember Taylor mentioned that this year's snow was a huge event and
there is only so much equipment; that the County has a contractual obligation with us and others and as
they have their own road network, he can see conflicts there. Mr. Mercier said this event outstripped
capacity of any provider; that he realizes there are some divided loyalties, but for us, if a contractor
equipment is to be deployed for a certain percentage in the Valley, then that is what is expected; that we
realize there are or will be equipment breakdowns, and if we don't have the equipment, we need rational
explanations and when those explanations don't come, it causes lots of questions. Further discussion
ensued on policies versus administrative decisions, the multiple meetings at the Emergency Operations
Center, learning from mistakes, and rectifying the problem of the media not issuing our press releases;
adding that we only have nine months to determine our plan for next winter. Councilmember Taylor
asked about forming our own public works department and Mr. Mercier said the operating premise from
day one was to maximize contractual opportunities, or do the service in-house if those were not available;
that an initial plan B would have a forrnula model of service to use for a private sector response; and if
those were not affordable, then a plan C would be necessary, adding that is it not rational to have just
winter maintenance for an independent contractor, that the RFP (request for proposal) must include an
explanation of services; adding that with any new service provider, there will be a training/learn ing curve.
There was also brief discussion on how we keep the public informed, and how the public contacts us.
Tax Increment Financing: Councilmember Taylor mentioned incentives such as tax increment financing
and asked what can we add on to the city center to help spur development there, realizing this is not a
prime time to be in retail now as many major retailers are facing or have experienced bankruptcy.
Discussion included mention of a planned action ordinance; the need to finalize a contract; how to pay for
the infrastructure: the City's part versus the private developer's part; how to make this all happen and
what tools are available, including state and/or federal funds; and that most state funds have been tapped
but the federal economy stimulus package has not yet been finalized, and it might provide financing for
interior roads to the city center, which would create further incentive to develop. Mr. Mercier added that
for tax increment financing, a district must be defined, a special tax consideration made, there is a need to
determine the current value of the property in those districts, and as new value is added, a percentage is
added and balanced to pay for the facilities.
Greater Spokane, Inc.: Mayor Munson said we are the only jurisdiction not holding them (GSI)
accountable for funding from us; that other entities require a detailed explanation of how funds were
spent; that he is not sure we grant them funds to develop models for the region, but more that we grant
them money for economic development, and he believes our money is going into their general fund; that
Spokane City and Spokane County provide a tracking utility and he would like us to do likewise. Deputy
Mayor Denenny and Councilmember Wilhite agreed; and Mayor Munson said he will contact Spokane
City and Spokane County to ask them their procedure.
Spokane Countv: Mayor Munson said there is a level of trust between us and the County that needs
repair; and he asked how best to do that, suggesting that perhaps he and Deputy Mayor Denenny could
first speak to Commissioner Mielke about the differences; with Councilmember Taylor mentioning that
people act differently when in a public setting, and that perhaps we need a meeting with ground rules; and
he said we owe it to our constituents to get this figured out; and we need to take an opportunity to express
the displeasure in the way this last contract was severed. Councilmember Dempsey suggested not having
ground rules, as starting a meeting that way could make the meeting participants defensive; and Deputy
Mayor Denenny suggested an informal meeting with them to get a sense of what they feel has occurred
and how to approach these issues, or in the alternative, to have a formal meeting in open session; and
Councilmember Taylor agreed with the need for a formal meeting. It was agreed that Mayor Munson and
Council Meeting Minutes: 01-05-09 Page 7 of 8
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
Deputy Mayor Denenny should meet with Commissioner Mielke to set up an agenda. City Attorney
Connelly cautioned that a series of ineetings on the same topic could be a problem; and he suggested the
need to move forward and talk about what we are all going to do, versus what happened in the past. Mr.
Mercier stated that the major failing is the ongoing relationship and one pariy making a decision without
consultation with the other party; that we need some confidence that our concerns will get a fair hearing
before some precipitous action is undertaken.
Other Contracts: Mr. Mercier mentioned that an item in the council packet for tomorrow night's meeting
deals with the court system; that there are some odd calendar regulations in dealing with the municipal
court system; and if we are going to develop an alternate analysis for courts, and if we want to do that
within the next six years, we have to give some notice by the end of this month; that the termination
notice of 180 days is inconsistent with state statutes; that we have to follow the statutes; whereas the
County can go by 180-day notice of termination; and he encouraged Council to examine that issue. Mayor
Munson said he will contact the Commissioners to let them know it is on our agenda for tomorrow and he
will emphasize the reasons for this agenda item. Concerning the solid waste contract, Deputy Mayor
Denenny said we need to determine how much we want private concerns involved, how to set up
governance for this, and he said this needs to be on a future agenda. Mr. Connelly said he is working on
drafting a summary of the rules of solid waste.
Panhandliog: Councilmember Gothmann asked about the next steps for panhandling; that the concept
was that Council would promote a regional organization to develop an education program and he
suggested Ian Robertson form a regional committee. Council concurred with that suggestion.
Spokane Vallev: Councilmember Dempsey mentioned her objection with people referring to our city as
"The Valley" or the Spokane Valley, indicating we are in the possession of Spokane.
