Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2010, 03-23 Regular Meeting
AGENDA SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING FORMAL MEETING FORMAT Tuesday,March 23,2010 6:00 p.m. Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers 11707 E Sprague Avenue Council Requests Please Silence Your Cell Phones During Council Meeting CALL TO ORDER: INVOCATION: Pastor David Droegemuller, Christ Lutheran Church PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: ROLL CALL: APPROVAL OF AGENDA: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS: COMMITTEE,BOARD,LIAISON SUMMARY 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 you come to the podium, please state your name and address for the record and limit remarks to three minutes. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Proposed Amended 2010 Transportation Improvement Plan— Steve Worley 2. CONSENT AGENDA: Consists of items considered routine which are approved as a group. Any member of Council may ask that an item be removed from the Consent Agenda to be considered separately. a. Approval of the following claim vouchers: VOUCHER LIST DATE W/VOUCHER NUMBERS: TOTAL AMOUNT 03/04/2010 19721-19742 $103,471.78 03/04/2010 19743-19766, 301100022 $145,090.84 03/11/2010 19772-19788 $15,114.33 03/11/2010 3100-1301, 3111, 19767-19771 $278,241.12 GRAND TOTAL $541,918.07 b. Approval of Payroll for Period Ending March 15, 2010: $255,642.50 c. Approval of Minutes of March 8, 2010 Special Council Joint Meeting with County Commissioners NEW BUSINESS: 3. First Reading Proposed Ordinance 10-006 Amending Adult Entertainment Regulations—Cary Driskell [public comment] 4. Motion Consideration: Place Consideration of the Subarea Plan(Sprague Appleway Revitalization Plan) on the Annual Comprehensive Plan Amendment Document—Mike Connelly [public comment] Council Agenda 03-23-10 Regular Meeting Page 1 of 2 PUBLIC COMMENTS: This is an opportunity for the public to speak on any subject not on the agenda for action. When you come to the podium, please state your name and address for the record and limit remarks to three minutes. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS: 5. Spokane County Comprehensive Solid Waste Plan Update— Suzanne Tresko, Russ Menke 6. Spokane Regional Transportation Council Draft Interlocal—Neil Kersten/Mike Connelly 7. Advance Agenda INFORMATION ONLY: (will not be reported or discussed) 8 Department Monthly Reports 9. Refreshment Policy 10. Taylor Cottages PUD (Planned Unit Development) 11. EXECUTIVE SESSION: Pending Litigation [RCW 42.30.110(i)] ADJOURNMENT General Meeting Schedule(meeting schedule is always subject to change) Regular Council meetings are generally held every Tuesday beginning at 6:00 p.m. The Formal meeting formats are generally held the 2nd and 4th Tuesdays. Formal meeting have time allocated for general public comments as well as comments after each action item. The Study Session formats (the less formal meeting) are generally held the 1St 3rd and sometimes 5th Tuesdays. Study Session formats DO NOT have time allocated for general public comments; but if action items are included, comments are permitted after those specific action items. NOTICE: Individuals planning to attend the meeting who require special assistance to accommodate physical,hearing,or other impairments,please contact the City Clerk at(509)921-1000 as soon as possible so that arrangements may be made. Council Agenda 03-23-10 Regular Meeting Page 2 of 2 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: March 23, 2010 City Manager Sign-off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ® public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING: Proposed Amended 2010 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 35.77.010 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Adopted 2010-2015 Six Year TIP on June 16, 2009, Resolution #09-009; Info RCA in Council's March 2, 2010 packet; Admin Report on March 9, 2010 BACKGROUND: Council adopted the 2010-2015 TIP based upon information staff had at that time relative to available funds and how these funds could be utilized for transportation projects. Since the adoption of the 2010-2015 TIP, staff submitted applications for a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and an Energy Efficiency and Conservation Block Grant (EECBG) for the following projects that were selected for funding: • 2009 ADA Improvements — (CDBG) • Sprague Avenue ITS — (EECBG) Additional changes in the Amended 2010 TIP from the adopted 2010-2015 TIP include the following: Pines Corridor ITS Project was moved up from 2011 to 2010 to allow the design to be completed this year and position it better for bidding early in 2011. The West Ponderosa Sewer Paveback, 44th Ave Pathway and Sprague Resurfacing #2 projects are carryovers from 2009. The Sullivan Road (PE Only, Euclid to Wellesley) and Pavement Management Program-Local Access projects have been deleted from the 2010 TIP. The funding for the Sullivan Road project was transferred to the Pines-Mansfield Project to cover construction cost overruns. The Pavement Management Program for local access streets is currently unfunded. The Sprague Avenue Resurfacing #2 — Evergreen to Sullivan Project is included in the 2010 TIP in anticipation of receiving additional federal funding to cover the construction costs. Based on this information, it is recommended that the 2010 TIP be amended to reflect the deletion of the projects that did not receive funding, include those projects that were not completed in 2009 and have been carried over to the 2010 construction year, and those projects added to the 2010 construction year. Attached is a summary of the proposed changes. Adoption of the Amended 2010 TIP is currently scheduled for April 13, 2010. OPTIONS: Discussion RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Conduct public hearing BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The proposed Amended 2010 TIP is not a budget document and does not commit the city to expend the funds identified. Projects listed in the TIP will move ahead provided sufficient funds are available. Staff will continue to monitor availability of local matching funds to ensure projects can move ahead. A proposed 2010 budget amendment will be presented to council as needed to reflect changes associated with this proposed Amended 2010 TIP. STAFF CONTACT: Steve Worley, Senior Capital Projects Engineer Neil Kersten, Public Works Director; ATTACHMENTS: Draft Amended 2010 TIP City of Spokane Valley Department of Public Works Adopted 2010 Transportation Improvement Program Primary City Total 2010 Proj.# Project From To Source Amount Project Costs 1 0003 Barker Road Bridge @ Spokane River BR $ 55,000 $ 407,000 2 0088 Broadway Ave Reconstruction 180 ft. E of Moore Flora UAP $ 68,000 $ 2,465,000 3 0069 Park Road Project 2(PE Only) Broadway Indiana STP(U) $ 34,000 $ 246,000 4 0063 Broadway Ave Safety Project Pines(SR 27) Park UAP $ 167,000 $ 834,000 5 0112 Indiana Ave. Extension e/o Sullivan Flora UCP $ 264,000 $ 1,874,000 6 0060 Argonne Road Corridor Improvements 1-90 Trent CMAQ $ 77,000 $ 576,000 7 0114 Broadway/Sullivan Intersection PCC STA $ 253,000 $ 1,230,000 8 0113 Indiana/Sullivan Intersection PCC STA $ 275.000 $ 1.342.000 9 Pavement Management Program-Arterials Various locations City $ 2,000,000 $ 4,000,000 10 Pavement Management Program-Local Access Various locations City $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 11 STEP Paveback Various locations City $ 3,543,000 $ 3,543,000 12 0070 Sullivan Road(PE Only) Euclid Wellesley STP(U) $ 40,000 $ 298,000 13 0065 Sullivan/Sprague Intersection PCC STP(U) $ 933,000 $ 1,678,000 $ 9,709,000 $ 20,493,000 Funded Projects City of Spokane Valley Department of Public Works DRAFT Amended 2010 Transportation Improvement Program Resolution 10-???,March 30,2010 Primary City Total 2010 Proj.# Project From To Source Amount Project Costs 1 0003 Barker Road Bridge @ Spokane River BR $ 1,463,000 $ 2,048,270 2 0005 Pines/Mansfield Montgomery Pines(SR-27) TPP $ 770,400 $ 770,400 3 0088 Broadway Ave Reconstruction 180 ft. E of Moore Flora UAP $ 227,000 $ 2,353,230 4 0069 Park Road Project 2(PE Only) Broadway Indiana STP(U) $ 26,333 $ 228,009 5 0063 Broadway Ave Safety Project Pines(SR 27) Park UAP $ 186,400 $ 931,990 6 0112 Indiana Ave. Extension 3600-ft e/o Sullivan Flora TIB $ 291,400 $ 2,020,360 7 0060 Argonne Road Corridor Improvements 1-90 Trent CMAQ $ 77,100 $ 575,610 8 0114 Broadway/Sullivan Intersection PCC STA $ 213,450 $ 1,191,450 9 0113 Indiana/Sullivan Intersection PCC STA $ 13,540 $ 77,540 10 Pavement Management Program-Arterials Various locations City $ 250,000 $ 250,000 11 STEP Paveback Various locations City 12 0106 W. Ponderosa 11 City $ 38,000 $ 38,000 13 0130 Corbin($330,000 CDBG Grant Anticipated) City/CDBG $ 345,000 $ 675,000 14 0131 Cronk City $ 295,000 $ 295,000 15 0129 South Greenacres City $ 405,000 $ 405,000 16 0128 West Farms City $ 440,000 $ 440,000 17 Misc. Paveback City $ 300,000 $ 300,000 18 0065 Sullivan/Sprague Intersection PCC STP(U) $ 478,631 $ 1,193,151 19 0061 Pines ITS Trent Sprague CMAQ $ 29,590 $ 221,060 20 0054 44th Ave Pathway Sands Woodruff STP(E) $ (14,250) $ 262,580 21 0127 2009 ADA Improvements Various locations CDBG $ 21,753 $ 110,323 22 0133 Sprague ITS University Sullivan EECBG $ - $ 330,920 23 0115 Sprague Resurfacing#2 Evergreen Sullivan Federal $ 38,980 $ 1,954,000 $ 5,896,327 $ 16,671,893 *The Pavement Management Program-Arterials will be completed as staff and funding levels allow. Projects and timeframes identified in the TIP are to be considered estimates only that may change due to a variety of circumstances,and are not intended by the City to be relied upon by property owners or developers in making development decisions. Funded Projects Added Projects 2009 Carry Over Projects P:\Public Works\Capital Projects\CIP-TIP Funding\2010-2015 TIP\Amended 2010 TIP\Draft Amended 2010 TIP.xls 3/15/2010 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: 03-23-10 City Manager Sign-off: Item: Check all that apply: ® consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Approval of the Following Vouchers: VOUCHER LIST DATE NV/VOUCHER NUMBERS: TOTAL AMOUNT 03/04/2010 19721-19742 $103,471.78 03/04/2010 19743-19766, 301100022 $145,090.84 03/11/2010 19772-19788 $15,114.33 03/11/2010 3100-1301, 3111, 19767-19771 $278,241.12 GRAND TOTAL $541,918.07 RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Approve claims for vouchers as listed above, BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: STAFF CONTACT: Ken Thompson, Finance Director ATTACHMENTS Voucher Lists vchlist 03/04/2010 3:24:43PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 1 Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor 19721 3/4/2010 000150 ALLIED FIRE&SECURITY Invoice 1VC1006773 19722 3/4/2010 002244 AOT PUBLIC SAFETY CORPORATION SPKVLY-02 19723 3/4/2010 000918 BLUE RIBBON LINEN SUPPLY INC 19724 3/4/2010 000572 CARTER, CAROL 19725 3/4/2010 002036 CITY OF SPOKANE,TREASURER 19726 3/4/2010 000571 CODE PUBLISHING CO 19727 3/4/2010 000795 EARTHWORKS RECYCLING, INC. 19728 3/4/2010 000070 INLAND POWER&LIGHT CO 19729 3/4/2010 000388 IRVIN WATER DIST.#6 19730 3/4/2010 001635 1SS FACILITY/EVENT SERVICES 19731 3/4/2010 001439 K&L GATES LOCKHART 19732 3/4/2010 000252 LOWE'S BUSINESS ACCOUNT 9093796 9095674 9097586 S0036848 PO# Description/Account Amount Expenses FEBRUARY 2010 34883 24740 February 2010 Feb 2010 22402 2139624 February 2010 SLIDING DOOR LOCK: PRECINCT Total: CRY WOLF CHARGES Total : LINEN SUPPLY AND SERVICE: CP LINEN SUPPLY AND SERVICE: CP LINEN SUPPLY AND SERVICE:CP LINEN SUPPLY AND SERVICE:CP Total : EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT Total : GRANT FUNDS FOR PUBLIC DEFEI Total: MUNICIPAL CODE UPDATE RECYCLING COLLECTION UTILITIES:PW UTILITIES: PARKS Total: Total : Total : Total : FEB 2010 -.MONTHLY JANITORIAL, Total: PROFESSIONAL SERVICES OPERATING SUPPLIES: CP Total: 36.19 36.19 2,752.44 2,752.44 260.77 111.95 297.74 48.09 718.55 40.70 40.70 30,854.79 30,854.79 114.14 114.14 27.50 27.50 442.99 442.99 166.00 166.00 7,136.00 7,136.00 2,021.64 2,021.64 195.44 Page: 1 vchlist 03/04/2010 3:24:43PM Voucher List Page: 2 Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount 19732 3/4/2010 000252 000252 LOWE'S BUSINESS ACCOUNT (Continued) Total: 195.44 19733 3/4/2010 001684 MARKETING SOLUTIONS NW CP 1!712010 Media MARKETING FOR CP 3,449.00 CP 2/12/2010 Media MARKETING FOR CP 6,333.00 Total: 9,782.00 19734 3/4/2010 000193 NORTHWEST CHRISTIAN SCHOOL INC MARCH 2010 CITY HALL RENT 37,468.47 Total: 37,468.47 19735 3/4/2010 000652 OFFICE DEPOT INC. 507653351001 OFFICE SUPPLIES: CP 50.95 Total: 50.95 19736 3/4/2010 000997 OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY SR04008310 ELEVATOR SERVICE CONTRACT 1,777.68 Total: 1,777.68 19737 3/4/2010 000709 SENSKE LAWN&TREE CARE INC. 2751759 42553 2010 EMERG TRAFFIC CONTROL S 530.46 Total: 530.46 19738 3/4/2010 000935 SERVICE PAPER CO 11261644 SUPPLIES FOR CP 230.88 30463082 SUPPLIES:CP 279.41 Total: 510.29 19739 3/4/2010 000668 SPOKANE CO TREASURER 45101.9067 2010 SEWER ASSESSMENT 2,181.64 45101.9068 2010 SEWER ASSESSMENT 754.8.4 45105.9010 2010 SEWER ASSESSMENT 2,181.64 Total: 5,118.12 19740 3/4/2010 000783 VALLEY GLASS 10-59014 FURNISH AND INSTALL-SOLEXIA 217.40 Total: 217.40 19741 3/4/2010 000167 VERA WATER&POWER February 2010 UTILITIES: FEB 2010 2,491.88 Total: 2,491.88 19742 3/4/2010 000038 WASTE MANAGEMENT OF SPOKANE 2660266-2681-9 WASTE MGMT: CENTERPLACE 732.88 2660267-2681-0 WASTE MGMT: PRECINCT 285.27 Total: 1,018.15 22 Vouchers for bank code: apbank Bank total: 103,471.78 Page: 2 vchlist 03/04/2010 3:24:43PM Voucher List Page: 3 Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount 22 Vouchers in this report 1,the undersigned,do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished,the services rendered, or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just,due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley,and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify to said claim. Finance Director Date Total vouchers: 103,471.78 Page: 3 vchlist 03/04/2010 3:41:29PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 1 Bank code: Voucher 19743 19744 19745 19746 19747 19748 19749 19750 19751 19752 19753 19754 apbank Date Vendor 3/4/2010 000334 ARGUS JANITORIAL LLC 3/4/2010 001012 ASSOC BUSINESS SYSTEMS 3/4/2010 000168 BLACK BOX NETWORK SVC 3/4/2010 000101 CDW-G 3/4/2010 000109 COFFEE SYSTEMS INC 3/4/2010 001888 COMCAST 3/4/2010 001280 DEPT OF LICENSING 3/4/2010 002157 ELJAY OIL COMPANY 3/4/2010 001447 FREE PRESS PUBLISHING INC 3/4/2010 000007 GRAINGER 3/4/2010 000917 GRAYBAR 3/4/2010 001728 HP FINANCIAL SERVICES CO Invoice INV004768 386237 386276 PO# Description/Account 169952 RDG7089 3820:047469 MARCH 2010 00002787 229564 33737 33738 33739 9115743800 946064444 JAN 2010 JANITORIAL SVCS:FEB 2010 PREC Total: COPIER COSTS: LEGAL COPIER COSTS: CD Total : 42524 MITEL 3300 AT CENTERPLACE UPC Total: LAPTOP FOR PUBLIC INFO OFFICE Total : COFFEE SUPPLIES: COUNCIL Total : HIGH SPEED INTERNET Total: 4TH QTR 2009:MLS CREDIT CARD Total : OIL PRODUCTS FOR SNOW PLOW Total : LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION LEGAL PUBLICATION Total : HEATER/THERMOMETER: CP Total : COMPUTER PARTS LEASE PYMT Total: Amount 2,165.23 2,165.23 36.73 122.47 159.20 4,846.43 4,846.3 1,281.31 1,281.31 32.61 32.61 114.94 114.94 285.48 285.48 261.32 261.32 91.80 25.00 25.00 141.80 91.42 91.42 96.66 96.66 2,441.55 Page: 1 vchlist 03/04/2010 3:41:29PM Voucher List Page: 2 Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount 19754 3/4/2010 001728 001728 HP FINANCIAL SERVICES CO (Continued) Total: 2,441.55 19755 3/4/2010 001914 KIPP, RYAN EXPENSES MILEAGE: RYAN KIPP 10.00 Total: 10.00 19756 3/4/2010 000652 OFFICE DEPOT INC. 509486891001 OFFICE SUPPLIES: PW 88.00 510240335001 OFFICE SUPPLIES: CP 115.59 Total : 203.59 19757 3/4/2010 000307 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER JAN 2010 STATE REMITTANCE 74,657.79 Total: 74,657.79 19758 3/4/2010 000512 OFFICETEAM 30726824 STAFFING SVCS: LASERF1CHE 260.80 Total: 260.80 19759 3/4/2010 001860 PLATT 7370435 SUPPLIES FOR CP 49.57 Total: 49.57 19760 3/4/2010 000019 PURRFECT LOGOS, INC. 25277 REPLACEMENT VINYL: CARRIE KO 16.25 Total : 16.25 19761 3/4/2010 000256 RAINBOW ELECTRIC INC 125440 JOURNEYMAN ELECTRICIAN 543.50 Total: 543.50 19762 3/4/2010 000779 SOUTHARD, BRAD FEB 2010 42536 2010 DEAD ANIMAL REMOVAL 690.00 Total: 690.00 19763 3/4/2010 000308 SPOKANE CO PROSECUTING ATTY JAN 2010 CRIME VICTIMS COMP FUND 1,001.97 Total: 1,001.97 19764 3/4/2010 000668 SPOKANE CO TREASURER 35241.4101 2010 PROPERTY TAX:EDGECLIFF 238.50 45093.0646 2010 PROPERTY TAX:VALLEY MIS 1,622.19 45105.9010 2010 PROPERTY TAX:CENTERPLA 2,493.09 45114.9015 2010 PROPERTY TAX:SULLIVAN 693.90 45162.0327 2010 PROPERTY TAX:VALLEY MIS. 611.10 45174.9059 2010 PROPERTY TAXES: BALFOUR 122.52 45182.9132 2010 PROPERTY TAX: PARK RD. PC 428.91 45222.0227 2010 PROPERTY TAX: PRECINCT 715.21 Page: 2 vchlist 03/04/2010 3:41:29PM Voucher List Page: 3 Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount 19764 3/4/2010 000668 SPOKANE CO TREASURER (Continued) 45271.9007 2010 PROPERTY TAX:TERRACE VI 259.08 45271.9008 2010 PROPERTY TAX:TERRACEVII 302.40 45273.9036 2010 PROPERTY TAX: BROWNS ID 437.82 45332.1517 2010 PROPERTY TAX:CASTLE PAF 168.00 55182.1553 2010 PROPERTY TAX:GRENACRE; 1,235.47 551821623 2010 PROPERTY TAX: GREENACRI 1,669.11 55182.4624 2010 PROPERTY TAX:GREENACRI 97.20 Total : 11,094.50 19765 3/4/2010 001024 UNITED RENTALS NW 86163498-001 UNITED RENTAL SEMINAR 88.92 Total : 88.92 19766 3/4/2010 000964 VOLT MANAGEMENT CORP 22327883 STAFFING SVCS: IT 448.00 Total : 448.00 301100022 3/2/2010 001865 MORGEN&OSWOOD CONSTRUCTION Pay App#13 42219 BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION 44,108.00 Total : 44,108.00 25 Vouchers for bank code: apbank Bank total: 145,090.84 25 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers: 145,090.84 I,the undersigned,do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished,the services rendered,or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just,due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley,and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify to said claim, Finance Director Date Page: 3 vch l ist 03/1112010 4:28:36PM Voucher List Page: 1 Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account 19772 3/11/2010 000197 AIRFACTZ 41461 BACKGROUND CHECKS: HR 19774 3/11/2010 000863 CENTURY WEST ENG CORP 19775 3/11/2010 000999 EASTERN WA ATTORNEY SVC, INC 34195 19776 3/11/2010 000858 FOOD EQUIPMENT INTL, INC. 19777 3/11/2010 002271 GRASSEL, BRENDA 19778 3/11/2010 002196 HOLTEN, MELISSA 19779 3/11/2010 000715 HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS 807 19780 3/11/2010 000022 INLAND BUSINESS PRODUCTS, INC. 57271 57272 Total : Total: 231589 42543 CONTRACT 2010 TIP SERVICES Total : 7771 Expenses Expenses LEGAL SERVICE Total : KITCHEN SUPPLIES: CP Total: TRAVEL REIMBURSEMENT Total: TRAVEL REIMBURSEMENT Total : SUPPLIES: CP Total : EMPLOYEE PHOTO ID'S-HR EMPLOYEE PHOTO ID'S-HR Total: 19781 3/11/2010 001684 MARKETING SOLUTIONS NW CP 3-8-2010 P&P MARKETING: CP Total : 19782 3/11/2010 002259 MENKE JACKSON BEYER EH1LS 449 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 19783 3/11/2010 000512 OFFICETEAM 30762023 Total : STAFFING SVCS:LASERFICHE Total: Amount 100.00 100.00 40.70 7,499.93 7,499.93 40.00 40.00 177.72 177.72 24.00 24.00 339.08 339.08 99.00 99.00 23.91 15.22 39.13 1,970.00 1,970.00 1,697.40 1,697.40 505.30 505.30 Page: 1 vchlist 03/11/2010 4:28:36PM Voucher List Page: 2 Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount 19784 3/11/2010 001860 PLATT 7298425 SUPPLIES:CP 28.61 Total: 28.61 19785 3/11/2010 000323 SPOKANE CO UTILITIES FEB 2009 SPOKANE COUNTY SEWER 1,597.70 Total: 1,597.70 19786 3/11/2010 000093 SPOKESMAN-REVIEW 173970 ADVERTISING-HR 380.46 Total: 380.46 19787 3/11/2010 000347 WORLEY, STEVE EXPENSES EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 116.00 Total: 116.00 19788 3/11/2010 001793 WWRC 03-05-10 MEMBERSHIP DUES 500.00 Total: 500.00 17 Vouchers for bank code: apbank Bank total: t5;155:O3 17 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers: I,the undersigned,do certify under penalty of perjury, that the materials have been furnished,the services rendered,or the labor performed as described herein and that the claim is just,due and an unpaid obligation against the City of Spokane Valley,and that I am authorized to authenticate and certify to said claim. Finance Director Date Page: 2 apCkHist Check History Listing Page: 1 03/11/2010 8:20AM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Check# Date Vendor Status ClearNoid Date Invoice Inv.Date Amount Paid Check Total 3100 03/05/2010 000048 401A PLAN VANTAGE TRANSFEI Ben32606 03/05/2010 30,847.94 30,847.94 3101 03/05/2010 000162 401A EXEC PLAN VANTAGE TRA Ben32608 03/05/2010 7,500.10 7,500.10 3102 03/05/2010 000145 457 PLAN VANTAGEPOINT TRAM Ben32610 03/05/2010 4,552.29 4,552.29 3103 03/05/2010 000682 EFTPS Ben32612 03/05/2010 63,601.31 63,601.31 3111 03/05/2010 000682 EFTPS Ben32627 03/05/2010 1,187.32 1,187.32 19767 03/05/2010 000699 WA COUNCIL CO/CITY EMPLOYE Ben32598 03/05/2010 2,057.23 2,057.23 19768 03/05/2010 000120 AWC Ben32594 03/05/2010 97,051.44 Ben32625 03/05/2010 5,453.25 102,504.69 19769 03/05/2010 001169 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Ben32604 03/05/2010 64,401.24 64,401.24 19770 03/05/2010 001896 DANIEL H BRUNNER Ben32602 03/05/2010 325.00 325.00 19771 03/05/2010 002227 IDAHO TAX COMMISSION Ben32600 03/05/2010 1,264.00 1,264.00 10 checks in this report apbank Total: 278,241.12 Total Checks: 278,241.12 Page: 1 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: 03 23-10 City Manager Sign-off: Item: Check all that apply: ® consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE : Payroll for Period Ending March 15, 2010: GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: OPTIONS: RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Budget/Financial impacts: Gross: $ 225,912.74 Benefits: $ 29,729.76 Total payroll $ 255,642.50 STAFF CONTACT: Raba Nimri ATTACHMENTS DRAFT MINUTE S Special Joint Meeting Spokane Valley City Council and Spokane County Board of County Commissioners Monday, March 8, 2010 1:00 p.m.—4:00 p.m. Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers 11707 E. Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley,WA Attendance: City of Spokane Valley Spokane County Tom Towey, Mayor Mark Richard, Chair Gary Schimmels,Deputy Mayor Bonnie Mager,Vice-Chair Rose Dempsey, Councilmember Todd Mielke, Commissioner Bill Gothmann, Councilmember Brenda Grassel Councilmember Others: Spokane Transit Authority Dean Grafos, Councilmember Susan Meyer, Chief Executive Officer Absent: Bob McCaslin, Councilmember Staff: Spokane County Staff Mike Jackson,Acting City Manager Marshall Farnell, Chief Executive Officer Kathy McClung, Community Development Dir. Jim Emacio, DPA, Prosecutor's Office John Hohman, Senior Engineer, Development Bruce Rawls, Director Division of Utilities Neil Kersten, Public Works Director Bob Brueggeman, County Engineer Mike Connelly, City Attorney Randy Vissia, Building Director Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney Ken Thompson, Finance Director Steve Worley, Senior Engineer MaryKate McGee, Building Official Carolbelle Branch,Public Information officer Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk Mayor Towey called the meeting to order,welcomed everyone, said the group would break at 2:30 for ten minutes; s aid this is an opportunity for informal discussion and free flow of information, and invited Councilmembers and Commissioners to introduce themselves. 