There being no further business, Mayor Munson adjourned the meeting at 8:50 p.m.
ATTEST. Richard Munson, Mayor
Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk
Council Meeting Minutes 01-05-09 Page 8 of 8
Approved by Counccl ,
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date. January 13, 2009 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: Informational memo on options regarding District Court contract
GOVERNING LEGISLATION. RCW 39.34.180, RCW 3 50 810, and RCW 35.20.010
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Approval of Interlocal Agreement for Costs Incident to
AdJudication of Misdemeanor and Gross Misdemeanor Offenses in the City of Spokane Valley.
BACKGROUND The City entered into an interlocal agreement with Spokane County and the
District Court for Spokane County to adjudicate its infractions, misdemeanor and gross
misdemeanor offenses, effective March 27, 2006 The contract was for one year, but
automatically renews unless terminated by one of the parties
On December 30, 2008, the City Council instructed staff to undertake an alternatives analysis
for all of the contracts for services provided by Spokane County for contingency planning
purposes.
OPTIONS The City has three identifiable options at this time for the provision of District Court
services.
(1) The City could choose to maintain its current contract with Spokane County and the
District Court. If this were the choice, no action would be required.
(2) The City could contract with another governmental entity that had the ability to
provide these services. It would appear that the City of Spokane would be the only other
potential provider due to our volume The City of Spokane recently announced they are
going to start their own separate municipal court beginning January 1, 2009 Staff
anticipates the City would be able to contract with Spokane for these services under a
similar contractual relationship and under similar terms as it currently has with Spokane
County If the City were to consider having a contract with Spokane, the Council would
need to give the County and District Court appropriate notice of termination of the
existing contract
The current contract is done pursuant to RCW 39.34.180, which allows a jurisdiction to
contract for any service it is statutorily allowed to provide itself. RCW 39.34.180(4)
states that a city or county that wishes to terminate an agreement for the provision of
court services must Provide written notice of the intent to terminate the agreement in
accordance with RCW 3.50 810 and 35.20 010."
RCW 3 50.810 states as follows:
(1) Any city having entered into an agreement for court services with the county
must provide written notice of the intent to terminate the agreement to the county
legislative authority not less than one year prior to February 1 st of the year in
which all district court judges are subject to election.
(2) Any city that terminates an agreement for court services to be provided by
a district court may terminate the agreement only at the end of a four-year district
court judicial term
(3) A county that wishes to terminate an agreement with a city for the
provision of court services must provide written notice of the intent to terminate
the agreement to the city legislative authority not less than one year prior to the
expiration of the agreement
RCW 35.20.010 states, in pertinent part, as follows.
(3) A city that has entered into an agreement for court services with the county
must provide written notice of the intent to terminate the agreement to the county
legislative authority not less than one year prior to February 1 st of the year in
which all district court Judges are subject to election A city that terminates an
agreement for court services to be provided by a district court may terminate the
agreement only at the end of a four-year district court judicial term.
(4) A county that wishes to terminate an agreement with a city for the provision
of court services must provide written notice of the intent to terminate the
agreement to the city legislative authority not less than one year prior to the
expiration of the agreement
If the City were to choose this option, likely the earliest it could utilize the new provider
would be January 1, 2011 because the four-year judicial term ends December 31, 2010
The notice of termination most likely would need to be given prior to February 1,
2009 as required bv these statutes. The current contract with Spokane County states
in Section 4 that either party may terminate the agreement on at least 180 days written
notice. This appears to be contrary to state law, and staff recommends counting on
having to comply with the statutory notice requirements, rather than the shorter
contractual notice period if the City chooses to not give notice of termination prior to
February 1, 2009, the City would be unable to terminate its contractual relationship with
Spokane County and District Court until at least December 31, 2014 because of the
timing of the judicial terms If the City were to consider glving notice of termination, the
Council may want to give thought to also requestrng the abil►ty to revoke the termination
up to December 31, 2009. That way, it would give the City additional time to fully
analyze the available alternatives that is not currently available given the February 1,
2009 deadline for notice of termination
It is also important to note that the County has a much shorter termination Qeriod
under these statutes, one vear from the end of the contract. Since the contract is
renewed each year unless terminated, it is an annual contract. In essence, the County
could give notice on December 31, 2008, and the City would have to contract with
Spokane or form its own court by January 1, 2010
If the City were to choose this option of contracting with Spokane, between now and
January 1, 2011, the City would need to adopt one or more ordinances establishing its
own court under RCW 3 50 This would establish jurisdiction in the City to adJudicate the
cases, and the City could then contract with Spokane to provide the actual service
Please note that this process likely requires that the Legislature amend several state law
provisions (primarily RCW 3.50.050 relating to requirement for election in city limit if
serving city) before we could pursue this model Spokane will be actively pursuing these
changes for their own benefit as it relates to their ability to contract with other
jurisdictions as well They have asked for our suppart of th~ir proposed Iegislative
amendment
(3) The Cify could form its awn municipal cour# under RCW 3.50 As in option fuva,
above, vue would have to give Spokane County and the Distr€ct Caurt notice prior to
February 1,2009 to be able ta start aur court on January 1, 2011 at the earfiest I n the
interim, uve woufd need ta adopt apprapriate ordinances establishing the autharity and
jurisdietian ofi the court This would be the same process as under option twa, ahove,
but instead of cantracting for the services, we would have City emptoyees providing
them. This memorandum is not intended to outline vuha# type af staff requirements
uvould be [ikely in order to form our own court, and is ins#ead orrly to provide informatian
on the aptions and nvtice requirernents assaciated with those options
RECOMME[VDED ACTION OR MOTION: Place on agenda far mation discussion and
consideration on vxrhether ta give notice of termination of the Distric# Court contract.
BUDGETlFiNANCiAI. IMPACTS Unknown at this time
STAFF CDNTACT: Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney
ATTACHMENTS.
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: January 13, 2009 City Manager Sign-off:
Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing
❑ information 0 admin report ❑ pending legislabon
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Transportation Infrastructure Stimulus Projects
GOVERNING LEGISLATION:
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN-
BACKGROUND:
Councilmember Wilhite wifl lead a discussion on the topic of Transportation Infrastructure
Stimulus Projects.
OPTIONS:
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION:
BUDGETlFINANCIAL IMPACTS:
COUNCIL/STAFF CONTACT. Councilmember Wilhite
ATTACHMENTS:
Page 1 of 1
Chris Bainbridge
From: Donna Lively [dlively@SRTC.ORG]
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 5 49 PM
Cc: Glenn Miles
Subject: Final Economic Stimulus Package Transportation ProJect List - corrected version
Attachments: Final SRTC Federal Transportation Project Stimulus List 1-6 pdf
Attached is the corrected version of the final list of transportation projects submitted for consideration for the
anticipated federal economic stimulus package Apparently, upon converting the file in the original email, some of
the pages were lost Thank you to those who brought this to our attention We appreciate your patience and
understanding
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact the SRTC Transportation Manager, Glenn Miles, at (509)
343-6370.
yionea(Trwyob6on CtJU~`JCI!
'.s`Q~,C(+rS~.(,,rfl'ru4nn~~r:cir~,mc.xtsair.fitf~sr~s'rac,~~~r~' ,~t!tuq,nn(r;~~i~ia~c.'~.n~,h,k_R~rr~:,~apin~~vrrrrrr~(~~Lnf~,~R~rsx►'.tfm►~~,rrn6cer~.~cx."
(Donna Lively
Administrabve Assrstant
Spokane Regional Transportation Council
221 W. First Avenue, Su►te 310
Spokane, WA 99201
509.343 6370
Email dlively@srtc.org, Website www srtc orq
1 /7/2009
. . . . . .
0 111 0 at1 . Wave 1 Wave 2 WSD e Co dera tim Pro ects or oca s an o Potentia e u us Listin
Cong~ Leg WSDOT Agency Project Title Project Tem~inl Sbmulus Total Ad Ready Number Work Descrip~on NEPA Aparoved Riaht of Way Cei lht of Wav Certified
Dis~lct Distric Region Amoun Constructlon (PSbE Camplebe) of Jobs Approvedl Approvod! Approvod/
Created An~icipated An~cipated s tfiousands s thousanda MolYr Mo/Yr} ~Mo/Yr Anticipated MolYr)
Brid e Work 9
ER Spokane County Bigelow Gulch Raad ProJect 4 St~ucture Bigebw Gulch Road Pro}ed 4 Slrudure 52,104 $2,100 Jun-09 Bridge Construction FONSI Complete Complete No R/W
ER Spokane County Rutter Parkway Bridge #2604 5450 5450 Jun-09 Bridge Rehabiifta~on M~y-09 No WW 5 4 ER Spokane Valley Barker Road Overpass Trent Avenue (SR-290) to Wellesley ~20,933 52~,61T Sep-09 Bridge Conatructlon DCE
3 ER Ciiy of Spokane Havana St Bridge Broadway to Trent 51,400 ~14,990 Nov-09 Bridge Construction App~oved Aug•06 Anticipated: Sepl icipated: Sept-09
ER Spokane County Little Spokane Dr. Bridge ~3642 51,200 52,200 Dec•09 Bridgo Replacement Nov-09 No WW No R/W No R/W
ER Spokane Coanty CheneySpakane Bridge #24D4 S150 ~15U Feh•10 Bridc~e Rail Retro~it CE NQ R!W ER Spokane County No~th Road Bridge #3806 b60 560 Feb•10 Bridge Rail Retrofit CE No R/W No R1W
ER Spokane County Bruce Road Bridge #3604 E1,T00 51,700 Feb•10 Bridge Replacement Jan•09 No R1W NA R/W
ane C un Christensen Road ~1,200 ;1,200 Feb•10 Bridge Re lacement Jan-09 No WYY ER Spok o ty P ER Spokane County Colbert Road 52,100 52,100 Feb•10 Bridge Replacement ,1an-09 No RIW Na R/W No R/W
ER Spokane County Idaha Road Bridge #6208 51,100 51,100 Feb-10 Bridge Replacement Jan•09 Na R!W N o R1YV