1. Milwaukee Right-of-way(Appleway) Mayor Towey asked for some background of this issue. Commissioner Mielke explained that the right- of-way issue pre-dates all three current commissioners; that the issue is about the railroad vacating some property, and about timing and politics; he explained that Sprague was re-configured and the rest of the right-of-way was never put into a road use and as a result of ow nership disagreement between the then City Council and Board, a court action was undertaken to determine ownership. Mr. Mielke said that the Superior Court affirmed ownership with Spokane County,that decision was appealed and the Court of Appeals re-affirmed the 1 ower court de cision; and the State Supreme Court refused to hear the matter thereby re-affirming the Court of Appeal's decision; and he said that likely the ownership issue has been exhausted; he said the section has never been used as a roadway so it continues as property of Spokane County. Mr. Mielke said his personal view is that it is the County's responsibility to connect communities within the region, and his goal is to preserve some continuous c orridor along that route for the future Joint City/Spokane County BoCC Meeting Minutes 03-08-2010 Page 1 of 9 Approved by Council: DRAFT connection o f c ommunities, and he s aid his personal top priority is to maintain a continuous corridor. Commissioner Mager added that there is a need to maintain a corridor for some kind of mass transit in the future, whether for light rail or something else; she said when she came on the Board,negotiations were already in progress; she said she felt the original proposal by Council concerned the sewer main and when it came to the narrow section,whoever was on either side would purchase the additional needed property; she said now with the difficult economic times, things have changed and said whatever they do, Spokane County needs to receive the fair market value; she said she had a discussion last week with some staff and that since there is a sewer main through there, we need to make sure we don't compromise that for any future plans. Commissioner Chair Richard said he forwarded a copy of the latest proposal to Councilmember Grafos; he explained that we have a major interceptor through much of corridor and that needs to be protected; and said in terms of mass transit, it must not run in a way to prevent reasonable access for maintenance and ope ration; he s aid the County also wanted to make sure they didn't take responsibility for any environmental contamination for anything prior t o Spokane C ounty's ow nership,bu t t hat S pokane County would take responsibility during their ownership, he said the County asked Spokane Valley to hold the County harmless during that period when the site was not owned by the County; he said the latest lo ok a t the sewer 1 ine presented a c onvenient ability to assess the pr operty; and h e s poke of formulas and percentages that would serve Spokane Valley and the S TA (Spokane Transit Authority); that s ince n egotiations stalled,th e C ounty started discussions with S TA and STA came back w ith a position to authorize negotiations on some or all of the right-of-way;the idea was that whatever Spokane Valley needed concerning certain "pinch points", that Spokane Valley would be responsible to purchase, and STA would be responsible to complete its objectives. Commissioner Mielke said that the area ranged from 100' wide down to 60', and the assumption was that Spokane Valley wanted 72' or thereabouts, and discussion concerned light rail and how much was needed for double track,with the general presumption that it needed 100'; leaving the question of what to do on those parts where it was less; especially where it got down to the 60' area. Councilmember Gothmann mentioned that Spokane Valley wants to preserve the corridor, and has always been anxious to preserve the full 100' even though we didn't own it; and said he unde rstands that the se wer m ain meanders; and the i dea w as t hey al ways w anted to preserve the necessity to make repairs. Commissioner Richard said they would like to get a renewed sense of w here this new council wants to go, and if there remains an interest in the right-of-way, and if so,what does that look like; and asked if Council has ideas on how to proceed. Commissioner Mielke also stated that as STA i s the provider of public transportation in this region, it may be easier for the County and STA to negotiate, and then have Spokane Valley negotiate with STA in the future. Mayor Towey suggested that with three agencies having the i nterest of preserving the right-of-way, perhaps it would be beneficial to have representatives from all three agencies meet regularly to discuss the issue; and said he would have to discuss that with the City Manager to designate staff for that purpose. Commissioner Mager asked if Spokane Valley is looking at city hall plans or has decided on what their vision is, or has ideas that might affect the corridor. May or Towey said he feels it has to be a g roup decision with Spokane Valley,the Board of County Commissioners, and the STA,to sit down and figure out what the group wants it to look like in the future, and work towards that. Councilmember Grafos said the location of the sewer line is not the issue, but the issue is the pinch points; and he said he has some property on t hose pinch points and he would have to recuse himself from that discussion; and said he feels this C ouncil ag rees that w e w ant t o preserve this as a right-of-way and work with S TA i n t hat regard; he said the big issue has always been that narrowing part, and who would pay for it; and does the STA want to be on S prague Avenue or some other pl ace; he said he feels the right-of-way should be preserved and an agreement worked out with the County and STA to preserve that 100'; and said if the STA said they need 28' and we need the difference, we should work toward that; and stated that there is no easement for mass transit between University and the freeway, so that's another issue to consider; and said based on previous conversations with Ms. Meyer,that what she would work for the STA would be to Joint City/Spokane County BoCC Meeting Minutes 03-08-2010 Page 2 of 9 Approved by Council: DRAFT initially have their operation on the south side of that corridor versus Sprague. Ms. Meyer, CEO for STA said that they should plan for that until there is some specific plan for what the next public transportation mode will be; and said they'll do an alternative analysis on the corridor to look at a new mode, which is electric rapid-transit, and to look at Sprague as an alternative to part of the corridor,but said they won't know i f Sprague or Appleway is preferable until that analysis is complete; and that decision would involve meeting the economic development and mobility ne eds o f S pokane V alley; and she said they want t o be part o f p reserving the 100' and c an discuss a bout a potential swap once the S prague o r Appleway decision is determined. Councilmember Grafos said if we can agree with the direction, we can get down to a two-part conversation and eliminate Spokane County; and he said that the last offer as per a letter dated March 24, 2008 from the County to City Attorney Mike Connelly, states some goals that the City of Spokane Valley has, and said he feels a lot of those have changed; that he would like to see this move forward and to perhaps have the staff get together to determine how to preserve the 100' fairly and economically. Councilmember Gothmann said he feels that what Mr. Grafos has just stated the City has agreed to for a long time but money i s an issue; and s aid there are m any citizens who feel we already paid for that corridor and argue why should they pay for it twice; so that is one of the impediments;but said he feels the wise thing for Spokane Valley is to be flexible with that issue so there can be genuine negotiations; and that this Council will need to determine its position on the issue, as well as determine that section's use. Commissioner Mielke agreed that residences in the various districts feel that during the five to eight years prior to this City's incorporation,that an disproportionate amount of the money in the road fund flowed into the area of the county that was unincorporated and which eventually became Spokane Valley; and said that the court cases same down to whether the property was ever used for a road purpose and whether it should have transferred at the time of incorporation; and the Court's ruled that the section in question had never been open to vehicular traffic, and therefore was never a roadway and not subject to automatic transfer upon incorporation; and he said they spent a lot more money in their legal department going through the court cases. Mayor Towey stated that who paid for it and why are valid issues, but suggested we concentrate on what we w ant in the p resent and the future: to determine the p rocess to preserve the right-of-way; and to discuss these issues regularly together; and he said he would like to know what that group would entail and compromise. Councilmember Gothmann asked why we would pay for land if we don't need it, and he said we don't need it;that we own 4tn Avenue and could upgrade that to an arterial; or upgrade Valleyway; and said the only reason is to relieve traffic congestion at the busy intersections of Pines and Sprague and Sullivan and Sprague; and providing a second road would do that and perhaps 4th Avenue could do that; and said he feels Council needs to determine how to solve the traffic cong estion i ssue; and said he feels it would b e wise for those who have authority to negotiate, which is not council, to get together to discuss the matter; and said he feels council needs to determine what council wants to do before that can occur. Commissioner Richard said one of the valid points is,what is the Council's interest, or does Council have an interest; and said while Council tries to determine if there is a need and the ability to pay for that need, that gas taxes are down,excise taxes are down, and the two record snow events have put the County's road fund in a serious situation;that they are trying to find a willing buyer; that the County approached STA and STA has been authorized to discuss the issue,but depending on C ouncil's study and needs, it will depend if that real estate is of interest and what value it holds; and he said that STA is going through a similar process as it determines if this fits their long term needs, and if so, what is STA willing to pay; and said the County wants to maintain the over-arching goal to preserve the corridor,which by bits and pieces goes from the State line to downtown Spokane, and said in that context,they don't ne cessarily want to continue ownership, and said he feels it would be beneficial to the Council to try to develop a position on this sooner rather than later; that they appreciate STA not moving forward with that discussion realizing STA has put money aside for this; but said the County has several road fund budgets in the red and said he wonders how long they can hold on; and said the County needs this Council's help Joint City/Spokane County BoCC Meeting Minutes 03-08-2010 Page 3 of 9 Approved by Council: DRAFT in trying to move this forward. Commissioner Mielke said they don't need a decision within the next thirty days, but that the County needs to determine what are the incremental things needed in anticipation of what this community will need twenty to forty years from now; he said he feels in that time-frame, congestion on I-90 will get worse and based on the way people have settled in this region, parallel to the River and to I-90,that we are going to likely need some type of parallel corridor; and said if Spokane Valley were to say that it doesn't know if it is in position to purchase right-of-way and/or Spokane Valley is not sure it this meets the long term goal; and if Spokane County were to negotiate something with STA, he said he feels that would not prevent future conversation between Spokane Valley and STA to discuss a surplus corridor; and said the County finds itself in a position to have to replenish reserves that no longer exist. Deputy Mayor S chimmels stated that he believes the main question is to form a group, to try to pick a plan that would fit everything, and then worry about the funding source from that point. Commissioner Richard asked if Deputy Mayor Schimmels felt it would be important for this council to come to some preliminary agreement within council that there is some level of interest in the corridor which causes us to find a three-way solution; or if this even fits in with this Council's long-term plans; and then convene the working group. Deputy Mayor Schimmels responded that he feels that is tied in to what they are going through now;that this Council hasn't got there yet,he said they are not very far away, and this discussion helps. Ms. Meyer said the STA Board authorized her to negotiate with Spokane County to purchase the right-of-way, and said STA was willing to do that before knowing if it would be Sprague or Appleway as e ither way they would have an asset to keep or use; but said she prefers the matter come about in collaboration with both entities. Commissioner Mager asked if Council was looking at a time line; and Councilmember Gothmann said in his view,that is a comprehensive plan issue;that the present comprehensive plan says the corridor is part of it; and he asked if the prospect of remaining in that corridor is dim, why consider it at all and why not look elsewhere; as the City owns assets elsewhere that may solve the problem;that the comprehensive plan is updated annually in November; and said that is an issue that needs to go back to the Planning Commission after the Council determines the direction for this issue. Councilmember Grafos asked if it is possible to hold an executive session to discuss the purchase of the right-of-way; and City Attorney C onnelly s aid topics are 1 imited; but if the discussion is w hat are w e offering and are willing to accept, then yes; but outside of that probably no; on the long term plans, does Council w ant to a mend the c omp pl an, or m ake t his a c orridor — all of those are open discussions. Councilmember Grafos said there are some funds in the civic building fund that were going to be used for the City Hall which we are not going to build, and said he would like to discuss some of those items in executive session and do so fairly quickly as the STA needs direction, and there also remains the issue of the easement from University to the Freeway. Mr. Connelly replied that much of that discussion would have to be in open session. Councilmember Dempsey said that this council has not determined the path on this issue yet, and can't come to agreement within all bodies until Council has determined its own path. Mayor T owey sai d the p rocess ha s b egun and they ar e 1 ooking at t he S ARP (Sprague A ppleway Revitalization Plan) including zoning, city center, two-way c onversion, and the A ppleway e xtension. Councilmember Dempsey said since the STA and County Commissioners would like a timeline on this, she asked about the possibility of separating the corridor from the S ARP; and Mayor Towey s aid the process has begun,but he doesn't know how long the entire process will take; and said he recognizes a decision ne eds t o be made on whether to keep that portion i n pl ace; and t hat process can be gin as a priority. C ouncilmember G rassel suggested C ouncil p ursue the que stion of whether it wants the land. Deputy Mayor Schimmels said he feels the first thing to do would be to meet with STA and some staff and the County Commissioners, to pick up general ideas; perhaps in thirty to sixty days. Ms. Meyer said in STA's pe rspective, de veloping a high pe rformance transit pl an fort he s outh Valley C orridor originating downtown and going to Liberty Lake,will depend in large measure on this Council's land use plans and how STA can support that; and said STA cannot make a decision of which direction to go until this C ouncil determines its di rection; and C ommissioner Richard s aid making t hat de cision w ould be Joint City/Spokane County BoCC Meeting Minutes 03-08-2010 Page 4 of 9 Approved by Council: DRAFT helpful. Acting City Manager Jackson said that council can begin discussion on the Appleway corridor in the near future,possibly in April, and Council can examine Appleway independently of SARP and also how it ties in with SARP. Commissioner Mielke said regardless if a portion of Milwaukee right-of-way is used as roadway or as an alternative transportation corridor,that he feels as this Council examines the long-term comp plan, if there is a transportation corridor along there it would be viable to incorporate in the land use planning; that he has seen many other metropolitan areas that have a transportation corridor,whether bus, rail, or roadway, those communities have designed land use around that and they have flourished; and the idea was offered of bringing in Ms. Meyer and other staff from STA as Council discusses some development opportunity for some type of transportation system;just to discuss the sense of the view of the future. Commissioner Richard asked if t here co uld be consensus, perhaps i n the ne xt thirty t o s ixty days t hat C ouncil w ill attempt to make a decision if this Council has an interest in some level of ownership in this right-of-way, and t o c onvey t hat de cision t o t he B oard of C ommissioners, a nd t o pe rhaps i nclude S TA i n s uch discussions in order to get a better perspective; and based on that outcome, a working group could be established to move forward. Mayor Towey asked if there were any council objections and there were none. 2. Law Enforcement Contract Commissioner Richard said the C ommissioners desire t o move forward on this d iscussion; a nd h e mentioned that there are two c omponents of this i ssue: (1)updating the c urrent c ontract; and(2)the billing discrepancy on the past years' contracts. Mr. Richard said the two staffs are working well on both items and he feels things are moving along w ell. Acting City Manager Jackson said meetings are held every Wednesday,that the first few meetings w ere s pent in determining how to meet,who i s on the negotiating team,that the "pinch points"would be addressed;that some meetings included discussion of the county-wide allocation plan and how those numbers work into the law enforcement cost plan and said research continues in that regard;that they just received the law enforcement contract so Mr. Jackson said he has not had a chance to read the contract;that regarding the settlement, a meeting is scheduled for next Monday to go over the settle and adjust so the City's point of view can be described and decide where to go from there. Mr. Parnell added that the discussions have been very helpful, frank, friendly and open; and that regarding any disagreements, Mr. Connelly put together an agenda that they follow; and said they are making good progress; adding that the contract was sent out Sunday night; and there is a separate discussion on the dou ble-billing i ssue p inch po int; a nd t he u pcoming meeting s hould pr ovide that opportunity to discuss the different viewpoints; and said that the discussions for the past few months have been positive,that Sheriff Knezovich has been involved in all those discussions; and said this issue will be resolved. Commissioner Richard said as mentioned in a letter sent to the City last winter, a goal was to have the updated contract completed by April,with an outside date of June; and said there is a similar goal for the billing discrepancy;that their books and the auditing of those books for 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009 have not be en reconciled and they would 1 ike t hat done and be lieve t hat s hould oc cur c oncurrent w ith an update of a contract if po ssible; and that pe rhaps prior to council making a decision on this,that they would consider either Council or a hired team to sit down with the State Auditor, or the County Auditor, and understand where everyone is coming from;that they have asked for that since August of last year and remain hopeful that will occur; and he reminded everyone oft he "leap of faith"taken last year by Spokane V alley w hen $1 million w as released t o S pokane C ounty; and s aid by the C ity's v iew, the County owes the City money which would be an impetus to move this forward;but said if no progress can be made from either entity,perhaps an arbitration process can be agreed upon,not in the courts but through an independent arbitrator,to help facilitate moving this forward. Commissioner Mielke agreed and said this i ssue on double billing goes back to 2006; and since the State Auditor i s responsible for cities and counties, it was the Board's decision to involve the State Auditor; and said it seems it has been Joint City/Spokane County BoCC Meeting Minutes 03-08-2010 Page 5 of 9 Approved by Council: DRAFT a long time to get those two people,the State Auditor and the City's Forensics Consultant,to discuss this, compare notes and report back to the entities as a combined group so everyone hears the same thing at the same time. Councilmember Gothmann said he believes all the needed facts are in, a meeting is scheduled, and he feels positive about resolving the issue. Mayor Towey mentioned that Council c annot directly participate in these negotiations;that staff reports to Council on the progress,but Council generally gets the contract as a final product to consider approving. Acting City Manager Jackson said it took time for the auditor to put together their report,there was a discovery process to request documents and time for Financial Forensics to review those records;that the City has been actively working on this since last June when the payment was made to the County; and he said next Monday County and City staff will meet with the goal to decide how to move forward from there; and he said the City is prepared to move ahead with whatever is agreed: whether that i s to have Financial Forensics and the Auditor meet; or have an additional meeting with the staff; and he said this is a very complex problem, and said the elected bodies should be able to have a report thereafter on how that matter is proceeding; and said he doesn't see a need to drag this out unless an agreement can't be reached,not necessarily on the amounts of money,but on the concept on where the City believes the overbilling occurred. Commissioner Mielke said that he feels the purpose of this item today is that this is a point they would like resolved; and s aid that he appreciates the opportunity for having this di scussion; and s aid that as Council gives guidance to the City Manager, that the Council understands the County's perspective; and that in the past, it was his understanding that the only way to convey feelings to Council was through a member of staff; and that he realizes this falls under the authority of the City Manager, but as peers, he appreciates the opportunity for discussion; and Mayor Towey said he appreciates having the information. Commissioner Richard said he feels this conversation doesn't violate the separation of powers of Council and staff; and that they are not asking Council to weigh-in on the minutia of the contract,but they can direct staff in the terms oft he negotiation; and said that four years is a 1 ong time;they're asking for resolution; and he s aid the B oard i s asking that the City's forensics team be given the direction t o sit down with the county's auditor as part of fact finding instead of them making assumptions based on city staff's perspectives, and he said he feels Council could give that direction and he is perplexed why that wouldn't occur; and said they might find some understanding on how the respective conclusions were reached , adding that he appreciates the emphasis on resolving this issue; and said the B oard feels the consultants m eeting i s a 1 ogical st ep. Mayor T owey sai d he f eels t hat i s r easonable. Mr. Jackson commented that he agrees it is time for the consultants to work together, and s aid there was a lot of dialogue between the auditor and the City's consultant prior to the report. Mayor Towey called for a recess at 2:30 p.m., and he reconvened the meeting at 2:40 p.m. 3. Snow Removal Update Commissioner Richard explained that he and Councilmember Grafos had a conversation about getting an update or comments or suggestions, and one of the thoughts he had was the possibility of having mutual aid agreements between jurisdictions. Councilmember Grafos said if we are going to help each other, perhaps there should be discussion of what any additional help would entail, if such help were needed; that pe rhaps the standards on levels of s ervice could be discussed, and he said w e w ould appreciate having the C ounty as backup; and pe rhaps what w e would end up w ith would be a hybrid operation. Commissioner Mielke said when they are in need of help, so are all the other jurisdictions; in the last two winters w hen the C ounty g of be hind and 1 ooked t o the D epartment of Transportation or th e C ity of Spokane for assistance, both entities w ere stretched beyond their 1 imits as w ell and were 1 ooking for backup. Commissioner Mager added that another area where mutual benefit would come into play would be on those certain roads that are part county and part City, and for whoever is working on that particular road,to continue on the road, and she said those types of mutual agreements could be very useful. Mayor Towey mentioned the idea of the entities having some sort of mutual operating standards, and said the point about crossing boundaries is a good one, instead of stopping at the boundary line. Deputy Mayor Joint City/Spokane County BoCC Meeting Minutes 03-08-2010 Page 6 of 9 Approved by Council: DRAFT Schimmels mentioned the possibility of having garbage trucks having a plow on the front of their trucks as he is aware that occurs in sections of the East Coast. Councilmember Gothmann mentioned that we need to keep in mind w e are a litigious society, and accidents happen during pl owing, such as hitting mailboxes or parked cars; and said this is likely one of the reasons we don't do that. Commissioner Richard said for a point of direction,perhaps Council could speak with the City Manager to have the staffs talk about m eeting t o discuss w ays t o make sure w e are collaborative; and Mayor Towey sai d he f eels i t w ould be be neficial if both pa rties ha d standard operations. Councilmember Gothmann added that he feels of level of operation in the City was based on the amount of maintenance money a vailable; a nd that t he level of s ervice is tied closely to t he amount o f a vailable budg et maintenance funds; and one entity might have more or less funds than another. C ommissioner Mielke said then the idea is to get staffs together to look at several issues (1) level of service and service criteria standard, and (2)w here w e m ight 1 ook for c oordination o n pl owing routes, and (3) how w e c lassify priorities. There was no council objection. 