ER Spokanfl County Sunset Nwy Bridge #514 S100 5700 Feb-10 8ridge Replacement Jan-09 No R!W No R1W No R/W
ER Spokane County Bridge Scour Mitigations Various Lxations S500 b500 Feb-10 Bridge Scour Mitigation CE No RIW 5 4 ER Spnkane Valley Sullivan Road West Bridge Spokane River 513,000 51A,400 Apr-10 Bridge Replacement Apr-10 Apr-10 Apr-10
Sub Total ~47,593 564,161
Public Trans ortation p No RIW
5 3 ER Spokane Transit STA Hybrid Vahicla Replacements NIA 55,127 S5,127 May-09 Replacement Buses CE No R/W 5 3 ER Spokane Tranait STA Secunty Surveillance System Various System Locations s1,100 ~1,70D May-09 New Constructlon CE No RlYU No R!W
5 3 ER Spokane Transit 9TA 08M Facility Rehabiltation 8oone Faality 53,946 ;3,946 May-09 Rehabilitation CE No R!W No RIW
Sub Tota) 510,7t3 510,773
New Road Construction
9 ER City of Cheney Cheney Research and Industrial Park Fred Johns Way; SR-904 to End 800 2,600 Jan-09 New Constructlon Dec~Q8 C~mpleted Completed
ER Spokane County Bigelow Gulch Proje~t A`6 8igelow Gulch Project #8 i9,684 59,664 Jun•10 New Construction FONSI Apr-10 Apr-10
5 ER WSDOT US-195 Cheney-Spakane Road Interchange 515,000 ;15,OOU Jul•10 New Construction 6 ER City oi Spokane Barnes Road Phoebe to Strong Road 52,200 S2,100 Apr•14 Recanstnicdon Anticipated: Dec-09 AnGclpated: Nov ticipa#ed: Nov-09
Sub Total 52T,664 529,484
Non-Motorized Pro'ects 1 5 9 ER Town of Fairfield Fairfield Pedestrian Bridges 5175 i175 Jan-09 Non•moto~ized Approved Approved Approved
5 6 d~ 9 ER Cit~r of Spokane Fish Lake Trail Sunset Highwey to existing trail b Rhe sauth 51,000 ;2,000 Jun-09 Nan-motorized Anticipated: Feb-09 N1A N!A
ER Spokane County Freya St. Sidewalk 57th to Aquatic Center 52g~ 5250 Jun-09 Non•motorized Ap~-09 No R1W No RlYv N/A
5 3 ER Cfty of Spokane Bike Routea Downtown Jefferson, 4th Ave, Howerd, Spkn Falla Blvd, Rive~side 5719 f719 Jun•09 Non~moto~Ized Anticipated: Mar-09 wA ER Spakane County Wandermere Road Pathway Wandermere Road Pathway SZZ~ 5220 Jun-09 Non•motorized Apr~09 May•09 May-09
3 ER City of Spokane Historic Iron Brldge Rehabi6teGon for Pedeslrian and Biking ~580 51,160 Mar•10 Nan-mntorized Anticipated: Aug-09 NIA N/A ti~_it~~~t:.,rl• f,~ir;
3 ER City o( Spokane Ben Burr Trail Llbe~ty Park to ErielRiverside 5350 S350 May-10 Nun-motonzed Ant(cipated: N~v-08 Antlclpated: Aug Sub Total E3,294 54,694
Reconstruction i-.,:i_ ,
5 T ER City of Airway Heights Lawson Street Reconstruction Lawsori hom SR-2 to 18fh Ave. 51,127 51,127 May-09 Recanstructlon CE None Requir 5 9 ER Town of Rocldord Fl~at StreeUEmma 3treet Sidevrilks Town Park to EmmalFi~si to SR-271 Bndge 5537 =53t May-09 Reconstruction CE No RMI No R/W
5 9 ER Town of Spangle Mafn Street First Street to 3~d Street 5953 =953 May-09 Reconstruction CE No R!W No R/W
5 9 ER Town of Spangle Ash Street 3rd Street to 7th Stteet 5803 ;803 May-09 Reconstruction CE No RIW No R/W None Requ; ~
S T ER City o~ Ainnr~y Heights 14th Avenue Reconstrucdon 14th Ave (rom Lundstrom to Campbell ST31 ;131 May-09 Reconstruction CE None Requir 5 9 ER City oi Cheney Cheney Spangle Road Improvement ProJect SR-904 to City Limits T00 T16 Jun-49 Reconstruction•widen CE Completec Complet: '
5 9 ER Tawn of Falrfleld Maln Street Reconstruc~on Project 5650 5520 Jun-09 Reconstruction Apr•09 Apr~09 Apr-09
5 3 8 8 ER City oi Spokane MapleMlalnut-Cedar 5th to 29th Ave ;5,500 55,500 Jun-09 Reconstruct(on Andclpated: Mar-09 N1A N!A r~o Ri w
5 ER Spokane County S-Mile Str~ong lo Wai~ciki i680 ;880 Jun-09 Reconstruction May-09 No RIW 5 4 ER Spokane Va14ey Barker Road Reconstrucdon Barker Road - 8th to Appleway i1,449 i2,896 Jun-09 Recanstruction
5 6 ER Cft~r of Spokane Wellesley hom Aasembly to D~iscoll Asaembly to DriscoMl 51,300 51,300 Jun-09 Reconstruc~on Ant~cipaad: Apr-09 NIA rvA
5 ER S okane County Slrong Rd. 5-m~e to Spokane C.l. 5310 5310 Jun-09 Reconstructlon May-09 No RIW p No R,VV N!A
5 3 6 6 ER C' of Spokane Peny St SE Blvd to Arihur 8 Arthur from Perry ~ 3rd Ave s2,T00 52,700 Ju~-08 Reconstructlon Antlclpated: Mar-09 NIA ~Y 5 ER 5 okane County Palouae Hwy Spokane C.L. to damis~on 51,115 51,116 Jun-09 ReconaVuc~on May-09 No R1W p No R/YY
6 3 ER C ai Spokane Buckeye Post St to Division St 51,300 51,300 Jun-09 Reconstruc4on Anticlpated: Apr-09 NIA nY N/A
5 ER S okane County Spangle•Waverty Old 195 to Prairie View i4,919 f4,919 Jun-09 Reconstruc~on May-09 No RIW p No R/YV N/A
5 3 ER Ci oi Spolc~ne Rowan Maple St lo WaN St 51,000 i1,000 Jun-09 Reconstruction Andc(pated: Apr-09 NIA ~ 5 ER S okane County Cedar Nath Rd, b Deer Park C.l. ;1,255 51,254 Jun-09 Reconstruction May-09 No R1W P No R/W
1l6f20Q9
Final SRTC Federal Tr~sporta4an ProJect Sdmulua Uei 1~b > >~a
ti ' s fo ' Co. ave 1 Wave 2 Li ote ti I Feder I S mu u ct r Lo S w sti n o P n a a s r c d W D ne e a s an in oka
0
: Con r Leg WSOOT Agency Pr e ~ Pro'ect Termini Stimulus Total Ad Ready Number Vllork ~escription NEPA Approved Rlqht of Wav Certifiec 9 ~1 1 - f Way Certlfied
District Distric Re ion Amoun Construction PS~E Com (ete of Jobs Approvedl rovedl 9 ( P I APP pprovedl
Created Anticipated AnGcipated S thousands) (S thousands) (MolYr (Mo/Yr) (MolYr) iticipated fflo/Yr)
5 6 ER City of Spokane Garland NW Blvd to DriscQN 51,200 51,200 Jun-09 Reconstructlon Anticipated; Apr-09 N!A N/A
5 3 ER City of Spokane 5th Avenue Washington to Monroe 51,100 51,100 Jun•09 Reconstruc~on Anticipated: Apr-09 NIA N/A
S ER Spokane County Peone Bruce b SR-206 ~2,192 i2,192 Jun-09 Reconetructlon May-09 No R1W 5 ER Spokane County Waveriy Waveiiy C.L. ta SR-27 31,153 i1,153 Jun-09 Reconstruction May-09 No R!W fVo RIW No R!W
5 ER Spokane County Palouse Hwy Jamison to WindmfU 5565 S565 Jun-09 Reconstructlon May-09 No R!W No R/W
5 ER Spokane County Salnave Brooks to Cheney C.L 52,559 52,659 Jun-09 Reconstruction May-09 Na R1W Va R/W
5 ER Spokane County Elder Eider to Idaho S.L. 53,193 53,193 Jun-09 Reconatruction May•09 No WW 5 ER Spokane County Hayford Geiger lo SR-2 31,957 51,957 Jun-09 Reconstructlon May-08 No R!W No R/W No RIW
5 ER Spokane County Upriver Dr. Spokane C.L. tu Wellesley 5906 5908 Jun-09 Reconstruction May-09 N~ R!W Vo RIW
5 ER Spokane County Hawthorne Nevada to Market ;1,533 ~1,533 Jun-09 Reconstruction May-09 No R1W 4o R/W Vo R/W
5 ER Spokane County Parksmith Hawthame to Stoneman s416 5476 Jun•09 Reconstruction May-09 No RIW 5 ER Spokane County Stoneman Fairview to Bruoe ;747 S74T Jun•09 Reconstruction May-09 No R1W Vo RIW
5 ER Spokane County Stoneman Parksrnith to Fairview ~248 5248 Jun•09 Recanstruction May09 No R!W Vo R/W
5 ER Spokane County Monroe Hazard (o SR-395 51 ~8~~ 51,800 Jun-09 Reconstruction May-09 No R!W 5 ER Spokane County Spring Valley Irving to Lateh C.L. 52,249 S2,2A9 Jun•09 Reconstruction May•09 No R!W Vo R/W Vo RIW
5 ER Spokane County Charies Inch to Southbank S~s3 5463 Jun-09 Reconstruction May-09 No R!W Vo R/YV
5 ER Spokane County Hatch R~ad Fender to Burk ~242 5242 Jun•09 Reconstruction May•09 N~ R!W Vo RJYV
5 ER Spokane County Perry little Spokane Or. to Halfmoon b9Z3 5923 Jun•D9 Reconst~uction May•09 No R!W 5 ER Spokane County Short Deer Park C.L. to Stevens Co. 52,7S8 52,758 Jun-09 Reconstruction May•09 No RIW yo R/W Vo R/W
5 ER Spokane County Mofatt Peone to Bumett 5418 5418 Jun•09 Reconstruction May-09 No RIW Vo R!W