4. Permit Center Partnership Councilmember Grafos said he spoke with Commissioner Richard and mentioned that Councilmember Grafos and Councilmember G rassel had d iscussed c ombining s ome of t he f unctions o f t he pe rmit operation to save the c itizens m oney and create a p ermit center with a higher efficiency; and in that conversation, he said that C ommissioner R ichard said they ha ve be en thinking about t hat as w ell. Commissioner Richard said there has been s ome conversations on this issue; and in speaking with the City of Spokane,they have discussed trying to find areas of mutual interest for partnership/collaboration/ consolidation; and recognizing that could mean anything along that spectrum; he said he wanted to make his staff is at ease as this is not the `jobs elimination bill"but is how to better partner with other entities to provide better citizen service;that the "one-stop shop"center has been discussed in the past; and that there i s the possibility of having some sort of pa rtnership via the respective websites; like a portal for city/county building permit center where citizens go to one website, and depending on the address,the permit gets channeled to the correct department; and said he would be interested in having a discussion with the City's staff i n this regard; and said unless there is some objection, he would suggest w e put together s ome kind o f working group and include the City of Spokane a s well; and perhaps bring in members oft he private s ector t o get t heir v iewpoint. Commissioner Mi elke adde d that the C ity of Spokane ha s id entified s everal programs they thought would fit well with the collaboration process. Further d iscussion i ncluded m ention of po ssible di fference in ph ilosophies w ithin t he building and permitting, the i mportance of c itizen f eedback, a nd having st affs w orks t ogether t o have si milar application documents. Spokane County Building Director Vissia mentioned that staff strives to look for commonalities among various municipal e ntities;he mentioned the w ebsite "mybuildingpermit.com" which i s s hared among seven entities and which funnels documents to the appropriate jurisdiction; he s aid his department i s interested in the web based permit to be able to offer permits on line, if not for commercial buildings at least for such things as wood stove permits. Councilmember Gothmann mentioned that Spokane Valley is working to have a new website to replace the current outdated website;he said he values the physical site here for getting permits and prefers not sending citizens to downtown Spokane, and added that the City of Spokane Valley has had several developer conferences to get critiques of our system, and based on that a formal report is made and action is taken, and said those processes are valuable. Commissioner Richard mentioned that the staff from Spokane Valley and Spokane County work very well together; and before w e m ove t o uniform forms, we ask our st affs t o meet w ith the C ity of S pokane for further discussion. S pokane Valley Building Official McGee said she and Mr. Vissia have be en engaged in conversations with City of Spokane Building Official Joseph Wizner to try to partner with utilities for an energy code forum late fall to let the citizens know oft he changes to the code, and to include Medical Lake and other jurisdictions; and Mr. Vissia mentioned that the Spokane Regional Code Group, initially Joint City/Spokane County BoCC Meeting Minutes 03-08-2010 Page 7 of 9 Approved by Council: DRAFT with just S pokane C ity and S pokane C ounty,now i ncludes o ther jurisdictions and t he g roup m eets monthly. Commissioner M ielke s aid w ithout be ing too prescriptive to staff, he w ould s uggest these g roups be directed to discuss such things as adm inistrative or trade pe rmits which require less overview, such as plumbing or mechanical, and to perhaps come up with a list of what to include in that category; and what each jurisdiction uses to determine consistencies among the group members. Building official McGee said they have just started discussions on a master application; and that the City of Spokane has already started such a 1 ist, which could be expanded. The matter of software was mentioned and M s. McGee s aid Spokane Valley and Spokane County share the PLUS Permitting System, but of course don't have access to each other's databases. Commissioner Richard added if everyone ag rees, he sugg ested the staffs examine the concept of accessibility to customers, whether a one-stop shop or the portal ideal; and asked if we might be willing to co-convene a discussion with the citizens on how together w e can generally improve customer service, to include topics such as forms, logistics, and even physical location. Acting City Manager Jackson said those ideas sound do-able, especially to sit down and discuss. 5. Other Topics of Mutual Interest Regional Single Sewer System: Commissioner Mielke sai d the C ity of S pokane has identified several topics for discussion, one of which i s going t o a regional single s ewer system;with the TMDL (total maximum daily load), all the state and federal regulators will regulate the entire watershed as one, which includes L iberty L ake, K aiser, S pokane C ounty, E mpire I nland P aper, a nd t he C ity of S pokane a s dischargers on this side of the border, and o f those, if four are in compliance and one is not therefore making the watershed out of c ompliance,t hen a ccording t o the regulations, all five w ould be o ut o f compliance;he s aid a single sewer sy stem has a br oad definition and perhaps coul d only include the sewer mains with the conveyance system as it is now; and said they were asked to begin discussions to explore that issue. Mr. Mielke said he has been asked to work with Bruce Rawls of Spokane County and Dale A mold of S pokane C ity, a nd said pa rt o f that m eans t rying t o f ind a de signated e lected representative from each jurisdiction;he said he does not have a designated elected official in Spokane Valley an d asked if t here i s an interest i n pursuing that,t o ha ve such official participate i n t hose discussions; including any appropriate staff to attend those meetings. City Attorney Connelly said staff has been attending the two regional meetings held so far, and past councilmembers have participated, and said it would be appropriate to choose a new councilmember. The joint solid waste advisory committee was m entioned w ith c itizen representative Dick D enenny, and Spokane V alley representatives M ayor Towey and Councilmember Dempsey; and Mr. Mielke said unless he hears otherwise, he will presume those representatives for discussions will be Mayor Towey and Councilmember Dempsey. Transportation Benefit District (TBD): C ommissioner Mi elke said this issue was discussed at the 1 ast Council of Governance Meeting; said the next"big tent"transportation meeting is set for April 7 from 2-5 p.m. with this topic as a major part of that agenda,including a draft interlocal agreement on TBD; and said one issue is to refine the 1 anguage so it would be amenable to the most jurisdictions as possible; Liberty Lake brought up the issue of language in the draft agreement that all parties would agree they would not impose an impact fee for the purposes of mitigating transportation issues; and Mr. Mielke said since then he discovered that Liberty Lake's impact fee is voluntary; so after editing the language, the draft now states that"none of the parties will implement a mandatory impact fee for the purposes of transportation mitigation;"and said he is waiting for feedback from the jurisdictions. Discussion included impact fees and who would collect those;that City of Spokane's impact fee is on hold;traffic impact fees and new construction; finding a reliable source; and the difficult issue oft ab fees and that they are all subject t o a p ublic v ote except up t o a $20.00 t ab fee,w hich d ecision is made by t he R egional Transportation Benefit District Committee. Commissioner Mielke mentioned that it was suggested at that Council of Governance meeting that anything should go to a public vote; so he said he is trying to write language that best represents the view of the majority of the jurisdictions, and he asked for input either Joint City/Spokane County BoCC Meeting Minutes 03-08-2010 Page 8 of 9 Approved by Council: DRAFT now or later; adding that he is working to prepare for that April 7 meeting. There was discussion on what funds would be generated on specific tab fees: a $20.00 tab fee would generate $9 million and a $45 fee would generate $20 million; and whether the minimum would be enough;that all jurisdictions in this area estimate w e are failing t o fund totally about$24 million annually in road maintenance and ope ration costs; that the money could only be spent locally; and local governments could, subject to a public vote, also impose a gas tax of about three cents,which would generate county-wide about$10 to $12 million annually; and that several voiced an opinion that any issue needs to be put to a public vote. Commissioner Richard said the Board has not yet voted on this issue. Commissioner Mielke added that he was asked to be part of a committee to assemble a document for all jurisdictions;that others on the committee included Rich Munson, Mayor Verner, and Frank Tombari, who were asked to take the concept of a regional TBD and put it into a draft interlocal document which would meet the state law requirements; and bring that back for consideration if the TBD is the preferred route. Solid Waste: Commissioner Mag er said the liaison board has started to meet and determine if it w ill continue meeting with the solid waste advisory committee; as they adopted a comp plan, that triggered a discussion about moving to a governance related to solid waste; she said the reason i s that bonds will retire in 2011 for the incinerator, and Spokane Valley's and Liberty Lake's contract will be up; and that this i s a n important time t o determine i f this i s a s eparate issue or a r egional issue; which means i f regional, it would have a governance structure where each member would be responsible and accountable for what happens with the solid waste in the future; said there has been some discussion abo ut the advisory task force which examined this and recommended to the two bodies that it would be helpful if the City of Spokane would move forward and put out an RFP (request for proposal) for the waste stream in general, to allow the market to give the ne cessary information regarding cost to handle the tons of material g enerated regionally. S he s aid t he o ther r ecommendation w as in t erms of governance, a nd whether an interim contract for three to five years might be one way to address this without creating a crisis but to assist in moving forward. Commissioner Richard said when Spokane Valley is released from the bond ob ligation in 2011,that they believe there is value in staying together in a system in terms of economy of scale, and that there i s a need to move to a regional governance structure; adding that any capital expenditures under $1 million are made by the City of Spokane staff; and when constituents start addressing issues such as recycling or refuse collection,the entities don't have a vote; and said he greatly appreciates Spokane City for taking the 1 eadership role,but feels there is at ime now t o protect their interest, contemplate a new government structure and to allow a regional governance structure; and he encouraged S pokane V alley t o w eigh i n on t his i f that feeling i s shared. Deputy Mayor S chimmels mentioned that the technical committee p resented the conc ept that Spokane Valley and Liberty Lake's contract ends in 2014 and therefore get rid of the 2011 concern by extending out to 2014 instead of doing this piece-meal this just because of the bonds. Commissioner Mager said it would make sense to do that as a short-term electricity contract is now possible and said a small three to five year contract would give everyone enough time to work through the issues. There w ere no o ther s uggested topics to d iscuss and thanks and appreciation were exp ressed for the opportunity to discuss these topics together. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to excuse Councilmember McCaslin from this meeting. Commissioner Richard said he was hopeful to get a quarterly meeting schedule determined; and for Spokane County, he adjourned the meeting at 4:00 p.m. It was then moved by Councilmember Gothmann, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 4:00 p.m. ATTEST: Thomas E. Towey, Mayor Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Joint City/Spokane County BoCC Meeting Minutes 03-08-2010 Page 9 of 9 Approved by Council: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: March 23, 2010 City Manager Sign-off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: First Reading Proposed Ordinance 10-006 Regarding Adult Entertainment GOVERNING LEGISLATION: SVMC 5.10; First Amendment to the United States Constitution PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Adoption of Ordinance 03-036 prior to incorporation relating to licensing (later became SVMC 5.10); Adoption of Ordinances 03-053 and 03-054 relating to zoning prior to incorporation; Adoption of Ordinance 03-097 in late 2003. BACKGROUND: There are two basic types of governmental regulations pertaining to adult entertainment: those that identify where adult entertainment facilities may locate (land use issues), and those that relate to how the activities are allowed to be conducted within the business premises (licensing issues). The proposal that will come before you will relate only to licensing issues, although a brief review of both types of issues is being provided for context for this discussion. Prior to incorporation on March 31, 2003, the City Council adopted Ordinance 03-036, which incorporated by reference the Spokane County Code provisions on adult entertainment licensing. As such, all of the licensing requirements and prohibitions on certain kinds of conduct on adult entertainment facilities were controlled as they had been while under County control. The City adopted Ordinances 03-053 and 054 just prior to incorporation, which established the existing Spokane County zoning regulations and zoning maps as our interim regulations and maps, including places where adult entertainment businesses could locate. One issue the City Council decided to look at changing was whether to keep the amortization schedule previously adopted by Spokane County. The County passed what are commonly referred to as "buffering requirements." These types of restrictions require that any such business be located no closer than 1000 feet from a place of religious worship, school, daycare/nursery school, park/playground, library, or another adult use. Distances are measured from the nearest property line of the adult retail use to the nearest property line of the buffered use. The net effect of the amortization schedule was to require that any businesses that could not meet the buffering requirement would have to move to a parcel that does meet the requirements, of which there are very few, and are almost all within a confined area around the intersection of Fancher Road and Sprague Avenue. After consideration of the impacts of leaving the non-conforming businesses where they were relative to the anticipated impacts of consolidating the businesses into a "red light district," the Council voted to remove the amortization provisions. There were originally five adult oriented businesses at the time of incorporation, and one voluntarily elected to close around 2004. The Council kept the buffering requirements, which would apply to any new adult businesses. Current matter before the Council City staff attempts to keep up with current legal issues relating to the City Code and tries to identify changes that may be necessary to carry out the Code adopted by the Council, including with regard to adult entertainment. At this point, it would be helpful to explain that there are essentially two distinct types of adult oriented business, adult retail and adult entertainment. Adult entertainment is generally considered "an exhibition, performance or dance that is intended to sexually stimulate a member of the public', involving somebody who is nude or semi-nude, for the public in a commercial business. It also includes what are refers to as "arcade" devices, which are generally enclosures showing movies or pictures of specified sexual activity. Adult retail activity is not defined in the new proposed Code provisions (nor the old Code provisions for that matter) because it is primarily a zoning use issue, and is thus contained in the Uniform Development Code. The UDC defines "adult retail use establishment" as follows: "A retail use establishment which, for money or any other form of consideration, devotes a significant or substantial portion of stock in trade, to the sale, exchange, rental, loan, trade, transfer, or viewing of adult-oriented merchandise." We became aware that there may arguably be some ambiguity regarding what type of conduct is allowed in adult retail establishments. Thus, if certain conduct existed within an adult retail use and was properly classified as adult entertainment, that conduct should be subject to the licensing requirements of adult entertainment establishments. In order to fix potential ambiguities, the staff has proposed these new Code provisions. Many of the provisions were taken from Spokane County's Code, which we had adopted by reference upon incorporation, with considerable attention given to more clearly defining the types of conduct than were previously stated. This Code also establishes a clear set of rules for appeals of administrative determinations, which is a legal necessity. An example of this would be a determination that a license holder is in violation of the Code, and thus should have its live adult entertainment facility license revoked or suspended. They could then appeal that determination to the Hearing Examiner, whose decision could then be appealed to Superior Court. These rules, if adopted, would apply to all existing and future adult entertainment facilities from the effective date of the ordinance. Staff believes they would ensure that activities that are defined as being within the sphere of "adult entertainment" are confined to only those places so licensed, and with appropriate oversight. If a business exceeded the scope of its legal use, the City could use these regulations to stop the illegal use. These rules are justified as limited time, place or manner restrictions on expressive activity; based on the legislative record compiled for this ordinance and the prior County Code, the City intends to address the harmful effects of such activity by these restrictions. OPTIONS: Approve additional changes to proposed ordinance; do nothing and continue operating with existing regulations. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: I move that we advance Ordinance 10-006 to a second reading on a future agenda. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: NA STAFF CONTACT: Cary P. Driskell, Deputy City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: A. Existing adult entertainment Code provisions B. Proposed Ordinance 10-006 amending adult entertainment Code C. Legislative record for proposed code [Copy available in Clerk's office] DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 10-006 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, STATE OF WASHINGTON,REPEALING EXISTING SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE CHAPTER 5.10 IN ITS ENTIRETY AND ADOPTING NEW PROVISIONS RELATING TO THE LICENSING AND REGULATION OF ADULT ENTERTAINMENT ESTABLISHMENTS IN THE CITY, AND OTHER MATTERS RELATED THERETO WHEREAS, t he C ity o f S pokane V alley c urrently h as 1 imited C ity C ode pr ovisions relating to the licensing and regulation of adult entertainment establishments in the City, relying in the past upon incorporation of portions of the Spokane County Code for such licensing and regulation; and WHEREAS, a c omprehensive c ode w ould e nable t he C ity t o bot h r ely upon t he experience, studies and regulation b y the C ounty, a s s et forth i n the P reamble, F indings and Purpose of t he C ounty's R esolution 97 -1052, a nd a lso a llow t he C ity to e nact a dditional standards based upon its own experience and the experience, studies and court cases involving other municipalities; and WHEREAS, the C ity has r eviewed s tudies c onducted b y of her j urisdictions, c ourt decisions, police records and other documents, demonstrating that adult entertainment businesses have generated a variety of adverse impacts, including public sexual conduct, the possible spread of s exually t ransmitted di sease and other endangerment t o publ is he alth a nd s afety, and prostitution and other criminal conduct, among other things; and; WHEREAS, the C ity reasonably b elieves th at the e xisting r egulations of a dult entertainment businesses should be amended in view of this additional information, and that the amendments contained herein will effectively address those adverse impacts; and WHEREAS, the C ity doe s not i ntend t o pr event any person or entity from ex ercising rights pr otected b y t he W ashington a nd U nited S tates C onstitutions; and t his or dinance i s necessary in order to better protect the health safety, and welfare of the City and its citizens; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington, ordains as follows: Section 1. Purpose. The pur pose of this Ordinance is to adopt a comprehensive Adult Entertainment Business Code for the City of Spokane Valley. Section 2. Repealing Spokane Valley Municipal C ode Chapter 5.10. Spokane Valley Municipal Code Chapter 5.10, and all of its sections as currently adopted, are hereby repealed in their entirety. Ordinance 10-006 Adult Entertainment Page 1 of 20 DRAFT II .. . . • Pursuant to RCW 35A.11.020 and 35A.12.1H10, the City adopts by reference Chapter 7.80, entitled "Adult Entertainment Establishments," of the Spokane County Code as presently constituted or hereinafter amended, as the adult entertainment regulations of the City. Chapter 7.80, entitled "Adult Entertainment Establishments," of the Spokane County Code, is attached to the ordinance codified in this chapter as "Exhibit A" and incorporated herein by this reference as if fully set forth. (Ord. 36 § 1, 2003). . . . • To the extent that any provision of the Spokane County Code, or any other law, rule, regulation or document(s)referenced in Chapter 7.80, entitled "Adult Entertainment Establishments," of the Spokane County Code, is necessary or convenient to establish the provision of the Spokane County Code, or other law, rule, regulation or document(s)is hereby adopted by reference. (Ord. 36 § 2, 2003). 1 1 1 . . . . • • • • . . Unless the context requires otherwise, any reference to the "county" or to "Spokane County" shall refer to the City of Spokane Valley, and any rcfcrcncc to county staff or licensing officer shall refer to the city manager or designee. To the extent that Exhibit A of the ordinance codified in this chapter refers to the city council or other licensing body, the city council hereby designates and confers jurisdiction upon the hearing examiner to hold hearings and render decisions on matters which relate to Chapter 7.80, cntiticd "Adult Entcrtainmcnt Establishments," of the Spokane County Code. (Ord. 36 § 3, 2003). Section 3. Adopting Spokane V alley Municipal C ode S ection 5.10. 010: SVMC 5.10.010 is adopted as follows: 5.10.010 Definitions. The definitions i n t his section apply throughout t his chapter unless the context clearly requires otherwise. "Adult arcade device," sometimes also known as "panoram," preview," "picture arcade," "adult arcade,' or "peep show," means any device which, for payment of a fee, membership fee or other charge, i s used to exhibit or di splay a graphic picture, view, film, videotape, or digital display of specified sexual activities or sexual conduct. All such devices are denominated under this chapter by the term "adult arcade device." The term "adult arcade device' as used in this chapter doe s not i nclude of her games w hich e mploy pi ctures, vi ews, or vi deo di splays, o r gambling devices which do not exhibit or display adult entertainment. "Adult arcade establishment" means a commercial premises, or portion of any premises, to which a member of the public is invited or admitted and where adult arcade stations or adult arcade devices are used to exhibit or di splay a graphic picture, view, film, videotape, or digital display of a specified sexual activities or sexual conduct to a member of the public on a regular basis or as a substantial part of the premises activity. Ordinance 10-006 Adult Entertainment Page 2 of 20 DRAFT "Adult arcade station" means any enclosure where a patron, member, or customer would ordinarily be positioned while using an adult arcade device. A dult arcade station refers to the area in which an adult arcade device is located and from which the graphic picture, view, film, videotape, digital display of specified sexual activities or sexual conduct is to be viewed. These terms do not m can such an enclosure t hat i s a private office us ed by an ow ner, m anager, or person employed on t he pr emises for attending the t asks of hi s or he r e mployment, i f t he enclosure i s not held out to any m ember of the public for use, for hi re, or for a fee for the purpose of viewing the entertainment provided by the arcade device, and not open to any person other than employees. "Adult e ntertainment e stablishment" c ollectively r efers to adult a rcade establishments and live adult entertainment establishments, as defined herein. "Applicant" means the individual or entity seeking an adult entertainment establishment license. "Applicant control person" means all partners, corporate officers and directors and other individuals i n the applicant's business organization who hold a significant interest i n the adult entertainment bus iness, based on r esponsibility f or m anagement of t he a dult e ntertainment establishment. "Employee" m eans a person, i ncluding a m anager, entertainer or an i ndependent contractor, who works i n or at or r enders services directly r elated to the operation of an adult entertainment establishment. "Entertainer" m eans any person who p rovides 1 ive a dult entertainment within an a dult entertainment establishment a s d efined i n this s ection, whether or no t a f ee i s ch arged or accepted for entertainment. "Hearing Examiner" means the individual designated b y the City Council who has the powers and duties as set forth in SVMC 18.20.030or his/her designee. "Licensing adm inistrator" me ans the C ommunity Development D irector a nd his/her designee(s) and is the person designated to administer this chapter. In the event of any appeal to the Hearing Examiner under this Chapter, the licensing administrator shall prepare and/or ensure the submittal of the"department" reports required under SVMC 17.90.060(A) and Appendix B, Section C. "Liquor" means all beverages defined in RCW Section 66.04.200. "Live adult entertainment" means: (A) A n exhibition, pe rformance o r dance c onducted in a com mercial premises for a member of the public where the exhibition, performance, or dance involves a person who is nude or s eminude. A dult entertainment shall include, but i s not 1 imited to performances commonly known as"strip tease"; Ordinance 10-006 Adult Entertainment