5 ER Spokane C~unty Prairie View Waverfy C.L. to Jackson a2,358 52,358 Jun-09 Reconstruction May-09 No R1W Vo RIW
5 ER Spokane County Staley Monroe to Denison Chattaroy ~1,255 S1,255 Jun-09 Reconstruction May•09 No RIW 5 ER Spokane County Valley Chapel Palouse Hwy, to SR-27 59~031 59,032 Jun•09 Reconstruc6en May09 No R/W Vo R1W Vo RIW
5 9 ER Town of Rockford First StreoUEmma Streei Recanstruction Spnng Streel to Rodc Creek Bridge ~1,415 51,416 Jul-09 Reconstniction CE No WYV Vo RIW
5 3 ER City of Spokane LincolnlMonrae hom Ihe River l017th Ave River b 17th Ave 56,500 58,500 Mar•10 Recanstruction Anticipated: Mar-99 N1A N/A
fi 3 ER City oi Spokane Mission from Hamilton to Napa Hamilton to Napa (includes Signal Replacement) 51,BU0 Sl,800 Mar-10 Reconstruction Anticipated; Mar-09 NfA 5 6 ER City of Spokane Crestline 37th to 53rd 52,500 ~1,500 Apr•10 Reconstruction Anticlpated: Aug•09 Anticipated: Sept-09 N!A ~ated: Sept-09
5 7 ER City of Airway Heighb Campboll Street Improvements Campbell Streel trom SR•2 to 18th Avenue $708 ST08 Jun-09 Reconstruction CE Nono Required o Required
5 7 ER City of Airvvay Hoights King Street Rehabilitatlon Project King Street between 6th Ave.and SR-2 $246 S246 Jun-09 Reconstruction CE None Required e Required
Sub Total 580,726 581,118
Reconstruction-Widen i n 9
5 1 ER City of Dee~ Park Crawford Avenue Phase V Forest Avenue to Airport Road ~1,750 51,750 Mar•09 Reconstruction-widen CE No WW V n RIY11
ER Spokane County Bigelow Gulch Road Project 3 Bigelow Gulch Road Project 3 53,496 53,49fi Apr•09 Reconst~uction•widen FONSI Mar-09 5 4 ER Spokane Valley Bowdish Road ReconBtruction 32nd to 8th SA,014 54,193 Jun-09 Reconstruction•widen CE Mar-09 Mar-OS Mar-09
S 4 ER Spokane Valley Eve~green132nd Road Reconstruction 16th ta 32nd, Evergteen to SR-27 53,681 54,387 Jun-09 Reconstruction~widen CE Mar-09 Mar-09
6 4 ER Spokane Valley Flora Road Reconstruction Sprague to Mission • ~3,3fi2 53,888 Jun-49 Reconstruction•widen CE Mar•09 S 4 ER Spokane Valley Mission Avenue Reconstruction Fbra to Barker ~3,143 ;3,596 Jun-09 Reconstruction•widen CE Mar•09 Mar-09 Mar-09
5 4 ER Spokane Yalley Carnahan T~uck Lanes Camahan Truck Lane - 8th to City Limits 52,10~ 52,491 Jun-09 Reconstructlon widen CE Mar•09 Mar-09
ER Spokane County Bigelow Gulch Road Project 2 Bigelow Gulch Road Projecl 2 53,640 510,340 Oct-D9 Reconstruction•widen FONSI Sep•09 5ep-09
ER Spokane C~unty Farwell NSC to Market 51,400 ~1,A00 Oct-09 Reconstruction •widen CE Sep•09 5 4 ER Spokane Valley 8th Ave Phase 3 Dickey t~ Camahan 52,816 b3,365 Dec-09 Reconstruction•widen CE Mar-09 5ep-09 Mar-09
5 4 ER Spokane Valley 8th Ave Phase 2 Park to Dickey b2,161 Sz,705 Dec•09 Reconstruction•wfden CE Mar-09 Mar-09
5 4 ER Spokane Valley 8th Ave Phase 1 Camahan to Havana 52,018 ;2,A15 Dcc-09 Reconstruction•widen CE Mar~09 Ma r-09 ated: Sept-09
6 ER City of 5pokane 5 Mile Rd Ash ta Lincoln 51,250 51,405 Feb•10 Reconstruction•widen Approved Oct•01 Anticfpated: Sept-09 ER Spokane County Bigelow Gulch Project ~5 Bigelow Gulch Project ~5 $15,255 515,255 Jun•10 Reconstruction•widen F~NSI Apr•10 Apr-10
ER Spokane County Harvard Road Eudid to SR•290 b5,255 55,255 Jun-10 Reconsiruction•wlden Apr•09 Feb-10 Feb-i 0
ER Spokane Co~mty Barker Road 32nd to Bth 54,510 ~4,510 Nov-10 Reconstruction•widen Jan•10 Oct•10 Oct-10 Oct-10
ER Spokane County Bigelow Gulch Project ~d Bogelow Gulch ProJect #4 52,900 s7,914 Oec•10 Reconstruction•widen FONSI Qct-10 5 T ER Ci of Airvva Hei hts 16th Street Im rovements 18th Street bstween Russen Rd, and lundstrom St, 5695 5695 Jun-09 Reconstruction CE None Re uired ~Y Y 9 p q B Required