Page 3 of 20 DRAFT (B) An exhibition, performance or dance conducted in a commercial premises where the exhibition, performance or dance is distinguished or characterized by a predominant emphasis on the depiction, description, simulation or relation to the following"specified sexual activities": (1)Human genitals in a state of sexual stimulation or arousal, (2) Acts of human masturbation, sexual intercourse, sodomy, oral copulation, or bestiality, (3)Fondling or other erotic touching of human genitals, pubic region, buttocks, or female breasts; or (C) An exhibition, performance or dance that is intended to sexually stimulate a member of the public. T his includes, but i s not limited to, such an exhibition, performance, or dance performed for, arranged with, or engaged in with fewer than all m embers of the public on the premises a t t hat t ime, w hether c onducted or viewed di rectly or of herwise, w ith s eparate consideration paid, either directly or indirectly, for the performance, exhibition or dance and that is com monly r eferred to a s t able da ncing, c ouch da ncing, t axi da ncing, 1 ap da ncing, pr ivate dancing, or straddle dancing. "Live a dult e ntertainment e stablishment" me ans a commercial pr emises to which a member of t he publ is i s i nvited or admitted a nd w here an e ntertainer pr ovides 1 ive a dult entertainment, in a setting which does not involve adult arcade stations or devices, to a member of the public on a regular basis or as a substantial part of the premises activity. "Manager" m eans a p erson w ho m anages, di rects, a dministers or i s i n charge of t he affairs or conduct, or the affairs and conduct, or of a portion of the affairs or conduct occurring at an adult entertainment establishment. "Member of the public" means a customer, patron, club member, or person, other than an employee, who is invited or admitted to an adult entertainment establishment. "Nude" or "seminude" means a s tate of com plete or partial undr ess i n such costume, attire or clothing so as to expose any portion of the female breast below the top of the areola or any portion of the pubic region, anus, buttocks, vulva, or genitals, or human male genitals in a discernibly turgid state, even if completely and opaquely covered. The words "open to the public room so that the area inside is fully and completely visible to the manager" mean that there maybe no do or, curtain, partition, or other device extending from the top and/or any side of the door frame of an arcade station, so that all portions of every arcade station and all of the activity and all occupants inside every arcade station are fully and completely vi sible at all time s b y di rect line of sight to persons in the a dj acent public room, including the manager. "Operator" means a person operating, conducting or maintaining an adult entertainment establishment. Ordinance 10-006 Adult Entertainment Page 4 of 20 DRAFT "Person" m eans an i ndividual, pa rtnership, c orporation, t rust, i ncorporated or unincorporated a ssociation, m arital c ommunity,j oint ye nture, governmental e ntity, or ot her entity or group of persons however organized. "Premises" m eans t he 1 and, structures, pl aces, t he e quipment a nd a ppurtenances connected or used in any business, and any personal property or fixtures used in connection with any adult entertainment establishment. "Sexual conduct" means acts of: (A) S exual int ercourse within its or dinary m eaning, o ccurring upon any p enetration, however slight or (B) A penetration of the vagina or anus, however slight, by an object; or (C) A contact between persons involving the sex organs of one person and the mouth or anus of another; or (D)Masturbation, manual or instrumental, of oneself or of one person by another; or (E) Touching of the sex organs, anus, or female breast, whether clothed or unclothed, of oneself or of one person by another. "Specified sexual activities" refers to the following: (A) Human genitals in a state of sexual stimulation or arousal; (B) A cts of hum an m asturbation, s exual i ntercourse, s odomy, or al copulation, or bestiality; or (C)Fondling or other erotic touching of human genitals, pubic region, buttocks or female breasts. "Transfer of ownership or control" of an adult entertainment establishment means any of the following: (A) The sale, lease or sublease of the business; (B) The transfer of securities that constitute a controlling interest in the business, whether by sale, exchange, or similar means; (C) T he e stablishment of a trust, gift, or ot her similar le gal de vice that tr ansfers the ownership or control of the business; or (D) Transfer by bequest or other operation of law upon the death of the person possessing the ownership or control. Section 4. Adopting S pokane V alley Municipal C ode 5.10.020: SVMC 5.10.020 i s adopted as follows: 5.10.020 License Required. (A) A person may not conduct, manage or operate an adult entertainment establishment unless the person is the holder of a valid license obtained from the City. (B) A n e ntertainer, e mployee, or m anager m ay not know ingly w ork i n or a bout, or knowingly perform a service or entertainment directly related to the operation of an unlicensed adult entertainment establishment. Ordinance 10-006 Adult Entertainment Page 5 of 20 DRAFT (C) A n entertainer may not perform in an adult entertainment establishment unless the person is the holder of a valid license obtained from the City. (D) A manager may not work in an adult entertainment establishment unless the person is a holder of a valid license obtained from the City. Section 5. Adopting S pokane V alley Municipal C ode 5.10.030: SVMC 5.10.030 i s adopted as follows: 5.10.030 License prohibited to certain classes. No license shall be issued to: (A) A natural person who has not attained the age of twenty-one years, except that a license may be issued to a person who has attained the age of eighteen years with respect to adult entertainment establishments where no intoxicating liquors are served or provided; (B) A person whose pl ace of business i s conducted by a manager or agent, unless the manager or agent has obtained a manager's license; (C) A partnership, unless all the members of the partnership are qualified to obtain a license. The license shall be issued to the manager or agent of the partnership; (D) A corporation, unless all the officers and directors of the corporation are qualified to obtain a license. The license shall be issued to the manager or agent of the corporation. Section 6. Adopting Spokane V alley Municipal C ode 5.10.040: SVMC 5.10.040 i s adopted as follows: 5.10.040 Applications. (A) Adult Entertainment Establishment License. (1) An application for an adult e ntertainment establishment lic ense mus t be submitted to the licensing administrator in the name of the person or entity proposing to conduct the adult entertainment establishment on the business premises and must be signed by the person and certified as true under the penalty of perjury. An application must be submitted on a form supplied by the licensing administrator, which must require the following information: (a) For t he a pplicant a nd f or each a pplicant control pe rson, p rovide: names, any aliases or previous names, driver's license number, if any, social security number, if any, and business, mailing, and residential addresses, and business telephone number; (b) If a partnership, whether general or limited; and if a corporation, date and place of incorporation; evidence that the partnership or corporation is in good standing under the laws of Washington; and the name and address of the registered agent for service of process; (c)Whether the applicant or a partner, corporate officer, or director of the applicant holds another license under this chapter, or a license for similar adult entertainment or Ordinance 10-006 Adult Entertainment Page 6 of 20 DRAFT sexually oriented business from another city, county or state, and if so, the name and address of each other licensed business; (d) A s ummary of t he bus iness hi story of t he a pplicant a nd a pplicant control pe rsons i n o wning or ope rating t he a dult e ntertainment or ot her s exually o riented business, providing names, addresses and dates of operation for such businesses, and whether any business license or adult entertainment license has been revoked or suspended and the reason for the revocation or suspension; (e) For t he applicant and a 11 a pplicant c ontrol pe rsons, a 11 criminal convictions or forfeitures within five years imm ediately preceding th e d ate of the application, other than parking offenses or minor traffic infractions including the dates of conviction, nature of the crime, name and location of court and disposition; (f) For the a pplicant and a 11 a pplicant control p ersons, a d escription of business, occupation or employment history for the three years immediately preceding the date of the application; (g) A uthorization for t he C ity o f S pokane V alley, and i is a gents a nd employees to seek information to confirm any statements set forth in the application; (h) T he 1 ocation a nd doing-business-as na me of t he pr oposed a dult entertainment e stablishment, i ncluding a 1 egal d escription of the property, s treet a ddress, and telephone number, together with the name and address of each owner and lessee of the property; (i) Two two-inch by two-inch photographs of the applicant and applicant control persons, taken within six months of the date of application showing only the full face; (j) A c omplete s et of fingerprints for the applicant and e ach applicant control person, taken by the law enforcement agency for the jurisdiction, or such other entity as authorized by the law enforcement agency; (k) A scale drawing or diagram showing the configuration of the premises for the proposed adult entertainment establishment, including a statement of the total floor space occupied by the business, and marked dimensions of the interior of the premises. Performance areas, s eating areas, m anager's office and s tations, r estrooms, a dult arcade stations and a dult arcade devices, overhead lighting fixtures, walls and doorways, and service areas shall be clearly marked on the drawing. An application for a license for an adult entertainment establishment must i nclude building pl ans t hat de monstrate c onformance w ith a 11 a pplicable building c ode requirements. Upon r equest, a pr elicensing c onference will be s cheduled with t he 1 icensing administrator, or his/her designee and pertinent government departments to assist the applicant in meeting the regulations and provisions of this chapter, as well as the other City Code provisions. No alteration of t he c onfiguration of the i nterior of t he a dult e ntertainment e stablishment or enlargement of the floor space occupied by the premises may be made after obtaining a license, without the prior approval of the licensing administrator or his/her designee. Approval for such enlargement m ay onl y be granted i f t he pr emises and pr oposed e nlargement first m eet t he qualifications and requirements of t his c hapter, all of her C ity C ode provisions, and a 11 of her applicable statutes or laws. (2) An application will be deemed complete upon the applicant's submission of all i nformation requested i n s ubsection (a)(1) o f t his s ection, i ncluding the i dentification of "none" w here t hat i s t he co rrect r esponse. The 1 icensing administrator m ay request ot her Ordinance 10-006 Adult Entertainment Page 7 of 20 DRAFT information or clarification in addition to that provided in a complete application if necessary to determine compliance with this chapter. (3) A nonrefundable license fee must be paid at the time of filing an application in order to defray the costs of processing the application. (4)E ach a pplicant s hall ve rify, unde r pe nalty o f pe rjury, t hat t he i nformation contained in the application is true. (5) If, subsequent to the issuance of an adult entertainment establishment license for a bus iness, a pe rson or e ntity a cquires a s ignificant i nterest ba sed on r esponsibility for management or operation of the business, notice of such acquisition shall be provided in writing to the licensing administrator, no later than twenty-one calendar days following the acquisition. The notice required must include the information required for the original adult entertainment establishment license application. (6) The adult entertainment establishment license, if granted, must state on its face the name of the person or persons to whom it is issued, the expiration date, the doing-business-as name and the address of the 1 icensed adult entertainment establishment. The 1 icense m ust b e posted in a conspicuous place at or near the entrance to the adult entertainment establishment so that it can be easily read when the business is open. (7) A pe rson granted a n a dult e ntertainment e stablishment 1 icense unde r t his chapter may not operate the adult entertainment establishment under a name not specified on the license, nor m ay a pe rson operate an adult ent ertainment es tablishment, or an y adult ar cade device under a designation or at a location not specified on the license. (8)Upon receipt of the complete application and fee, the licensing administrator shall provide c opies t o the pol ice, f ire and pl anning departments for t heir i nvestigation and review to determine compliance of the proposed adult entertainment establishment with the laws and regulations which each department administers. Each department shall, within fifteen days of the date of such application, inspect the application and premises and shall make a written report to the licensing administrator whether such application and premises comply with the laws administered by each department. A license may not be issued unless each department reports that the applicant and premises comply with the relevant laws. If the premises are not yet constructed, the departments shall base their recommendation as to premises compliance on their review of the drawings submitted in the application. An adult entertainment e stablishment 1 icense a pproved be fore t he pr emises c onstruction i s unde rtaken must contain a condition that the premises may not open for business until the premises have been inspected a nd de termined t o be i n c onformance w ith t he dr awings s ubmitted w ith t he application. T he pol ice, fire, and pl anning departments s hall recommend de nial of a 1 icense under the subsection if any of them find that the proposed adult entertainment establishment is not i n c onformance w ith t he r equirements o f t his c hapter or of her applicable 1 aw. T he department shall cite in a recommendation for denial the specific reason for the recommendation, including applicable laws. Ordinance 10-006 Adult Entertainment Page 8 of 20 DRAFT (9)No adult entertainment establishment license may be issued to operate an adult entertainment establishment in a location which does not meet the requirements set forth in the City's Zoning Code Chapter 19.80 SVMC unless otherwise exempt. (10) The e xterior de sign a nd/or signs of the adult e ntertainment e stablishment must meet the requirements set forth in the City's Zoning Code section 19.110.020 adopting the Spokane Valley Sprague and Appleway Corridors Subarea Plan and Chapter 22.110 SVMC. (11) The lic ensing administrator s hall issue and m ail t o the a pplicant a n a dult entertainment establishment license within thirty calendar days of the date of filing a complete license application and fee, unless the licensing administrator determines that the applicant has failed to meet any oft he requirements of t his chapter, or f ailed t o provide any i nformation required under this subsection, or that the applicant has made a false, misleading or fraudulent statement of material fact on the application for a license. The licensing administrator shall grant an e xtension of t ime i n w hich t o pr ovide a 11 i nformation r equired f or a complete 1 icense application upon the request of the applicant. (12)If the licensing administrator finds that the applicant has failed to meet any of the r equirements for is suance of an adult e ntertainment e stablishment lic ense, the lic ensing administrator s hall de ny the a pplication in writing and shall cite the s pecific r easons for th e denial, including applicable laws. If the licensing administrator fails to issue or deny the license within thirty calendar days of the date of filing of a complete application and fee, the applicant shall be p ermitted, subject t o all other a pplicable 1 aws, t o ope rate the business for which the license w as s ought until notification by the lic ensing a dministrator that the lic ense ha s be en denied, but i n no e vent may the 1 icensing a dministrator extend the a pplicant review t ime for more than an additional twenty days. (B) Adult Arcade Device License. In addition to the provisions set forth in subsection (a) of this section, the following conditions apply to adult arcade establishments: (1) It is unlawful to exhibit or display to the public any adult arcade device, or to operate any adult arcade station within any adult arcade establishment without first obtaining a license for each such device for a specified location or premises from the City, to be designated an"adult arcade device license." (2) T he adul t ar cade device 1 icense s hall be s ecurely at tached to each such device, or the arcade station, in a conspicuous place. Section 7 Adopting Spokane Valley Municipal C ode 5.10.050: SVMC 5.10.050 i s adopted as follows: 5.10.050 Adult entertainment establishment manager and entertainer licenses. (A) A person may not work as am anager, as sistant manager or entertainer at an adult entertainment establishment without a manager's or an entertainer's license from the licensing Ordinance 10-006 Adult Entertainment Page 9 of 20 DRAFT administrator. A n applicant f or a ma nager's or e ntertainer's lic ense mus t c omplete an application on f orms p rovided b y t he 1 icensing administrator c ontaining t he i nformation identified in this subsection. A nonrefundable license fee must accompany the application. The licensing administrator s hall provide a copy of the application to the pol ice department for its review, i nvestigation and recommendation. A n a pplication for a m anager's or entertainer's license must be signed by the applicant and certified to be true under penalty of perjury. T he manager's or entertainer's license application must require the following information: (1) The applicant's name, home address, home telephone number, date and place of birth, fingerprints taken by the police department(or such other entity as authorized by the police department or licensing administrator), social security number, and any stage names or nicknames used in entertaining; (2) The name and address of each adult entertainment establishment at which the applicant intends to work; (3)Documentation that the applicant has attained the age of eighteen years. Any two of the following are acceptable as documentation of age: (a) A m otor v ehicle op erator's 1 icense i ssued by any s tate be aring t he applicant's photograph and date of birth; (b) A s tate-issued i dentification c and b earing the applicant's phot ograph and date of birth; (c) An official passport issued by the United State of America; (d) An immigration card issued by the United States of America; or (e) Any other identification that the licensing administrator determines to be acceptable and reliable. (4) A complete statement of all convictions of the applicant for any misdemeanor or felony vi olations i n the j urisdiction or any of her city, c ounty or state within five years immediately pr eceding t he da to of t he application, except pa rking vi olations or minor tr affic infractions; (5) A description of the applicant's principal activities or services to be rendered at the adult entertainment establishment (6) Two two-inch b y two-inch c olor photographs of applicant, taken within six months of the date of application showing only the full face; (7) A uthorization f or t he C ity, i is a gents a nd e mployees t o i nvestigate a nd confirm any statements in the application. (B)E very entertainer s hall pr ovide hi s or h er 1 icense t o t he a dult e ntertainment establishment manager on duty on the premises prior to his or her performance. The manager shall retain the licenses of the entertainers readily available for inspection by the City, its agents, and employees, at any time during business hours of the adult entertainment establishment. Ordinance 10-006 Adult Entertainment Page 10 of 20 DRAFT (C) The licensing administrator may request additional information or clarification when necessary to determine compliance with this chapter. (D) T he c ontents of an a pplication f or an e ntertainer's 1 icense and a ny a dditional information submitted by an applicant for a n entertainer's lic ense are c onfidential and will remain confidential to the extent authorized by RCW Chapter 42.56 and other applicable law. Nothing in this subsection prohibits the exchange of information among government agencies for law enforcement or licensing or regulatory purposes. (E) T he lic ensing a dministrator s hall is sue a nd mail to the a pplicant a n adult entertainment establishment m anager's or ent ertainer's 1 icense within fourteen calendar d ays from the date the complete application and fee are received unless the licensing administrator determines t hat t he a pplicant ha s f ailed t o pr ovide a ny i nformation r equired t o be s upplied according to this chapter, has made any false, misleading or fraudulent statement of material fact in the application, or has failed to meet any of the requirements for issuance of a license under this chapter. If the licensing administrator determines that the applicant does not qualify for the license applied for, the licensing administrator shall deny the application in writing and shall cite the specific reasons therefore, including applicable law. (F) A n applicant for an adul t ent ertainment establishment m anager's o r ent ertainer's license shall be issued a temporary license upon receipt of a complete license application and fee. Such temporary license shall automatically expire on the fourteenth calendar day following the filing of the complete license application and fee unless the licensing administrator has failed to approve or deny the license application, in which case the temporary license shall be valid until the licensing administrator approves or denies the application, or until the final determination of any appeal from a denial of the application. In no event may the licensing administrator extend the application review time for more than an additional twenty calendar days. Section 8. Adopting Spokane Valley Municipal C ode 5.10.080: SVMC 5.10.080 i s adopted as follows: 5.10.080 Standards of conduct, personnel, and operation of adult entertainment establishments. (A) All employees of an adult entertainment establishment must adhere to the following standards of conduct while in any area in which a member of the public is allowed to be present: (1) An employee may not be unclothed or in such less than opaque and complete attire, costume or clothing so as to expose to view any portion of the female breast below the top of the areola or any portion of the public region, anus, buttocks, vulva or genitals, except upon a stage at 1 east eighteen inches above the immediate floor 1 evel and removed at 1 east eight feet from the nearest member of the public. (2) An employee mingling with a member of the public may not be unclothed or in less than opaque and complete attire, costume or clothing as described in subsection (a)(1) of this section, nor may a male employee appear with his genitals in a discernibly turgid state, even Ordinance 10-006 Adult Entertainment Page 11 of 20 DRAFT if com pletely and opaquely covered or w ear o r us e any de vice or cov ering t hat s imulates the same. (3) An employee mingling with a member of the public may not wear or use any device or covering exposed to view which simulates the breast below the top of the areola, vulva, genitals, anus, a portion of the public region, or buttocks. (4) An employee m ay not c aress, fondle or e rotically t ouch a m ember of t he public or another employee. An employee may not encourage or permit a member of the public to caress, fondle or erotically touch that employee. (5) An employee may not perform actual or simulated acts of s exual con duct as defined i n t his c hapter, or a n a ct t hat constitutes a vi olation of R CW C hapter 7.48A , t he Washington moral nuisance statute, or any provision regulating offenses against public morals. f6) A n employee min gling with a m ember of the public m ay not c onduct any dance, p erformance or exhibition i n or a bout t he nons tage area of t he a dult e ntertainment establishment unless that dance, performance or exhibition is performed at a distance of at least four fe et from the m ember oft he public for w horn the dance, p erformance o r exhibition i s performed. The distance of four feet is measured from the torso of the dancer to the torso of the member of the public. (7) A tip or gratuity offered to or accepted by an entertainer may not be offered or accepted be fore any p erformance, d ance or exhibition pr ovided b y t he e ntertainer. An entertainer performing upon any stage area may not accept any form of gratuity offered directly to the entertainer b y a member of the public. A gratuity offered to an entertainer p erforming upon any stage area or in any booth or arcade device must be placed into a receptacle provided for receipt of gratuities by the management of the adult entertainment establishment or provided through a manger on duty on the premises. A gratuity or tip offered to an entertainer conducting a performance, dance or exhibition in or about the nonstage area of the live adult entertainment establishment must be placed into the hand of the entertainer or into a receptacle provided by the entertainer, and not upon the person or into the clothing of the entertainer. (B) This chapter does not prohibit: (1) Plays, operas, musicals, or other dramatic works that are not obscene; (2) C lasses, seminars a nd lectures w hich are held for s erious s cientific or educational purposes and which are not obscene; or (3) Exhibitions, performances, expressions or dances that are not obscene. The exemptions in subsection (b) of this section do not apply to sexual conduct defined in this chapter or the sexual conduct de scribed i n RCW Section 7.48A.010(2) (b) (ii) and (iii). Whether or not activity is obscene shall be judged by consideration of the standards set forth in RCW Section 7.48A.010(2). Ordinance 10-006 Adult Entertainment Page 12 of 20 DRAFT (C) At an adult entertainment establishment the following are required: (1) Admission must be restricted to persons of the age of eighteen years or older. An owner, operator, manager or other person in charge of the adult entertainment establishment may not knowingly permit or allow any person under the age of eighteen years to be in or upon the pr emises w hether as a n ow ner, ope rator, manager, pa tron, m ember, customer, agent, employee, independent contractor, or in any other capacity. T his section i s not intended to be used in a prosecution of a minor on or within an adult entertainment establishment. (2)N either the p erformance of any 1 ive adult entertainment, nor any di splay of specified s exual a ctivities or s exual c onduct, nor a ny phot ograph, dr awing, s ketch o r ot her pictorial or graphic representation of any such performance, activities and/or conduct may take place o r be 1 ocated s o as t o be vi Bible t o m inors w ho a re o r m ay be out side of t he a dult entertainment establishment. f3) A member of the public may not be permitted at any time to enter into any of the nonpublic portions of the adult entertainment establishment, which includes but is not limited to: the dressing rooms of the entertainers, other rooms provided for the benefit of employees, or the ki tchen or s torage areas. H owever, a pe rson de livering goods a nd m aterials, food a nd beverages, or performing maintenance or repairs to the premises or equipment on the premises may be permitted into nonpublic areas to the extent required to perform the person's job duties. (4)Restrooms may not contain video reproduction equipment and/or adult arcade devices and each restroom may not be occupied by more than one person at any time. (5) A 11 ye ntilation de vices or ope nings be tween a dult a rcade boot hs m ust be covered by a p ermanently affixed louver or screen. Any portion of a ventilation opening cover may not be located more than one foot below the top of the adult arcade station walls or one foot from the bottom of adult arcade station walls. There may not be any other holes or op enings between the adult arcade stations. (6)No adult arcade station may be occupied by more than one person at any time. Any ch air or ot her s eating s urface w ithin an adult ar cade s tation shall not pr ovide a s eating surface of greater than 18 inches in either length or width. Only one such chair or other seating surface shall be placed in any adult arcade station. No person may stand or kneel on any such chair or other seating surface. (7) T here m ust b e a permanently pos ted a nd m aintained i n at 1 east t wo conspicuous 1 ocations on t he int erior of all a dult a rcade establishments a s ign stating substantially the following: OCCUPANCY OF ANY STATION (VIEWING ROOM) IS AT ALL TIMES LIMITED TO ONE PERSON. THERE MAY BE NO CRIMINAL ACTIVITY IN THE STATIONS, OR ANYWHERE ELSE ON THE PREMISES, INCLUDING BUT NOT Ordinance 10-006 Adult Entertainment Page 13 of 20 DRAFT LIMITED TO: SEXUALLY EXPLICIT CONDUCT (RCW 9.68A.011), ACTS OF LEWDNESS, INDECENT EXPOSURE, PROSTITUTION, DRUG ACTIVITY, OR SEXUAL CONDUCT,AS DEFINED HEREIN. VIOLATORS ARE SUBJECT TO CRIMINAL PROSECUTION. Each sign must be conspicuously posted and not screened from the patron's view. The letters and num erals must be on a contrasting background and be no s maller than one inch i n height. (8)W hen doors are permitted i n areas of the adult entertainment establishment that are available for use by persons other than the owner, manager, operator, or their agents or employees, those doors may not be locked during business hours. (9)N o person m ay engage i n any conduct, or operate or m aintain any warning system or de vice of any nature or kind, for the pur pose of alerting, warning, or aiding and abetting t he warning o f a ny pa trons, m embers, c ustomers, ow ners, operators, m anagers, employees, a gents, i ndependent c ontractors, or any other pe rsons i n t he a dult e ntertainment establishment, that police officers or county health, code enforcement, fire, licensing, or building inspectors are approaching or have entered the premises. (10)No person in an adult entertainment establishment may masturbate, or expose to view any portion of the female breast below the top of the areola or any portion of the public region, anus, buttocks, penis, vulva or genitals. (D) T he responsibilities of the ma nager of an adult e ntertainment e stablishment s hall include: (1) A licensed manager shall be on duty at an adult entertainment establishment at all time s a dult e ntertainment is be ing provided or me mbers of th e public are pr esent on the premises. The full name and license of the manager shall be prominently posted during business hours. T he m anager s hall be r esponsible for ye rifying t hat any pe rson who provides a dult entertainment within the premises possesses a current and valid entertainer's license. (2) The licensed manager on duty shall not be an entertainer. (3) T he m anager 1 icensed unde r t his c hapter shall m aintain vi sual obs ervation from a m anager's station of each member o f the public and each entertainer at all times an y entertainer is present in the public or performance areas of the adult entertainment establishment. Where t here i s m ore than one performance area, or t he pe rformance a rea i s of s uch size or configuration that one manager is unable to visually observe, at all times, each entertainer, each employee and each member of the public, a manger licensed under this chapter shall be provided for each public or performance area or portion of a public or performance area visually separated from other portions of the adult entertainment establishment. All adult arcade stations must open to the public room s o that the area inside i s fully and completely visible t o the manager. No curtain, door, wall, merchandise, di splay rack, or other enclosure, material, or application may obscure in any way the manager's view of any portion of the activity or occupants of the adult entertainment establishment. Ordinance 10-006 Adult Entertainment Page 14 of 20 DRAFT (4) T he m anager s hall be responsible for and shall ensure t hat the a ctions of members of the public, the a dult e ntertainers, and all of her employees s hall c omply with all requirements of this chapter. Section 9. Adopting Spokane Valley Municipal Code 5.10.090: SVMC 5.10.090 is adopted as follows: 5.10.090 Premises—Specifications. (A) Live Adult Entertainment Establishment Premises. The performance area of the live adult e ntertainment establishment w here adult entertainment is pr ovided shall be a s tage or platform at 1 east eighteen inches i n elevation above the 1 evel o f t he patron seating areas, and shall be separated by a distance of at least eight feet from all areas of the premises to which a member of the public has access. A continuous railing affixed to the floor and measuring at least three feet in height and located at least eight feet from all points of the performance area must be installed on the floor of the premises t o separate the performance area and the public s eating areas. The stage and the entire interior portion of all rooms or other enclosures wherein the live adult entertainment is provided must be visible from the common areas of the premises and from at least one manager's station. Visibility shall be by direct line of sight and shall not be blocked or obstructed by doors, curtains, drapes, walls, merchandise, display racks or other obstructions. (B) Adult Arcade Entertainment Establishment Premises. All adult arcade stations must open to the public room so that the area inside is fully and completely visible by direct line of sight to the ma nager. All a dult arcade s tations s hall be ma intained in a c lean and sanitary condition at a 11 time s. A 11 floors, walls and ceilings s hall c onsist onl y of ha rd, cleanable surfaces. All a dult arcade stations s hall be thoroughly cleaned with a diluted bl each solution whenever necessary for the removal of any potentially infectious materials (including, without limitation, s emen, bl ood a nd va ginal s ecretions), but a t 1 east one e da ily. A record of s uch cleaning, listing t he d ate and time, shall be po sted in each adult ar cade s tation. A ny s uch potentially infectious materials, together with any cleaning rags, cloths or other implements, and any condoms, needles, or other items that may contain such potentially infectious materials, shall be placed in a properly labeled "medical waste" bag and disposed of pursuant to applicable laws or regulations. (C) Lighting. Sufficient lighting must be provided and equally distributed throughout the public areas of the entertainment establishment so that all objects are plainly visible at all times. A minimum lighting level of thirty lux horizontal, measured at thirty inches from the floor and on t en-foot centers i s r equired for all ar eas o f t he adul t entertainment e stablishment w here members of the public are permitted. (D) Signs. A sign at least two feet by two feet with letters at least one inch high, which are on a contrasting background, s hall be conspicuously di splayed i n the public area(s) of the adult entertainment establishment stating the following: Ordinance 10-006 Adult Entertainment Page 15 of 20 DRAFT THIS ADULT ENTERTAINMENT ESTABLISHMENT IS REGULATED BY THE LAWS OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY. ENTERTAINERS ARE: A. NOT PERMITTED TO ENGAGE IN ANY TYPE OF SEXUAL CONDUCT. B. NOT PERMITTED TO APPEAR SEMI-NUDE OR NUDE, EXCEPT ON STAGE. C. NOT PERMITTED TO ACCEPT TIPS OR GRATUITIES IN ADVANCE OF THEIR PERFORMANCE. D. NOT PERMITTED TO ACCEPT TIPS DIRECTLY FROM PATRONS WHILE PERFORMING UPON ANY STAGE AREA OR IN ANY ARCADE STATION OR BOOTH. (E) Recordkeeping Requirements. All papers, records and documents required to be kept pursuant t o t his chapter must be ope n t o i nspection b y the 1 icensing administrator during the hours when the licensed premises are open for business, upon two days' written notice to the licensee. A n adult entertainment establishment s hall maintain and retain for a period of tw o years the name, address and age of each person employed or otherwise retained or allowed to perform on t he pr emises a s a n e ntertainer, i ncluding i ndependent c ontractors a nd t heir employees. The purpose of the inspection shall be to determine whether the papers, records and documents meet the requirements of this chapter. (F) Inspections. P rior to t he i ssuance of a 1 icense, t he a pplicant m ust be qua lified according to the provisions of all applicable City ordinances, the laws of the United States and of the S tate of W ashington. T he pr emises mus t meet the r equirements of a 11 a pplicable laws, ordinances, and r egulations i ncluding but not 1 imited t o the Uniform B uilding C ode, and the City's Zoning Code. All premises and devices must be inspected prior to issuance of a license. Upon request, the licensing administrator will schedule a prelicensing conference with all pertinent City departments to assist the applicant i n meeting the regulations and provisions of this chapter. In order to ensure compliance with this chapter all areas of a licensed adult entertainment establishment that are open to members of the public must be open to inspection by agents and employees of the j urisdiction during the hours when the premises are open for business. The purpose of s uch i nspections m ust be t o de termine i f t he 1 icensed p remises a re op erated i n accordance with the r equirements of t his cha pter. It i s ex pressly d eclared t hat una nnounced inspections of adult entertainment establishments are necessary to ensure compliance with this chapter. (G)Hours of Operation. An adult entertainment establishment may not be operated or otherwise open to the public between the hours of two a.m. and ten a.m. Ordinance 10-006 Adult Entertainment Page 16 of 20 DRAFT Section 10. Adopting Spokane Valley Municipal Code 5.10.100: SVMC 5.10.100 is adopted as follows: 5.10.100 License fees, term, expiration, assignment, and renewals. (A) A 1 icense i ssued un der this chapter expires on the thirty-first d ay of D ecember of each year. A 1 icense fee may not be pr orated, except t hat i f the original application is made subsequent to June 30th, then one-half of the annual fee may b e accepted for the remainder of such year. (B) Application for renewal of a license issued under this chapter must be made to the licensing a dministrator no 1 ater than thirty calendar days be fore the expiration for a n a dult entertainment es tablishment 1 icense, and no later t han fourteen calendar da ys be fore t he expiration for a n adult entertainment e stablishment m anager's and entertainer's 1 icense. The licensing administrator shall issue the renewal license in the same manner and on payment of the same fees as for an original application under this chapter. T he licensing administrator shall assess and collect, an additional f ee, com puted as a p ercentage of t he 1 icense f ee, on an application not made on or before such date, as follows: Calendar Days Past Due Percent of License Fee 7—30 25% 31 —60 50% 61 and over 75% (C) The licensing administrator shall renew a license upon application unless the licensing administrator is aware of facts that would disqualify the applicant from being issued the license for which he or she seeks renewal, and further provided that the application complies with all the provisions of this chapter as now enacted or as the same may hereafter be amended. (D) License fees shall be adopted by the City Council through a separate resolution (E) A dult e ntertainment e stablishments w hich o ffer bot h 1 ive a dult e ntertainment a nd adult arcade devices or stations shall be required to pay the fees associated with both live adult entertainment establishments and adult arcade establishments. (F) Licenses issued under this chapter may not be assigned or transferred to other owners, operators, managers, entertainers, premises, devices, persons or businesses. (G) A r einspection fee e qual t o t he a mount in effect for original a pplication for a ny license s hall be charged if t he appl icant requests a pproval for a p roposed e nlargement or alteration of the interior of the adult entertainment establishment, or if the applicant requests the Ordinance 10-006 Adult Entertainment Page 17 of 20 DRAFT licensing administrator make an inspection of the premises in addition to the usual prelicensing inspection. Section 11. Adopting S pokane Valley Municipal C ode 5.10.110: SVMC 5.10.110 i s adopted as follows: 5.10.110 Suspension or Revocation of Licenses. The 1 icense a dministrator m ay upon 14 calendar days' written not ice d elivered t o the license hol der, temporarily suspend or p ermanently r evoke any 1 icense i ssued pursuant t o this chapter where one or more of the following conditions exist: (A) The l icense application, or any report or record required to be filed with the City, includes one or more false, misleading, or fraudulent statements of material fact or (B) The building, structure, equipment or location of the business for which the license was i ssued doe s not comply with the requirements or standards of the chapter, the applicable building or zoning codes, or other applicable law; or (C) T he licensee, his or her em ployee, a gent, partner, director, officer or manager ha s knowingly allowed or pe rmitted, i n or upo n t he pr emises of a ny adult e ntertainment establishment, any violations of this chapter or acts made unlawful under this chapter. Section 12. Adopting Spokane V alley Municipal C ode 5.10.120: SVMC 5.10.120 i s adopted as follows: 5.10.120 Appeal and Hearing. Any person aggrieved b y the action of the 1 icense administrator i n refusing to issue or renew any license under this chapter, or in temporarily suspending or permanently revoking any license unde r t his c hapter, s hall ha vet he right t o a ppeal s uch a ction t o the C ity's he aring examiner under S VMC 17.90.040 through .060, except to the extent that such sections r elate only t o 1 and us e m atters unde r t he S VMC. N otwithstanding t he pr ovisions of S VMC 17.90.060(A) and Appendix B, Section E, all testimony at any hearing affecting a license under this chapter s hall be taken under oath. T he filing of such appeal s hall stay the action of the license administrator. Any person aggrieved b y the decision of the he aring examiner s hall have the right t o appeal the decision to the Spokane County Superior Court by writ of certiorari filed and served upon the City within 14 c alendar days after the date of the hearing examiner's decision. The filing of such appeal shall stay the action of the hearing examiner. Section 13. Adopting Spokane Valley Municipal Code 5.10.150: SVMC 5.10.150 is adopted as follows: 5.10.150 Compliance by Existing Adult Entertainment Establishments. Ordinance 10-006 Adult Entertainment Page 18 of 20 DRAFT Any adult entertainment establishment lawfully operating on the effective date of this chapter that is in violation of the specifications for the premises of adult entertainment establishments set forth in Section 9 must correct any configuration, and bring the adult entertainment establishment into full compliance with those premises specifications not later than ninety calendar days after the effective date of this chapter. All other provisions of this chapter are operative and enforceable on the effective date. Section 14. Adopting Spokane V alley Municipal C ode 5.10.160: SVMC 5.10.160 i s adopted as follows: 5.10.160 Penalties. A person violating this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor. Any person violating any of the provisions of this chapter shall be deemed guilty of a separate offense for each and every day or portion thereof during which any violation is committed, continued, authorized, or permitted; provided, no p erson s hall be de emed guilty of any violation of t his chapter i f a cting in an investigative capacity pursuant to the request or order of law enforcement. All violations of this chapter are hereby determined to be detrimental to the public health, safety and general welfare and are hereby declared public nuisances. Section 15. Adopting Spokane V alley Municipal C ode 5.10.170: SVMC 5.10.170 i s adopted as follows: 5.10.170 Additional Remedies. Any license issued under this chapter shall be subject to the rules of the Washington State Liquor Control Board relating to the sale of intoxicating liquor. If there is a conflict between this chapter and the applicable rules of the Washington State Liquor Control Board, the rules of the Washington State Liquor Control Board shall govern. The remedies provided herein for vi olations of the provisions of t his chapter, whether civil or criminal, are cumulative and i n a ddition t o any of her remedy provided b y 1 aw. T he remedies are not exclusive, and the City may seek any other legal or equitable relief. An adult entertainment establishment operated or maintained contrary to the provisions of RCW Chapter 7.48, Moral Nuisance, is unlawful and a public and moral nuisance, and the City may in addition to any other remedies commence an action to enjoin, abate or remove any such nuisance. Section 16. Severability. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance should be he ld t o b e i nvalid or unc onstitutional b y a court of c ompetent j urisdiction, such invalidity or unc onstitutionality s hall not a ffect t he va lidity or c onstitutionality of a ny of her section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance. Section 17. Effective Date. T his Ordinance s hall be come effective five days after publication of the Ordinance, or a summary thereof, in the official newspaper of the City. Ordinance 10-006 Adult Entertainment Page 19 of 20 DRAFT Adopted this day of , 2010. City of Spokane Valley Thomas E. Towey,Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk, Christine Bainbridge Approved as to Form: Office of the City Attorney Date of Publication: Effective Date: Ordinance 10-006 Adult Entertainment Page 20 of 20 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: March 23, 2010 City Manager Sign-off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Motion consideration: SARP GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A.110 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Council received an administrative report on March 9, 2010, regarding the process to amend or repeal the SARP. The Comprehensive Plan was amended incorporating Book One of the SARP in August of 2009. BACKGROUND: See attached memorandum provided to Council on March 9, 2010. One indentified alternative involved placing the revision, amendment or repeal of the SARP on the docket for annual Comprehensive Plan changes to be considered in 2011. OPTIONS: Approve or reject the proposed motion. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to place the revision, amendment or repeal of the SARP on the docket for annual Comprehensive Plan amendments to be considered in 2011. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Not calculated for this presentation. STAFF CONTACT: Mike Connelly ATTACHMENTS: Memorandum from City Attorney with Exhibits OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY pokane MICHAEL F. CONNELLY-CITY ATTORNEY CARY P. DRISKELL-DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY Valley 11707 East Sprague Avenue Suite 103 • Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.688.0235 • Fax: 509.688.0299 • cityattorney@spokanevalley.org Memorandum To: Tom Towey, Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Mike Connelly, City Attorney CC: Mike Jackson, Acting City Manager Date: 3-3-10 Re: Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Development Regulations Background The Spokane Valley Sprague and Appleway Subarea Plan (SARP) was adopted by the City Council pursuant to two separate actions. The first, Ordinance 09-022, effective October 15, 2009, amended the Comprehensive Plan Map and added Book One of the Subarea Plan to the Comprehensive Plan. The second, Ordinance 09-021, effective October 15, 2009, amended the Uniform Development Code by adopting Book Two and Book Three of the Subarea Plan, amended the official zoning map and changed both zone classifications and conditions of development within the defined subarea. The City Council has requested that our office explore the alternatives available to rescind part or all of that Plan. These alternatives are discussed below. 1. Traditional Comprehensive Plan Amendment Process Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan are governed by RCW 36.70A.130 which states in pertinent part as follows: (1) (d) Any amendment of or revision to a comprehensive land use plan shall conform to this chapter. Any amendment of or revision to development regulations shall be considered with and implement the comprehensive plan. (2) (a) Each county and city shall establish and broadly disseminate to the public a public participation program consistent with RCW 36.70A.035 and 36.70A.140 that identifies procedures and schedules whereby updates, proposed amendments, or revisions of the comprehensive plan are considered 1 by the governing body of the county or city no more frequently than once each year. The City of Spokane Valley has adopted a public participation program which is attached as Exhibit A, and has further established an annual review process, which is attached as Exhibit B. The annual review process requires that the topic be placed on a docket prior to November 1 of each year to be considered in the following calendar year. This process is completed relatively quickly. For example, the amendments identified prior to November 1, 2009, are currently being presented to the Planning Commission and will come before the Council for their consideration within the next 4-6 weeks. If the Council chooses to follow this procedure they can immediately entertain a motion to place the revision and/or repeal of the SARP on the Comprehensive Plan annual docket for 2011. The Council may also begin consideration of a number of aspects of the Subarea Plan to ensure a complete and timely review. These could include a review of the economic data previously compiled and any additional economic data acquired; a detailed review of each segment of the plan to identify if any immediate changes should be made that are not inconsistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan; (see below for an explanation of this process) and a review of all transportation documentation compiled to date and discussion of recommended charges to transportation systems within the SARP. 2. Amendments to the Development Code Not Inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan There are no timing restrictions on amendments to the Uniform Development Code. Such amendments however, do have to be consistent with the adopted Comprehensive Plan. (See RCW 36.70A.130 (d)) A number of specific development conditions and/or provisions of the SARP could be modified that may not be considered inconsistent with the existing Comprehensive Plan. The existing Comprehensive Plan (Book One) contains general language that discusses the purpose of the Subarea Plan, the specific plan area, the specific intention of the community, i.e. transform the visual character of Sprague Avenue, increase vehicular capacity, instigate the construction of City Center, and enhance property values, to name a few examples. The Comprehensive Plan also contains the specific development districts more specifically discussed in Book Two, along with general descriptions of use and design standards that are contemplated. While no specific time deadlines are discussed the Plan does recognize that development of a viable City Center should "move as swiftly as possible." A copy of Book One is attached as Exhibit C. A detailed review of each section of the SARP by the Council would identify those specific changes the Council wishes to immediately implement, and, if they are consistent with Book One, and after Planning Commission review, could be placed before Council for its consideration without being tied to the annual Comprehensive Plan amendment process discussed above. 