5 7 ER City of Afrway Heights 19fh Street Improvements 19th SUeet between Pague and Russell Rd. 3431 S437 Jun-09 Reconstructlon CE None Requi~ed a Required
5 7 ER City of Airway Heights 6th Street tmprovements 6tfi Avenue belween Ziegler St. and K'tng Sl. 51,200 51,200 Jun-09 Reconstruction CE None Required Sub Total 5~,910 387,317 e Required
Rehabilitation
5 ER WSDOT 619509B, US•19S Natch Rd to Jd 1-90 . 54,640 ~4,600 Rehabilitation CE Sub Total ;4,640 54,800
Resurfacin 9
9 ER City of Cheney 2009 A~terfal Street Preservation Project No~th 6th SVee~ Elm Street to Oak St 618 615 Jun-09 Resurfacing CE NIA N/A
Fnal SRTC Federel TranspoRadon Projed SUm~us List 1-8 Z ~~~9 ,/erzoo9
~ ~ ~
, . . . o. d SD TinS o o Locals an ka cts f r n e I S e e. wave 1 d ra timul s Pro o wa e u C v2 f Pote tia e Lrstin o n
'ongr Leg WSDOT Agency Project Tibe Project Termini Stimulus Total Ad Ready Number Wark Description NEPA Aaeroved Riqht of Wav Ce qht of WaY Certified
~istrict DisMct Re ion Amoun Construction (PSbE Complete) of Jobs A rovedl A rovedl 9 PP PP Created Mtlcipat~d Anticipatec Approved/ Anticipated
~ t~ousands (S thousands) MolYr) (MolYr (MolYr (Mo/Yr
5 7 ER City of Deer Park Maln Street H Stroet b Bth Streei S445 5445 Jun-D9 Resurfacing CE No RIW No R/W
ER 5pokane Courtty Argonne Wellesley to ~~i Argonne 51,119 51,119 Jun•09 Resurfacing May09 No WW 5 4 ER Spokane Valley Sprrgue Avenue Reaurfacing Project #1 Unive~slty to Evergreen s3,898 53,896 Jun-09 Resurfacing CE No RIW No RlYV No R/YV
9 ER Ci1y oi Cheney 2011 Arterlal Street Pr~servation ProJect Cheney Plaza Rd; SR-904 to A~Ci S~eet TB t6 Jun-09 Resurfacing CE hllA IV/A
ER Spokane County Argonne 0!d Argonne to Bigelow E665 :665 Jun-09 Resurfacing May-09 No RIW No R/W
5 4 ER Spokane Valley 8prague Avenue Resurfacing ProJect #2 Evergreen to SuUrven i1,944 51,944 Jun-09 Resunc~ing CE No RIW ER Spokane County Elk-Chattaroy SR-2 to Eik Camben 56,470 f6,4T0 Jun-09 Resurfacing May-09 No RIW No R/W No R/W
5 4 ER Spokane Valley Sullivan Rd. Resurfacing Projact Indiana to EucGd ;1,580 51,580 Jun-09 Resuriacing CE No R/W No R/W
ER Spokane County Deer ParklMflan Deer Pe~C C.L. to SR-2 s1,532 51,532 Jun-09 Resurfacing May-09 No R!W 5 4 ER Spokane Valtey Dishman•Mica Road Resurfacing Project#1 16th to Unive~sity s1,290 s1,290 Jun•09 Resurfacing CE No RIW No R/W No R/W
ER Spokane County Market Magnesium to SR-206 52,353 ;2,353 Jun•09 Resurfacing 9-May N~ R!W No R/W
5 4 ER Spokane Valley 32nd Ave. Resurfacing Prcject Dishman Mica to SR-27 51,084 51,064 Jun-09 Resurfacing CE No R!W No R/W
ER Spokane County Trall~ Hayfo~d to Old Trails ~629 s629 Jun-09 Resurfac(ng May-09 No RIW 5 4 ER Spokane Valley Euclid Ave. Resurfacing Pr~jQCt SuNivan to Flore =1,040 51,440 Jun-09 Resurfacing CE No WW No R/W No R/W
ER Spokane Cuunty 57th Spokane City Lknits to Palouse Hwy :123 ;723 Jun-08 Resurtac(ng May~09 No RIW No R/W
5 4 ER Spokane Valley DishmanaVlica Road Resurfacing Project #Z Bowdish to City Limib 5444 5444 Jun-09 Resu~lacing CE No R1W ER Spokane County Hatch Midway to Fender 51,659 51,659 Jun-09 Resurfacing May09 No RIW No R/W No R/W
ER Spokane County Day Ml. Spokane BNCe to Big Meadows ~2,461 52,461 Jun•09 Resurfacing May-09 No RIW No R/W
ER Spokane County Milan•Elk Deer Park Milan to E~C Chattaroy 51,561 s1,561 Jun•09 Resurfacing May-09 No R1W No R/W
ER 3pokane County Elk ta Hwy Bridges to Elk Camden ~1,608 s1,808 Jun-09 Resurfacing May-09 No R!W ER Spokane County Eloka Lake Division to 5R-2 $609 s809 Jun-09 Resurfacing May-09 No RIW No R/W No R/W
ER Spokane County Hayford M.P. 4.50 lo Tra~s 5376 5376 Jun-09 Resurtacing May-09 No R/W No R!W