2 3. Exceptions to the Comprehensive Plan Annual Amendment Requirement RCW 36.70A.130 allows certain specific changes to the Comprehensive Plan to occur outside of the annual amendment process, they include: 1. The initial adoption of a Subarea Plan that does not modify the Comprehensive Plan policies and designations applicable to the subarea. 2. The adoption of a Shoreline Master Program; 3. The amendment of a capital facility element of the Comprehensive Plan that occurs concurrently with the adoption or amendment of a city budget; 4. Until June 30, 2006, the designation of recreational land under RCW 36.70A.1701; 5. The adoption of Comprehensive Plan amendments necessary to enact a planned action under RCW 43.21C.031 (2). The statue further indicates that all proposals shall be considered concurrently so the cumulative effect of the various proposals can be ascertained and concludes with a final caveat: However, after appropriate public participation a county or city may adopt amendments or revisions to its comprehensive plan that conform with this chapter whenever an emergency exists or to resolve an appeal of a comprehensive plan filed with a growth management hearings board or with the court. It does not appear that any of the above alternatives are applicable to the instant circumstance. In determining whether or not an emergency declaration was valid the court in Matson v. Clark County Board of Commissioners, 79 Wash. App. 641, 649 (1995), stated: A legislative declaration `is conclusive and must be given effect unless it is on its face `obviously false and a palpable attempt at dissimulation. " (Citations omitted) To determine the truth or falsity of the declaration of an emergency, the court will not inquire into the facts, but rather must consider only what appears upon the face of the act and its judicial knowledge. The fact that a sitting council does not agree with a prior legislative enactment may not constitute an emergency. Even if a legitimate emergency was established, it would be difficult to establish that appropriate public participation had occurred. 4. Moratoria and Interim Zoning The process to enact either a moratorium or interim zoning ordinance is set forth in RCW 36.70A.390 (this is a companion statute to RCW 35A.63.220 and 35.63.220.) This Statute is attached as Exhibit D. Prior to the application of this provision, to repeal or delay the implementation of the SARP, we must first examine if, in fact, the action contemplated can legitimately be considered either a moratorium or interim zoning regulation. Generally, a moratorium is an emergency measure adopted without notice to the public or public hearings designed to preserve the status quo. (See above discussion of the validity of emergency declarations.) It suspends the rights of property owners to submit development applications or 3 obtain development approvals while a legislative body considers and adopts comprehensive plans and/or development regulations or amendments to the same. It also can be a public facility moratorium when utility service such as sewer and water, is unavailable. See Matson v. Clark County Board of Commissioners, 79 Wn. App. 641, 644 (1995) wherein the court defined moratoriums and interim zoning regulations as follows: Moratoriums and interim zoning are generally recognized techniques designed to preserve the status quo so that new plans and regulations will not be rendered moot by intervening development. Richard 1. Settle, Washington land Use and environmental Law and Practice Section 2.13, at 72 (ed. 1983). In my review of applicable case law and discussion with both MRSC and land use attorneys in Washington, I have found no examples of a municipality using a moratorium to suspend the application of a specific zoning regulation. Simply calling such an action a moratorium does not change the actual impact of the action, i.e. amending existing development regulations and allowing different uses with different development standards for a defined area. Interim zoning is an ordinance that may be adopted on an emergency basis without notice to the public or public hearings to change the land use designation or zoning classification of property limiting the property to uses that will be compatible with a zoning proposal under consideration by a municipality. In Smith v. Skagit County, 75 Wn. 2d 715 (1969), the court defined interim zoning (prior to the adoption of the Growth Management Act) as follows: Interim zoning describes a process whereby a governmental body in response to an emergency situation temporarily establishes an ordinance to classify or regulate uses of land pending either revision of the existing zoning code or adoption of a final, comprehensive zoning plan. While an ordinance suspending the application of SARP, or repealing the same, could fall within the above definitions it still must be compliant with the other provisions of RCW 36.70A. Specifically it must comply with RCW 36.70A.130 (d) which in part states: Any amendment of or revision to development regulations shall be consistent with and implement the comprehensive plan. An ordinance repealing or suspending the SARP would likely be found to be inconsistent with that portion of the Comprehensive Plan which generally describes the SARP. (See Exhibit C.) Either action, establishing a moratorium or adopting an interim ordinance, could be subject to challenge as a "development regulation" that was adopted without adherence to the requirements of the state law, including the goals and mandates of RCW 36.70A. (See RCW 36.70A.020, GMA planning goals attached as Exhibit E.) 4 Further, the factual basis for the underlying emergency must be well founded. See Biggers v. Bainbridge Island, 169 P.3d 14 (2007) where a moratorium stated that it was necessary to allow the City adequate time to update its Shoreline Master Program although there was no statutory requirement for an update for several years. The Court found that the moratorium was founded upon a perception of potential harm, rather than actual demonstrated harm and reversed it. See also Byers v. Board of Clallam County Commissioners, 84 Wn. 2d 796 (1974), where in a case that predates the Growth Management Act, the validity of an interim ordinance is discussed. As in Smith, the term `interim' is somewhat a misnomer when applied to the Clallam County resolution. The ordinance here involved is actually a detailed zoning code which, according to its title, establishes `the boundaries of areas to be known as zones to which the use classifications are applied, and within which zones the heights of buildings, areas of lots, building sites and yard spaces are regulated. . . 'It includes 30 pages of detailed zoning regulations. Any so-called `interim zoning' ordinance of such detail, scheduled to be effective for 4 years, must be adopted pursuant to procedural requirements of the Planning Enabling Act, RCW 36.70. This is particularly true where, as here, there has been no determination that an `emergency' exists which requires `interim zoning. ' 'Interim zoning, ' under RCW 36.70.790, is meant to be only a temporary protective measure. It is not intended to be used as a means of adopting a virtually complete zoning ordinance for a relatively extended period of time. Conclusion The alternative set forth in option 1 above is consistent with existing state law. The process could begin immediately by a Council action requesting that the review and/or repeal of the SARP be placed on the agenda for Comprehensive Plan amendments to be considered in 2011. The other steps outlined above could also commence immediately. The option set forth in option 2 above is also consistent with existing state law and again could commence immediately with review of each section of the SARP identifying what changes the Council wishes to send to the Planning Commission for consideration. If the changes are not inconsistent with the existing Comprehensive Plan they could be enacted, by Council, after the Planning Commission process is complete. The option of declaring an emergency as a basis for amending the Comprehensive Plan, initiating a moratorium or adopting an interim ordinance, are in my opinion, subject to challenge for the reasons set forth above. This could result in a scenario wherein the Council repeals the SARP, the Courts or Hearings Board reinstates it and the Council, once the Comprehensive Plan process is complete, repeals it again changing the zoning for the property in question two or three times over the next year. 5 SC1TY OF ka0 if\I 1% 0 e e COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Public Participation Program RCW 36.70A.140 of the Washington Growth Management Act requires that each city "establish and broadly disseminate to the public a public participation program ... for early and continuous public participation in the development" of the city's Comprehensive Plan. Consistent with the recommendations of the GMA which emphasize the involvement of the broadest cross-section of the community, including the involvement of groups not previously involved, the City of Spokane Valley adopts the following program for citizen participation in the planning process: 1. Visioning Process—This process provides Spokane Valley citizens an opportunity to establish a framework and context upon which the comprehensive plan will be based. Planning Commission meetings will provide the forum for the initial community visioning process. A draft "Vision" will be tested for consistency during the development of the Plan as the community identifies priorities and implementation strategies and updated accordingly. The ultimate "Vision" will be established at the conclusion of the planning process as a result of community participation. 2. Planning Commission. The Planning Commission will play a key role in establishing the City's dialogue with community members, hosting a series of meetings and workshops during the development of the Plan. The Planning Commission will evaluate information provided by the community and develop recommendations for submission to the City Council. 3. Citizen Survey —The City will conduct a statistically valid survey of the citizens of Spokane Valley. Survey questions will address specific issues of the comprehensive plan that will provide city staff, planning commission and city council with meaningful input for development of the comprehensive plan. 4. Public Meetings. Conduct a series of public meetings hosted by the Planning Commission on the preliminary draft comprehensive plan. This ensures that the City will meet the requirement for "early and continuous" public participation in the comprehensive planning process. 5. Public hearings. A series of Public Hearings (not less than three) will be held before the Planning Commission to discuss the draft Plan. It is anticipated that at least two public hearings will be held by the governing body prior to adoption of the Plan. An additional public hearing will be held if substantive changes are made to the Plan document. 6. Public notice. The City will provide notice of all meetings and hearings pursuant to the requirements of RCW 36.70A.020, .035, and .140. Exhibit A 7. Written Comment. The public will be invited to submit written comments as each element of the Plan is developed, as part of any workshops or community meetings. Comments will be specifically solicited from residents, special interest organizations and business interests. Comments may be in the form of letters and other correspondence to the city regarding the plan or comments received electronically on the city's website. Log in all written comments received according to specific area of comprehensive plan. 8. Communications Programs & Informational Services —As staff and budgetary resources allow, the activities will be undertaken to ensure broad-based citizen participation: a. Comprehensive Plan newsletter— updating the community on planned meetings, workshops or other significant comprehensive plan events. Articles on topics related to the plan and a request for feedback from the community on topics related to the plan. The newsletter will be disseminated via the city's website, emailed to a mailing list and/or provided in paper copy as appropriate. b. Interest Groups — Contact local interest groups (i.e. Chamber of Commerce, home builders, environmental, neighborhoods, etc.) and arrange to meet and discuss relevant comprehensive plan issues. c. Community Workshops —Conduct community workshops hosted by the Planning Commission in different parts of the city to encourage neighborhood participation in the development of the comprehensive plan. These meetings will be held at neighborhood schools, churches or other community facilities. d. Press Releases & Public Service Announcements—Work with the local newspapers, radio stations and televisions stations to advertise and promote significant events related to the comprehensive plan. e. Provide written articles to local media for publication. f. Establish a Speaker's Bureau through the Planning Commission which will be available to address service clubs and interested citizen groups. g. Develop a database of interested citizens and provide regular correspondence concerning the status of Plan development. h. Identify key resource personnel representing agencies and groups whose plans will be integrated into the Comprehensive Plan, including but not limited to fire districts, utilities, libraries and school districts. i. Maintain a log of all public participation meetings, events and actions that the city engages in to provide documentation on the city's effort to meet the requirements of the GMA. Exhibit A 17.80.140 Type IV applications— Comprehensive Plan amendments and area- wide rezones. A. Initiation. Comprehensive Plan amendments and area-wide rezones may be initiated by any of the following: 1. Property owner(s) or their representatives; 2. Any citizen, agency, neighborhood association, or other party; or 3. The department, planning commission, or city council. B. Applications. Applications shall be made on forms provided by the City. C. Application Submittal. 1. Applicant Initiated. Comprehensive Plan amendments and area-wide rezones shall be subject to a pre-application conference, counter-complete, and fully complete determinations pursuant to SVMC 17.80.080, 17.80.090, and 17.80.100. The date upon fully complete determination shall be the date of registration with the department. 2. Non-Applicant Initiated. After submittal of a non-applicant-initiated application, the application shall be placed on the register. D. Register of Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Area-Wide Rezones. The department shall establish and maintain a register of all applications. E. Concurrent and Annual Review of Register. 1. Sixty days prior to November 1st in each calendar year, the City shall notify the public that the amendment process has begun. Notice shall be distributed as follows: a. Notice published in an appropriate regional or neighborhood newspaper or trade journal; b. Notice posted on all of the City's official public notice boards; and c. Copy of the notice sent to all agencies, organizations, and adjacent jurisdictions with an interest. 2. All registered applications shall be reviewed concurrently, on an annual basis and in a manner consistent with RCW 36.70A.130(2). Applications registered after November 1st of the previous calendar year and before November 1st of the current calendar year shall be included in the annual review. Those registered after November 1st of the calendar year shall be placed on the register for review at the following annual review. Exhibit B 3. Emergency Amendments. The City may review and amend the Comprehensive Plan when the city council determines that an emergency exists or in other circumstances as provided for by RCW 36.70A.130(2)(a). F. Notice of Public Hearing. Comprehensive Plan amendments and area-wide rezones require a public hearing before the planning commission. 1. Contents of Notice. A notice of public hearing shall include the following: a. The citation, if any, of the provision that would be changed by the proposal along with a brief description of that provision; b. A statement of how the proposal would change the affected provision; c. A statement of what areas, Comprehensive Plan designations, zones, or locations will be directly affected or changed by the proposal; d. The date, time, and place of the public hearing; e. A statement of the availability of the official file; and f A statement of the right of any person to submit written comments to the planning commission and to appear at the public hearing of the planning commission to give oral comments on the proposal. 2. Distribution of Notice. The department shall distribute the notice pursuant to SVMC 17.80.120(B). G. Planning Commission Recommendation—Procedure. Following the public hearing, the planning commission shall consider the applications concurrently, and shall prepare and forward a recommendation of proposed action for all applications to the city council. The planning commission shall take one of the following actions: 1. If the planning commission determines that the proposal should be adopted, it may, by a majority vote, recommend that the city council adopt the proposal. The planning commission may make modifications to any proposal prior to recommending the proposal to city council for adoption. If the modification is substantial, the planning commission must conduct a public hearing on the modified proposal; 2. If the planning commission determines that the proposal should not be adopted, it may, by a majority vote, recommend that the city council not adopt the proposal; or 3. If the planning commission is unable to take either of the actions specified in subsections (G)(1) or(2) of this section, the proposal will be sent to city council with the notation that the planning commission makes no recommendation. Exhibit B H. Approval Criteria. 1. The City may approve Comprehensive Plan amendments and area-wide zone map amendments if it finds that: a. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relationship to the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment; b. The proposed amendment is consistent with the requirements of Chapter 36.70A RCW and with the portion of the City's adopted plan not affected by the amendment; c. The proposed amendment responds to a substantial change in conditions beyond the property owner's control applicable to the area within which the subject property lies; d. The proposed amendment corrects an obvious mapping error; or e. The proposed amendment addresses an identified deficiency in the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The City must also consider the following factors prior to approving Comprehensive Plan amendments: a. The effect upon the physical environment; b. The effect on open space, streams, rivers, and lakes; c. The compatibility with and impact on adjacent land uses and surrounding neighborhoods; d. The adequacy of and impact on community facilities including utilities, roads, public transportation, parks, recreation, and schools; e. The benefit to the neighborhood, City, and region; f The quantity and location of land planned for the proposed land use type and density and the demand for such land; g. The current and projected population density in the area; and h. The effect upon other aspects of the Comprehensive Plan. I. City Council Action. Within 60 days of receipt of the planning commission's findings and recommendations, the city council shall consider the findings and recommendations of the commission concerning the application and may hold a public hearing pursuant to council rules. The department shall distribute notice of the council's public hearing pursuant to SVMC 17.80.120(B). All annual amendments to the Comprehensive Plan shall be considered concurrently. By a majority vote of its membership, the city council shall: Exhibit B 1. Approve the application; 2. Disapprove the application; 3. Modify the application. If the modification is substantial, the council must either conduct a public hearing on the modified proposal; or 4. Refer the proposal back to the planning commission for further consideration. J. Transmittal to the State of Washington. At least 60 days prior to final action being taken by the city council, the Washington State Department of Community, Trade and Economic Development(CTED) shall be provided with a copy of the amendments in order to initiate the 60-day comment period. No later than 10 days after adoption of the proposal, a copy of the final decision shall be forwarded to CTED. (Ord. 07-015 § 4, 2007). Exhibit B Westlaw West's RCWA 36.70A.390 Page 1 West's Revised Code of Washington Annotated Currentness Title 36. Counties(Refs&Annos) �©Chapter 36.70A. Growth Management--Planning by Selected Counties and Cities(Refs&Annos) -36.70A.390.Moratoria,interim zoning controls--Public hearing--Limitation on length--Exceptions A county or city governing body that adopts a moratorium,interim zoning map,interim zoning ordinance,or interim official control without holding a public hearing on the proposed moratorium,interim zoning map,interim zoning ordinance,or interim official control, shall hold a public hearing on the adopted moratorium,interim zoning map, interim zoning ordinance,or interim official control within at least sixty days of its adoption,whether or not the go- verning body received a recommendation on the matter from the planning commission or department.If the governing body does not adopt findings of fact justifying its action before this hearing,then the governing body shall do so immediately after this public hearing.A moratorium,interim zoning map,interim zoning ordinance,or interim official control adopted under this section may be effective for not longer than six months,but may be effective for up to one year if a work plan is developed for related studies providing for such a longer period. A moratorium, interim zoning map,interim zoning ordinance, or interim official control may be renewed for one or more six-month periods if a subsequent public hearing is held and findings of fact are made prior to each renewal. This section does not apply to the designation of critical areas,agricultural lands,forest lands,and mineral resource lands,under RCW 36.70A.170,and the conservation of these lands and protection of these areas under RCW 36.70A.060,prior to such actions being taken in a comprehensive plan adopted under RCW 36.70A.070 and imple- menting development regulations adopted under RCW 36.70A.120,if a public hearing is held on such proposed actions. CREDIT(S) [1992 c 207 §6.] LAW REVIEW AND JOURNAL COMMENTARIES The legality of Washington shoreline development moratoria in the wake of Biggers v. City of Bainbridge Island. Michelle E.DeLappe, 84 Wash.L.Rev. 67 (2009). LIBRARY REFERENCES 2003 Main Volume Zoning and Planning€22, 134. Westlaw Topic No. 414. C.J.S.Zoning and Land Planning§§ 12, 13, 16. NOTES OF DECISIONS In general 1 Exhibit D West's RCWA 36.70A.390 Page 2 1. In general Property owner whose rezone request was denied by County Board of Commissioners waived its right to argue that county did not comply with notice and public participation procedures required under Growth Management Act; owner failed to present its challenge to Growth Management Hearings Board rather than to court,and owner failed to appeal the adoption of county's comprehensive land use plans,development regulations, or any subsequent amend- ments to the Growth Management Hearings Board.Peste v.Mason County(2006) 133 Wash 456,136 P.3d 140, review denied 159 Wash.2d 1013, 154 P.3d 919. Zoning And Planning C '562;Zoning And Planning€572 City had no statutory authority to impose moratorium on shoreline development; statutes relied on by city were limited to planning and zoning in code cities,and growth management,neither of which applied to shoreline management. Biggers v. City of Bainbridge Island(2004) 124 Wash.App. 858, 103 P.3d 244,review granted 156 Wash.2d 1005, 132 P.3d 146, affirmed 162 Wash.2d 683, 169 P.3d 14.Zoning And Planning C=.86 West's RCWA 36.70A.390,WA ST 36.70A.390 Current with 2010 Legislation effective through February 15,2010 (C)2010 Thomson Reuters. END OF DOCUMENT Exhibit D West{aw West's RCWA 36.70A.020 Page 1 West's Revised Code of Washington Annotated Currentness Title 36. Counties(Refs&Annos) �©Chapter 36.70A. Growth Management--Planning by Selected Counties and Cities(Refs&Annos) 36.70A.020.Planning goals The following goals are adopted to guide the development and adoption of comprehensive plans and development regulations of those counties and cities that are required or choose to plan under RCW 36.70A.040.The following goals are not listed in order of priority and shall be used exclusively for the purpose of guiding the development of comprehensive plans and development regulations: (1)Urban growth.Encourage development in urban areas where adequate public facilities and services exist or can be provided in an efficient manner. (2)Reduce sprawl.Reduce the inappropriate conversion of undeveloped land into sprawling, low-density develop- ment. (3)Transportation.Encourage efficient multimodal transportation systems that are based on regional priorities and coordinated with county and city comprehensive plans. (4)Housing. Encourage the availability of affordable housing to all economic segments of the population of this state, promote a variety of residential densities and housing types,and encourage preservation of existing housing stock. (5)Economic development.Encourage economic development throughout the state that is consistent with adopted comprehensive plans,promote economic opportunity for all citizens of this state,especially for unemployed and for disadvantaged persons,promote the retention and expansion of existing businesses and recruitment of new businesses, recognize regional differences impacting economic development opportunities,and encourage growth in areas expe- riencing insufficient economic growth,all within the capacities of the state's natural resources,public services,and public facilities. (6)Property rights.Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation having been made. The property rights of landowners shall be protected from arbitrary and discriminatory actions. (7)Permits.Applications for both state and local government permits should be processed in a timely and fair manner to ensure predictability. (8)Natural resource industries.Maintain and enhance natural resource-based industries,including productive timber, agricultural,and fisheries industries.Encourage the conservation of productive forest lands and productive agricul- tural lands,and discourage incompatible uses. (9)Open space and recreation.Retain open space,enhance recreational opportunities,conserve fish and wildlife habitat,increase access to natural resource lands and water,and develop parks and recreation facilities. (10)Environment.Protect the environment and enhance the state's high quality of life,including air and water quality, and the availability of water. Exhibit E West's RCWA 36.70A.020 Page 2 (11)Citizen participation and coordination.Encourage the involvement of citizens in the planning process and ensure coordination between communities and jurisdictions to reconcile conflicts. (12)Public facilities and services.Ensure that those public facilities and services necessary to support development shall be adequate to serve the development at the time the development is available for occupancy and use without decreasing current service levels below locally established minimum standards. (13)Historic preservation. Identify and encourage the preservation of lands, sites,and structures,that have historical or archaeological significance. CREDIT(S) [2002 c 154 § 1; 1990 1st ex.s. c 17 §2.] CROSS REFERENCES Urban centers,development of additional and desirable residential units to help achieve planning goals man- dated by this section, see § 84.14.005. LAW REVIEW AND JOURNAL COMMENTARIES Accommodating Growth or Enabling Sprawl?The Role of Population Growth Projections in Comprehensive Plan- ning Under the Washington State Growth Management Act.Brent D.Lloyd,36 Gonz.L.Rev.73 (2001). Chinks in the armor:Municipal authority to enact shoreline permit moratoria after Biggers v. City of Bainbridge Island. Ryan M. Carson,31 Seattle U.L.Rev. 177 (2007). King County,Washington Ordinance 15053:Is"the most restrictive land-use law in the nation"constitutional?Thane D. Somerville, 36 Envtl. L. 257 (2006). The legality of Washington shoreline development moratoria in the wake of Biggers v. City of Bainbridge Island. Michelle E.DeLappe, 84 Wash.L.Rev. 67 (2009). Religious land use jurisprudence:the negative ramifications for religious activities in Washington after Open Door Baptist Church v. Clark County.Beth Prieve,26 Seattle U.L.Rev. 365 (2002). Transportation planning and the prevention of urban sprawl. Michael M. Maya, 83 N.Y.U.L.Rev. 879(2008). Urbanites versus rural rights: Contest of local government land-use regulations under Washington preemption statute 82.02.020.Donya Williamson, 84 Wash.L.Rev. 491 (2009). Washington's Vested Rights Doctrine:How We Have Muddled a Simple Concept and How We Can Reclaim It.Roger D. Wynne,24 Seattle U.L.Rev. 851 (2001). Washington's way:Dispersed enforcement of growth management controls and the crucial role of NGOs.Henry W. McGee,Jr.,31 Seattle U.L.Rev. 1 (2007). Washington's way II: The burden of enforcing growth management in the crucible of the courts and hearings boards. ©2010 Thomson Reuters.No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. West's RCWA 36.70A.020 Page 3 Henry W.McGee,Jr. &Brock W.Howell,31 Seattle U.L.Rev. 549(2008). LIBRARY REFERENCES 2003 Main Volume Zoning and Planning€1, 12. Westlaw Topic No. 414. C.J.S.Zoning and Land Planning§§ 2, 5 to 7, 12, 17, 18,38. RESEARCH REFERENCES Encyclopedias 32 Am. Jur.Proof of Facts 3d 485,Zoning:Proof of Unreasonableness of Interim Zoning and Building Moratoria. 37 Am. Jur.Proof of Facts 3d 383,Zoning Action Not in Accordance With a Comprehensive Plan. 39 Am. Jur.Proof of Facts 3d 377, Change in Character of Neighborhood Sufficient to Preclude Enforcement of Restrictive Covenant. Treatises and Practice Aids Rathkopfs the Law of Zoning and Planning§ 51:6, Validity--Growth Management. Rathkopfs the Law of Zoning and Planning§ 14:34, "Spot Planning". 24 Wash.Prac. Series § 18.2, Goals of the Growth Management Act. 24 Wash.Prac. Series § 18.17,Adoption of Comprehensive Plans--Overview. 24 Wash.Prac. Series § 18.21,Development Regulations. 33 Wash.Prac. Series §7:2,Planned Unit Developments. NOTES OF DECISIONS In general 1 Annexations 6 Burden of proof 7 Conflicts,generally 3.5 Conflicts with county plans 5 Conflicts with zoning codes 4 County-wide planning policies 3 Presumption and burden of proof 7 Property rights 2 Review 8 ©2010 Thomson Reuters.No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. West's RCWA 36.70A.020 Page 4 1. In general Comprehensive plans adopted by counties under the Growth Management Act(GMA)serve as guides or blueprints to be used in making land use decisions. Whatcom County Fire Dist.No. 21 v. Whatcom County(2009)215 P.3d 956. Zoning and Planning€30 Growth Management Act(GMA)did not require county to designate,in its comprehensive plan,an urban growth area adjacent to city as a joint planning area for city,and thus growth management hearings board lacked authority to require county to designate area as a joint planning area;GMA sections recommending that cities provide urban governmental services,encouraging cooperation and coordination between counties and cities,and requiring coun- tywide planning policies to address policies for joint county and city planning,did not address or require joint planning areas. Spokane County v. City of Spokane(2009) 148 Wash.App. 120,197 P.3d 1228,reconsideration denied.Zoning and Planning X353.1 Growth Management Act(GMA)did not require,and thus growth management hearing board lacked authority to order,county to enter into a joint planning agreement with city for urban growth area adjacent to city,even though GMA encouraged cooperation and coordination between counties and cities and guided development of countywide planning policies. Spokane County v. City of Spokane(2009) 148 Wash.App. 120, 197 P.3d 1228,reconsideration denied.Zoning and Planning '353.1 Growth Management Act(GMA)contains a legislative mandate for the conservation of agricultural land.Yakima County v.Eastern Washington Growth Management Hearings Bd. (2008) 146 Wash App. 679, 192 P.3d 12. Zoning and Planning C '279 The Growth Management Act(GMA)was spawned by controversy,not consensus and,as a result,it is not to be liberally construed. Thurston County v.Western Washington Growth Management Hearings Bd. (2008) 164 Wash2d 329, 190 P.3d 38.Zoning and Planning C9 The Growth Management Act is not to be liberally construed. Woods v.Kittitas County(2007) 162 Wash.2d 597, 174 P.3d 25.Zoning and Planning€9 The absence of a specific legislative or agency prohibition does not grant counties unfettered discretion in setting parcel sizes under the Growth Management Act(GMA).Futurewise v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Bd. (2007) 141 Wash App. 202, 169 P.3d 499. Zoning and Planning€63 Growth management hearings board reasonably concluded that county's designation of area as a fully contained community(FCC)was consistent with Growth Management Act's(GMA's)urban growth and anti-sprawl goals,even assuming that the goals placed substantive limits on the location of FCCs;county asserted that failure to designate the area as urban,because the site was already subject to one-acre subdivision development applications,would result in the very sprawling,low-density development the GMA was designed to prevent. Quadrant Corp.v. State Growth Management Hearings Bd. (2005) 154 Wash2d 224, 110 P.3d 1132.Zoning And Planning X14 Enumerated goals under the Growth Management Act(GMA)did not provide substantive locational containment requirements for fully contained communities(FCCs). Quadrant Corp.v. State Growth Management Hearings Bd. (2005) 154 Wash.2d 224, 110 P.3d 1132. Zoning And Planning X30 Substantial evidence supported the upholding by the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board of a county ordinance designating property as fully contained community(FCC), since ordinance satisfied the stringent requirements of the Growth Management Act(GMA)designed to"guide the development and adoption of compre- ©2010 Thomson Reuters.No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. West's RCWA 36.70A.020 Page 5 hensive plans and development regulations";county was not required to satisfy general GMA requirements,which did not supersede the specific FCC requirements. Quadrant Corp.v. State Growth Management Hearings Bd. (2003) 119 Wash.App. 562, 81 P.3d 918,review granted 152 Wash2d 1012,99 P.3d 895,affirmed in part,reversed in part 154 Wash2d 224, 110 P.3d 1132.Zoning And Planning C='30 In determining that certain property was not an Urban Growth Area(UGA)under the Growth Management Act, substantial evidence supported the conclusion of the Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Board that the Board was required to consider only present growth,rather than future development; statutory term"already characterized by urban growth" spoke to built environment in present tense. Quadrant Corp.v. State Growth Man- agement Hearings Bd. (2003) 119 Wash App. 562, 81 P.3d 918,review granted 152 Wash.2d 1012,99 P.3d 895, affirmed in part,reversed in part 154 Wash.2d 224, 110 P.3d 1132. Zoning And Planning€359 In determining whether city's comprehensive plan complied with Growth Management Act(GMA),growth man- agement hearings board was required to consider goal of providing affordable housing, not just compliance with specific requirements of Act.Low Income Housing Institute v. City of Lakewood(2003) 119 Wash App. 110,77 P.3d 653.Zoning And Planning€30;Zoning And Planning€62.1 County's amendment of its comprehensive plan and zoning code to allow active recreational uses for athletic fields within designated agricultural areas violated the Growth Management Act(GMA),where the areas did not have poor soil,or they were otherwise suitable for agricultural purposes.King County v. Central Puget Sound Growth Man- agement Hearings Bd. (2000) 142 Wash.2d 543, 14 P.3d 133. Zoning And Planning X167.1 2. Property rights In order to constitute an"innovative zoning technique"consistent with the overall meaning of the Growth Manage- ment Act(GMA),a development regulation must satisfy the Act's mandate to conserve agricultural lands for the maintenance and enhancement of the agricultural industry.King County v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Bd. (2000) 142 Wash2d 543, 14 P.3d 133. Zoning And Planning 0279 Under"innovative zoning technique"provision of Growth Management Act(GMA),allowing a county or city to"use a variety of innovative zoning techniques in areas designated as agricultural lands of long-term commercial signi- ficance"and stating that a county or city"should encourage nonagricultural uses to be limited to lands with poor soils or otherwise not suitable for agricultural purposes,"a county or city has no discretion to encourage nonagricultural uses of land that does not have poor soil or that is otherwise suitable for agricultural purposes.King County v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Bd. (2000) 142 Wash.2d 543, 14 P.3d 133.Zoning And Planning €279 Growth Management Act does not prohibit adoption of plans and regulations that may negatively affect particular private property interest;therefore,RCW 36.70A.280 does not authorize Growth Planning Hearings Boards to grant relief to specific property owner if plans and regulations have negative impact on owner's specific property and owner cannot challenge plans or regulations based solely on claim that plans or regulations result in negative impact on owner's property. Op.Atty.Gen. 1992,No. 23. Growth Planning Hearings Boards have jurisdiction over petitions that allege that private property rights have not been considered or have been considered in arbitrary or discriminatory manner. Op.Atty.Gen. 1992,No. 23. One requirement of Growth Management Act is that governments adopting plans and regulations consider goal of protecting private property rights. Op.Atty.Gen. 1992,No. 23. ©2010 Thomson Reuters.No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. West's RCWA 36.70A.020 Page 6 3. County-wide planning policies County resolution prohibiting urban developments beyond interim urban growth area boundaries, enacted in response to the Growth Management Act(GMA),had to be read in conjunction with the GMA and its objective policies and definitions,and, so read,was not unconstitutionally vague. Citizens for Responsible and Organized Planning(CROP) v. Chelan County(2001) 105 Wash.App. 753,21 P.3d 304.Zoning And Planning€28 County-wide planning policy may provide substantive direction to comprehensive plans if it: (1)meets a legitimate regional objective;(2)does not directly affect the provisions of an implementing regulation or other exercise of land use power;and(3)is consistent with other relevant provisions of the Growth Management Act(GMA). Stewart v. Washington State Boundary Review Bd.for King County(2000) 100 Wash.App. 165, 996 P.2d 1087. Zoning And Planning€30 3.5. Conflicts,generally A site-specific rezone cannot be challenged for compliance with the Growth Management Act(GMA). Woods v. Kittitas County(2007) 162 Wash.2d 597, 174 P.3d 25.Zoning and Planning€154 When there is a conflict between the general goals found in the Growth Management Act(GMA)and the specific requirements for a fully contained community(FCC)found in a section of the GMA,the specific requirements control. Quadrant Corp.v. State Growth Management Hearings Bd. (2003) 119 Wash.App. 562,81 P.3d 918,review granted 152 Wash2d 1012, 99 P.3d 895,affirmed in part,reversed in part 154 Wash.2d 224, 110 P.3d 1132.Zoning And Planning€14 4. Conflicts with zoning codes Density restriction in decades-old restrictive covenant governing all lots in subdivision did not violate public policy,as expressed in Growth Management Act(GMA),and city's comprehensive plan and zoning regulations; GMA was primarily prospective in nature,enforcement of covenant furthered GMA goals of protecting private property rights and preserving open space and,although city's zoning regulations called for minimum density of four dwelling units per acre,nothing in regulations compelled property owners to develop parcels to such minimum density,and city concededly had no authority either to enforce or to invalidate restrictive covenants.Viking Properties,Inc.v.Holm (2005) 155 Wash.2d 112, 118 P.3d 322. Covenants69(2) City ordinance that exempted shopping center redevelopment from city's concurrency requirements concerning transportation impacts was invalid as conflicting with the Growth Management Act(GMA),under which,concur- rency was a requirement,not a goal. City of Bellevue v.East Bellevue Community Mun. Corp. (2003) 119 Wash App. 405,81 P.3d 148,review denied 152 Wash.2d 1004, 101 P.3d 865. Zoning And Planning X14 State Growth Management Act's(GMA)policies of encouraging development in urban areas and reducing sprawl did not provide a basis for allowing city's interim critical areas regulation,adopted pursuant to the GMA and requiring 3,000-square-foot building pad,to supersede city's zoning code requiring minimum lot area,minimum lot dimensions, and a minimum building rectangle,where there was no ambiguity in the language of the interim critical areas regu- lation or the zoning code,nor any actual conflict with the GMA or between the regulation and the zoning code.Faben Point Neighbors v. City of Mercer Island(2000) 102 Wash App.775, 11 P.3d 322,review denied 142 Wash2d 1027, 21 P.3d 1149. Zoning And Planning€14 5. Conflicts with county plans ©2010 Thomson Reuters.No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. West's RCWA 36.70A.020 Page 7 A challenge to a site-specific land use decision can be only for violations of the comprehensive plan and/or devel- opment regulations,but not violations of the Growth Management Act(GMA). Woods v.Kittitas County(2007) 162 Wash2d 597, 174 P.3d 25. Zoning and Planning X12;Zoning and Planning C='30 Neighboring landowner's challenge to site-specific rezone's compliance with the Growth Management Act(GMA) was a disguised challenge to the adequacy of the county's comprehensive plan,which was a matter within the exclu- sive jurisdiction of a Growth Management Hearing Board(GMHB),rather than the superior court. Woods v.Kittitas County(2007) 162 Wash2d 597, 174 P.3d 25.Zoning and Planning X569 County's buildable lands report(BLR)submitted to Growth Management Hearings Board for review in accordance with the Growth Management Act(GMA)was inconsistent with the county's comprehensive plan,and thus,the county was required to adopt reasonable measures to increase consistency;the BLR revealed that a majority of new residential permits were issued in rural areas while the county's policy indicated that it would promote a development pattern directing 83 percent of new population growth to urban areas.Kitsap County v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Bd. (2007) 138 Wash App. 863, 158 P.3d 638, clarified on denial of reconsideration.Zoning And Planning€'30 Growth Management Board owed no deference to county's plan to extend sewer line from an urban treatment plant to a rural area,where county's plan conflicted with Growth Management Act and with county's own comprehensive plan. The Cooper Point Ass'n v. Thurston County(2001) 108 Wash App. 429,31 P.3d 28,review granted 145 Wash2d 1033,43 P.3d 20,affirmed 148 Wash.2d 1,57 P.3d 1156. Counties >107 6. Annexations City's petition with Boundary Review Board(BRB)to annex land that was designated agricultural in county's com- prehensive plan was premature,in the absence of an interlocal agreement to preserve the resource character of the land,as contemplated by the comprehensive plan. Stewart v.Washington State Boundary Review Bd.for King County(2000) 100 Wash App. 165,996 P.2d 1087.Municipal Corporations >33(8) 7. Presumption and burden of proof County failed to establish that goal of protecting or preserving agricultural activities on rural residential(RR)lands was furthered by application of agricultural exemption to its critical areas ordinance;record contained no information as to how many acres were being farmed,where those were located,and what their cumulative impact may have be on critical areas,record showed that only 60 acres of land in the RR zone was in the agricultural tax program,and county provided none of this RR"agricultural"activity with Growth Management Act(GMA)protections such as notifica- tion to adjacent landowners or application of its nuisance protection regulation. Whidbey Environmental Action Network v. Island County(2004)2004 WL 1153309, superseded 122 Wash App. 156, 93 P.3d 885,reconsideration denied,review denied 153 Wash.2d 1025, 110 P.3d 756.Zoning And Planning C=.76 Landowner failed to rebut presumption that county was guided by factors in Growth Management Act in developing its comprehensive plan,which designated certain rural shoreline as interim rural forest with a housing density of one unit per 20 acres,where county stated in its comprehensive plan that it considered the factors outlined in the Growth Management Act,and landowner accepted findings based on county's statement.Manke Lumber Co.,Inc.v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Bd. (2002) 113 Wash.App. 615, 53 P.3d 1011,review denied 148 Wash2d 1017,64 P.3d 649.Zoning And Planning€679 Landowner failed to meet his burden in showing that county comprehensive plan,which designated rural shoreline as interim rural forest with minimum lot size of 20 acres,was not developed with consideration of goal to promote af- fordable housing,where landowner offered no evidence of county housing inventory or future housing needs,pre- ©2010 Thomson Reuters.No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. West's RCWA 36.70A.020 Page 8 sumed that smaller lot size would reduce cost of lots,and county devoted entire chapter and appendix detailing housing inventory,including availability of affordable housing,and future housing needs that demonstrated that county fully considered that goal.Manke Lumber Co.,Inc.v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Bd. (2002) 113 Wash.App. 615, 53 P.3d 1011,review denied 148 Wash2d 1017,64 P.3d 649.Zoning And Planning X63 8.Review On appeal of regional growth management hearings board's finding a county to be in noncompliance with Growth Management Act(GMA), Court of Appeals reviews board's conclusions of law de novo,giving great,but not binding, weight to the board's interpretation within its subject matter expertise.Ferry County v. Concerned Friends of Ferry County(2004) 121 Wash 850,90 P.3d 698,review granted in part 153 Wash.2d 1016, 106 P.3d 243,affirmed 155 Wash2d 824, 123 P.3d 102.Zoning And Planning€ 745.1 On appeal of regional growth management hearings board's finding a county to be in noncompliance with Growth Management Act(GMA), Court of Appeals determines whether substantial evidence,that is,evidence that is suffi- cient to persuade a fair-minded,rational person of the truth of the matter, supports the board's findings of fact.Ferry County v. Concerned Friends of Ferry County (2004) 121 Wash.App. 850,90 P.3d 698,review granted in part 153 Wash2d 1016, 106 P.3d 243,affirmed 155 Wash.2d 824, 123 P.3d 102. Zoning And Planning X703 On appeal of regional growth management hearings board's finding a county to be in noncompliance with Growth Management Act(GMA), Court of Appeals bases its review on the record before the Board.Ferry County v. Con- cerned Friends of Ferry County (2004) 121 Wash.App. 850,90 P.3d 698,review granted in part 153 Wash2d 1016, 106 P.3d 243, affirmed 155 Wash.2d 824, 123 P.3d 102.Zoning And Planning X574 The growth management hearings board's standard of review of a city's comprehensive land use plans amendments require it to invalidate the amendments only if it finds that city's actions in adopting the plan amendments were clearly erroneous in view of the entire record before the board and in light of the public participation requirements of the Growth Management Act(GMA);for the board to find that city's actions were clearly erroneous,board must be left with the firm and definite conviction that a mistake has been committed. City of Burien v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Bd. (2002) 113 Wash 375, 53 P.3d 1028. Zoning And Planning X191 Landowner waived for appellate review the issue of whether county's designation of landowner's property in com- prehensive plan as rural residential was invalid as inconsistent with designation of land in Assessor's office as com- mercial,in landowner's challenge to adoption of comprehensive plan,where landowner failed to raise the argument before the Growth Management Hearings Board or the lower court.Manke Lumber Co.,Inc.v. Central Puget Sound Growth Management Hearings Bd. (2002) 113 Wash 615, 53 P.3d 1011, review denied 148 Wash.2d 1017,64 P.3d 649. Zoning And Planning X743 West's RCWA 36.70A.020,WA ST 36.70A.020 Current with 2010 Legislation effective through February 15,2010 (C)2010 Thomson Reuters. END OF DOCUMENT ©2010 Thomson Reuters.No Claim to Orig. US Gov. Works. CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: March 23, 2010 City Manager Sign-off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Spokane County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: Russ Menke, Spokane Regional Solid Waste System Director; and Suzanne Tresko, Solid Waste System Recycling C oordinator, will give an upd ate on the final S pokane C ounty C omprehensive S olid Waste Management Plan for your later adoption consideration. B ecause the Plan is over 300 pages in length, only the 13-page Summary of Recommendations is included as a hard copy (along with some related correspondence). The complete Plan, along with some basic information can be found on the following website: http://www.solidwaste.org/sub3d14.asp?id=6189 OPTIONS: RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: STAFF CONTACT: ATTACHMENTS: Summary of Plan Recommendations Miscellaneous Correspondence Spokane Regional Solid Waste System SPOKANE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN UPDATE 40 Spokane Regional Solid Waste System Spokane County Comprehensive Solid Waste Management Plan Update • Required under 70. 95 RCW • County-wide solid waste planning • 20-year planning horizon • Reviewed every 5 years • Adopted by County and all cities therein . • Approved by Ecology 40 Spokane Regional Solid Waste System State priorities 70 . 95 . 