ER Spokane County Hawthorne SR-395 to SR-2 s173 s113 Jun-09 Resurfacing May•09 No R1W No R/W
ER Spokano C~unty Magnesium Spokane C.L. ta Old Projed 5109 5109 Jun-09 Resurfacing May•09 N~ RIW ER 3pokane County Elk-Camden E(k Catlaroy ta Pend Orei~e Ca. 51,214 ;1,274 Jun-09 Resurfacing May-09 No RIW No R/W No R/W
ER Spokane County 8lancha~d Elk Chattaroy to Idaha S.L, E4,431 54,431 Jun-09 Resurfacing May-09 No RfVU No R/W
ER Spokane Caunty Auatin Dartford to Ballard a938 s936 Jun•09 Resurfacing May-09 No RIW No R/W
ER Spokane Couniy Dartford Miu to Little Spokane Bridge ;172 5172 Jun~09 Resurfacing May-09 No R1W ER Spokane County Dartford Li~le Spokane Bridge to Monroe s1,298 s1,298 Jun-09 Resurfacing May-09 No RlVII No R/W No R!W
ER Spokane County Dartford Wandermere io Mill 542 S42 Jun-09 Resurfacing May-09 No R!W No R/W
ER 3pokane County Milan River Terrace to Milan Elk 52,050 ;2,050 Jun-09 Resurfac(ng May•09 Na R1W ER Spokane County BIg Meadows Elk Chattar~y to Day Mt Spokene ;1,888 51,888 Jun-09 Resurfacing May•09 No RIW No R/W No R!W
ER Spokane County Euclld Harvard t~ Spokane Valley C.L. $801 5801 Jun•09 Resurfacing May-09 No R!W No R/W
ER Spokane County Wandermere WSDOT turnbadc to Bridge b185 3185 Jun-09 Resurfacfng May-09 No R!W No R/W
9 ER City of Choney 2013 ArtQrlal Street Preservation Project Second Street; EImSt 1o SR-904 325 315 Dec-09 Resurfacing CE N!A 9 ER City of Cheney 2014 Arterial Street Preservation Project Cheney Spokane Rd; SR-904 to E City Limits 515 515 Dec-09 Resurfacing CE NIA N/A N1A
Sub Total 546,782 ~8,782
Total 2sa 3s $ , 2 $331,235
WSDOT Pro'ects 1
, EF~ tiNSDOf MSC • f~1EGA Pi~OJEC7 51,600,0a0 S1,600,000
5 ER WSOOT North 3pokane Conidor South bound Nanes - F~anas to Farwell 551,000 s51,000 Jun•09 New Construction ROD
6 ER WSDOT North 3pokane Corridor Lanes 2 Spokane River to Freya St. 4 lanes 5300,000 s300,000 Jun-09 New Construction ROD 5 ER W3DOT US-3951NSC Deleted (induded in Govemars Budget) ~15,000 515,000 May49 New ConsVuction ROD
5 ER WSDOT I•90 Sullivan to Barke~ s25,004 525,000 Jun-09 Reconsin,ction•widen CE
5 ER WSDOT 639519C, U5•395 Loon Lake to Immel Rd a8,500 s8,500 Reaurfacing CE
5 ER WSDOT I•90 Geiger Rd to Spokene Viadud - Conaeie 56,100 f 6,100 Resurfacing CE 5 ER WSDOT US•395 Lee Rd to vic Jct I-90 ~12,500 =12,500 Resurfacing CE
5 ER WSDOT SR-281 Divisron St to Stevena Ca line s5,600 55,600 Resurfacing CE
5 ER WSOOT SR-266 Jd US 2 to Bruoe Rd ;600 s800 Resurfacing CE
5 ER WSDOT SR•27 Vic 32nd Ave to Jd SR-290 s3,400 S3,400 Reaurfacing CE 5 ER WSDOT SR•2 Fain~ild AFB to I-90 55,000 $5,000 Resurfacing CE
5 ER WSDOT SR•278 Rockfo~d Ciiy Limits E500 i500 Resurfacing CE
ota s433,400 =433,400
Fnal SRTC Fedetel Trensportabon Projed S~~mulus lis! t-6 3 11fi,20C trer2oo9
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: January 13, 2009 City Manager Sign-off
Item: Check all that apply ❑ Consent ❑ Old business E New business ❑ Public Hearing
❑ Information ❑ Admin Report ❑ Pending Legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan Deliberations
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: The Subarea Plan must be consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan
and the Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA), RCW 36 70A
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: None
BACKGROUND Continued Subarea Plan deliberations
OPTIONS: N/A
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Subarea Plan deliberations will continue as directed by
Council
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS N/A
STAFF CONTACT Scott Kuhta, Senior Planner