010 RCW • 1 . Waste reduction/reuse • 2 . Recycling • 3. Energy recovery , incineration , or landfill of separated waste • 4. Energy recovery, incineration , or landfilling of mixed wastes Spokane Regional Solid Waste System Solid Waste Advisory Committee • Active participation and input • Recommendation to adopt the proposed Solid Waste Management Plan , as currently drafted . • Continuing discussion on governance and alternative technologies Spokane Regional Solid Waste System Additional Public Input • Stakeholder Input Committee • Presentations to County and Regional Cities • Public meetings • Ecology review of preliminary draft plan Spokane Regional Solid Waste System Plan Sections • Waste Reduction • Recycling • Collection • Transfer Stations • Waste to Energy • Landfills • Miscellaneous Waste • Construction , Demolition , Landclearing , and Inert • Moderate Risk Waste • Administration & Enforcement Spokane Regional Solid Waste System Major Recommendations • Maintain Waste to Energy Facility after bond retirement • Multi-stream recycling collection • Need and criteria for new or upgraded Transfer Stations • Alternative solid waste management technologies • Solid waste tipping fee rebate • Governance options Spokane Regional Solid Waste System Schedule • April 28, 2009 — Public Hearing • September 15, 2009 — Adoption by Spokane County • November 2009 - March 2010 — Adoption by Cities • Summer 2010 — Submittal to Ecology Spokane Regional Solid Waste System Additional Information • 2009 Solid Waste Plan www.soiidwaste.orgisub3d14.asp?id=61 89 • Spokane Regional Solid Waste System www.solidwaste.org Russ Menke, Director 509-625-6580 Suzanne Tresko, Recycling Coordinator stresko @spokanecity.org 509-625-6529 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: March 23, 2010 City Manager Sign-off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information 1E1 admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Admin Report: SRTC Draft Interlocal GOVERNING LEGISLATION: See attached Exhibit A. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: The current Interlocal was agreed to in 2003. SRTC presented changes to the Agreement at a previous Council meeting. BACKGROUND: SRTC wishes to amend the Interiocal in a number of specific areas. The legal basis for the organization and the specific changes are discussed in detail in the memorandum attached as Exhibit A. See also the original agreement attached as exhibit B, the Agreement with changes identified as Exhibit C, and additional information provided by Public Works attached as Exhibit D. OPTIONS: Council information RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Council discretion BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Not calculated for this presentation. STAFF CONTACT: Mike Connelly ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A—Memorandum Exhibit B —Original Interlocal Agreement Exhibit C — Agreement with identified changes Exhibit D— Public Works information OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY ScITYok�.ne �' MICHAEL F. CONNELLY-CITY ATTORNEY GARY P.DRTSKELL-DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY Valley 11707 East Sprague Avenue Suite 103 • Spokane Valley WA 99206 509,688.0235 • Fax: 509.688.0299 • cityattomey®spokanevalley.org Memorandum To: Mike Jackson, City Manager; Mayor Tom Towey and members of the City Council, From: Mike Connelly, City Attorney; Jandon Mitchell, Legal Intern; Chris Longman, Legal Extern CC: Date: March 16, 2010 Re: Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC) Interlocal Agreement Proposed Changes Questions Presented: 1. What is Spokane Regional Transportation Council's (SRTC) enabling authority? 2. What is SRTC's scope of authority? 3. What are SRTC's structural requirements? 4. How may SRTC's structure be modified? 5. What are the relevant changes in the proposed 2010 version of the SRTC Interlocal Agreement? Brief Answers: 1. The Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC) serves as both a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) required by federal law (see 23 USC § 134, 135; 23 CFR § 450.300 et. seq.) and as a Regional Transportation Planning Organization (RTPO) authorized by state law (see RCW 47.80). 2. SRTC's most significant authority includes the following: 1) Prepare a regional transportation strategy; 2) Prepare a regional transportation plan; 3) Ensure that counties, cities, and towns within its jurisdiction have comprehensive plans consistent with the regional transportation plan and, where appropriate, pursuant to RCW 36.70A.070; 4) Certify that county-wide planning policies adopted under RCW 36.70A.210 are consistent with the regional transportation plan; 5) Develop a six-year regional transportation improvement program; 6) Review level of service methodologies used by 1 Exhibit A cities and counties planning under chapter 36.70A; 7) Contract with WSDOT or other entities to meet requirements of State and Federal Transportation legislation. 3. SRTC has minimal structural requirements: (1) It must consist of local elected officials, officials of public transportation agencies, and appropriate State officials; (2) There must be a transportation policy board to provide policy advice to SRTC. The board may include major employers in the region, the DOT, transit districts, port districts, and SRTC-member cities, towns, and counties within the region. 4. To modify SRTC's structure, it must be done through amending the SRTC Interlocal Agreement. The Interlocal Agreement states that it "may be amended by mutual consent of the [County, City of Spokane, Spokane Transit Authority, and Washington State Department of Transportation]." Interlocal Agreement, April 28, 2003, page 6. See also page 1. 5. The proposed changes align the interlocal agreement with relevant state statutory guidelines, adjust the board membership and voting rights, and add contractual language. Analysis: I. Although SRTC is a single organization, it functions as both a federally mandated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and a state-authorized Regional Transportation Planning Organization (RTPO). The federal government enacted legislation requiring the establishment of MPOs for urbanized areas. The authority and requirements to establish MPOs are set forth in 23 USC § 134(d): d) Designation of Metropolitan Planning Organizations.— (1) In general.--To carry out the transportation planning process required by this section, a metropolitan planning organization shall be designated for each urbanized area with a population of more than 50,000 individuals— (A) by agreement between the Governor and units of general purpose local government that together represent at least 75 percent of the affected population (including the largest incorporated city (based on population) as named by the Bureau of the Census); or (B) in accordance with procedures established by applicable State or local law. Washington created similar legislation for both urban and rural areas. This legislation permitted the creation of RTPOs, which serve the same basic functions as MPOs. In fact, state statute states that "in urbanized areas, the [RTPO] is the same as the [MPO]." (See RCW 47.80.020.) The requirements and authority to create RTPOs are set forth in RCW 47.80.020: The legislature hereby authorizes creation of regional transportation planning organizations within the state. Each regional transportation planning organization shall 2 be formed through the voluntary association of local governments within a county, or within geographically contiguous counties. Each organization shall: (1) Encompass at least one complete county; (2) Have a population of at least one hundred thousand, or contain a minimum of three counties; and (3) Have as members all counties within the region, and at least sixty percent of the cities and towns within the region representing a minimum of seventy-five percent of the cities' and towns' population. The state department of transportation must verify that each regional transportation planning organization conforms with the requirements of this section. In urbanized areas, the regional transportation planning organization is the same as the metropolitan planning organization designated for federal transportation planning purposes. As of June 4, 2009, staff has found only the interlocal agreement establishing SRTC as an MPO, but not an interlocal agreement establishing SRTC as an RTPO. However, as quoted above in RCW 47.80.020, "in urbanized areas, the [RTPO] is the same as the [MPO] designated for federal transportation planning purposes." Although we can continue to look for an interlocal agreement establishing SRTC as an RTPO, there probably is no need, as they are statutorily deemed to be the same entity. 2, SRTC's most significant authority includes the following: 1) Prepare a regional transportation strategy; 2) Prepare a regional transportation plan; 3) Ensure that counties, cities, and towns within its jurisdiction have comprehensive plans consistent with the regional transportation plan and, where appropriate, pursuant to RCW 36.70,4.070; 4) Certify that county-wide planning policies adopted under RCW 36.701.210 are consistent with the regional transportation plan; S) Develop a six year regional transportation improvement program; 6) Review level of service methodologies used by cities and counties planning under Chapter RCW 36.701; 7) Contract with WSDOT or other entities to meet requirements of State and Federal Transportation legislation. The section heading above lists the most significant authority of SRTC. The rest of this section includes detailed statutes and agreements relating to SRTC's authority. In addition, relevant statutes and agreements are included in an appendix to this memo. One provision of 23 USC § 134(n) notes that MPOs, and therefore, SRTC, does not have authority to impose legal requirements on transportation facilities, providers, and projects. It states: Limitation on Statutory Construction.-- Nothing in this section shall be construed to confer on a metropolitan planning organization the authority to impose legal requirements on any transportation facility, provider, or project not eligible under this title [23] or chapter 53 of title 49. 3 Thus, when SRTC functions under its authority as an MPO, it may not impose legal requirements on transportation facilities, providers, or projects. This authority includes but is not limited to what is delineated in 23 USC § 134(h): (h) Scope of planning process.-- (1) In gencral.--Thc metropolitan planning process for a metropolitan planning area under this section shall provide for consideration of projects and strategies that will-- (A) support the economic vitality of the metropolitan area, especially by enabling global competitiveness,productivity, and efficiency; (B) increase the safety of the transportation system for motorized and nonmotorized users; (C) increase the security of the transportation system for motorized and nonmotorized users; (D) increase the accessibility and mobility of people and for freight; (E) protect and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation, improve the quality of life, and promote consistency between transportation improvements and State and local planned growth and economic development patterns; (F) enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation system, across and between modes, for people and freight; (G) promote efficient system management and operation; and (H) emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation system. SRTC, when functioning as an RTPO, has the following duties pursuant to RCW 47.80.023 (underlined portions will go in effect July 26, 2009): (1) Prepare and periodically update a transportation strategy for the region. The strategy shall address alternative transportation modes and transportation demand management measures in regional corridors and shall recommend preferred transportation policies to implement adopted growth strategies. The strategy shall serve as a guide in preparation of the regional transportation plan. (2) Prepare a regional transportation plan as set forth in RCW 47.80.030 that is consistent with county-wide planning policies if such have been adopted pursuant to chapter 36.70A RCW, with county, city, and town comprehensive plans, and state transportation plans. (3) Certify by December 31, 1996, that the transportation elements of comprehensive plans adopted by counties, cities, and towns within the region reflect the guidelines and principles developed pursuant to RCW 47.80.026, are consistent with the adopted regional transportation plan, and, where appropriate, conform with the requirements of RCW 36.70A.070. (4) Where appropriate, certify that county-wide planning policies adopted under RCW 36.70A.210 and the adopted regional transportation plan are consistent. (5) Develop, in cooperation with the department of transportation, operators of public transportation services and local governments within the region, a six-year regional transportation improvement program which proposes regionally significant transportation projects and programs and transportation demand management measures. The regional 4 transportation improvement program shall be based on the programs, projects, and transportation demand management measures of regional significance as identified by transit agencies, cities, and counties pursuant to RCW 35.58.2795, 35.77.010, and 36.81.121, respectively, and any recommended programs or projects identified by the agency council on coordinated transportation, as provided in chapter 47.06B RCW, that advance special needs coordinated transportation as dcfincd in RCW 47.06B.012. The program shall include a priority list of projects and programs, project segments and programs, transportation demand management measures, and a specific financial plan that demonstrates how the transportation improvement program can be funded. The program shall be updated at least every two years for the ensuing six-year period. (6) Include specific opportunities and projects to advance special needs coordinated transportation, as defined in RCW 47.06B.012, in the coordinated transit-human services transportation plan, after providing opportunity for public comment. (7) Designate a lead planning agency to coordinate preparation of the regional transportation plan and carry out the other responsibilities of the organization. The lead planning agency may be a regional organization, a component county, city, or town agency, or the appropriate Washington state department of transportation district office. (8) Review level of service methodologies used by cities and counties planning under chapter 36.70A RCW to promote a consistent regional evaluation of transportation facilities and corridors. (9) Work with cities, counties, transit agencies, the department of transportation, and others to develop level of service standards or alternative transportation performance measures. (10) Submit to the agency council on coordinated transportation, as provided in chapter 47.06B RCW, beginning on July 1, 2007, and every four years thereafter, an updated plan that includes the elements identified by the council. Each regional transportation planning organization must submit to the council every two years a prioritized regional human service and transportation project list. (Emphasis added) Although SRTC must develop its regional transportation plan in accordance with federal statutes, when SRTC functions as an RTPO it must also develop the plan in accordance with state statutes. The requirements contents, review, and use of the plan are set forth in RCW 47.80.030: (1) Each regional transportation planning organization shall develop in cooperation with the department of transportation, providers of public transportation and high capacity transportation, ports, and local governments within the region, adopt, and periodically update a regional transportation plan that: (a) Is based on a least cost planning methodology that identifies the most cost- effective facilities, services, and programs; (b) Identifies existing or planned transportation facilities, services, and programs, including but not limited to major roadways including state highways and regional arterials, transit and nonmotorized services and facilities, multimodal and intermodal facilities, marine ports and airports, railroads, and noncapital programs including transportation demand management that should function as an 5 integrated regional transportation system, giving emphasis to those facilities, services, and programs that exhibit one or more of the following characteristics: (i) Crosses member county lines; (ii) Is or will be used by a significant number of people who live or work outside the county in which the facility, service, or project is located; (iii) Significant impacts are expected to be felt in more than one county; (iv) Potentially adverse impacts of the facility, service, program, or project can be better avoided or mitigated through adherence to regional policies; (v) Transportation needs addressed by a project have been identified by the regional transportation planning process and the remedy is deemed to have regional significance; and (vi) Provides for system continuity; (c) Establishes level of service standards for state highways and state ferry routes, with the exception of transportation facilities of statewide significance as defined in RCW 47.06.140. These regionally established level of service standards for state highways and state ferries shall be developed jointly with the department of transportation, to encourage consistency across jurisdictions. In establishing level of service standards for state highways and state ferries, consideration shall be given for the necessary balance between providing for the free interjurisdictional movement of people and goods and the needs of local commuters using state facilities; (d) Includes a financial plan demonstrating how the regional transportation plan can be implemented, indicating resources from public and private sources that are reasonably expected to be made available to carry out the plan, and recommending any innovative financing techniques to finance needed facilities, services, and programs; (e) Assesses regional development patterns, capital investment and other measures necessary to: (1) Ensure the preservation of the existing regional transportation system, including requirements for operational improvements, resurfacing, restoration, and rehabilitation of existing and future major roadways, as well as operations, maintenance, modernization, and rehabilitation of existing and future transit, railroad systems and corridors, and nonmotorized facilities; and (ii) Make the most efficient use of existing transportation facilities to relieve vehicular congestion and maximize the mobility of people and goods; (0 Sets forth a proposed regional transportation approach, including capital investments, service improvements, programs, and transportation demand management measures to guide the development of the integrated, multimodal regional transportation system. For regional growth centers, the approach must address transportation concurrency strategies required under RCW 36.70A.070 and include a measurement of vehicle level of service for off-peak periods and total multimodal capacity for peak periods; and 6 (g) Where appropriate, sets forth the relationship of high capacity transportation providers and other public transit providers with regard to responsibility for, and the coordination between, services and facilities. (2) The organization shall review the regional transportation plan biennially for currency and forward the adopted plan along with documentation of the biennial review to the state department of transportation. (3) All transportation projects, programs, and transportation demand management measures within the region that have an impact upon regional facilities or services must be consistent with the plan and with the adopted regional growth and transportation strategies. SRTC also is given authority in the interlocal agreement. This agreement has the following provisions: The functions, responsibilities, and powers of Council shall be as follows: (a) To perform the functions of the MPO for the urbanized area including those functions set forth in the ISTEA legislation of 1991, Transportation Equity Act for the 21St Century (TEA-21) and the Federal Register as it presently exists, or as it may be hereinafter modified implementing TEA-21 as well as those functions, which may be required hereinafter by Federal Transportation legislation. (b) To prepare and update a Metropolitan Transportation Plan and Regional Transportation Improvement Program (c) To administer regional transportation funding programs and consider only those projects which have been approved by the governing bodies of the sponsoring members and which are incorporated within the adopted Metropolitan Transportation Plan. (d) To participate in the maintenance of transportation related data banks and transportation related information. (e) To contract with the WSDOT or other appropriate entities in order to meet requirements of State and/or Federal Transportation legislation. (f) To create technical and citizen committees to advise the Council on transportation related matters, (g) To perform such other transportation planning related functions as the Council may hereinafter determine to be in the best interests of the Council. The Council, or any of the Members hereto, may receive grants-in-aid from the State or Federal Government or any other department or agency and may accept gifts for the purpose of this Agreement. 7 Because of the broad and varying powers of SRTC, for further reference see the attached appendices. 3. SRTC has minimal structural requirements: (1) It must consist of local elected officials, officials, officials of public transportation agencies, and appropriate State officials; (2) There must be a transportation policy board to provide policy advice to SRTC. The board may include major employers in the region, the DOT, transit districts, port districts, and SRTC-member cities, towns, and counties within the region. As an MPO, SRTC has certain structural requirements outlined in 23 USC § 134(d)(2): Each metropolitan planning organization that serves an area designated as a transportation management area, when designated or redesignated under this subsection, shall consist of-- (A) local elected officials; (B) officials of public agencies that administer or operate major modes of transportation in the metropolitan area; and (C) appropriate State officials. As an RTPO, SRTC seems to have flexibility with its structure, although it must still conform to MPO structural requirements (See RCW 47.80.020). However, an RTPO must also have a transportation policy board. The requirements surrounding this board are outlined in RCW 47.80.040: Each regional transportation planning organization shall create a transportation policy board. Transportation policy boards shall provide policy advice to the regional transportation planning organization and shall allow representatives of major employers within the region, the department of transportation, transit districts, port districts, and member cities, towns, and counties within the region to participate in policy making. Any members of the house of representatives or the state senate whose districts are wholly or partly within the boundaries of the regional transportation planning organization are considered ex officio, nonvoting policy board members of the regional transportation planning organization. This does not preclude legislators from becoming full-time, voting board members. Aside from these requirements,the required structure for MPOs and RTPOs is rather flexible. 4. To mods SRTC's structure, it must be done through amending the SRTC interlocal agreement. The Interlocal Agreement states that it may be amended by mutual consent of[the County, City of Spokane, Spokane Transit Authority, and Washington State Department of Transportation]. "Interlocal Agreement, April 28, 2003,page 6. 23 CFR § 450.310 gives the statutory threshold for changing the structure of an MPO. It reads: Metropolitan planning organization designation and redesignation. 8 [Sections a-g not set forth here.] (h) An existing MPO may be redesignated only by agreement between the Governor and units of general purpose local government that together represent at least 75 percent of the existing metropolitan planning area population (including the largest incorporated city, based on population, as named by the Bureau of the Census). (i) [Discusses multistate metropolises, not set forth here.] (j) For the purposes of redesignation, units of general purpose local government may be defined as elected officials from each unit of general purpose local government located within the metropolitan planning area served by the existing MPO. (k) Redesignation of an MPO (in accordance with the provisions of this section) is required whenever the existing MPO proposes to make: (1) A substantial change in the proportion of voting members on the existing MPO representing the largest incorporated city, other units of general purpose local government served by the MPO, and the State(s); or (2) A substantial change in the decisionmaking authority or responsibility of the MPO, or in decisionmaking procedures established under MPO by-laws. (I) The following changes to an MPO do not require a redesignation (as long as they do not trigger a substantial change as described in paragraph (k) of the section): (1) The identification of a new urbanized area (as determined by the Bureau of the Census) within an existing metropolitan planning area; (2) Adding members to the MPO that represent new units of general purpose local government resulting from expansion of the metropolitan planning area; (3) Adding members to satisfy the specific membership requirements for an MPO that serves a TMA; or (4) Periodic rotation of members representing units of general-purpose local government, as established under MPO by-laws. Although 23 CFR § 450.310 gives threshold requirements to change the structure of SRTC, the interlocal agreement establishing SRTC creates a more stringent procedure. Section 11 of the agreements states: This Agreement may be amended by mutual agreement of the Members." Interlocal Agreement, April 28, 2003, page 6. In the Agreement, "members" are defined as "[the] County, City [City of Spokane], STA [Spokane Transit Authority] and WSDOT [Washington State Department of Transportation]." Interlocal Agreement, April 28, 2003, page 1. The City of Spokane Valley is classified as an "other member" to the Agreement If amendment procedures are unacceptable to other members, they may terminate its membership in SRTC pursuant to the interlocal agreement. Section 12 explains termination procedures: "The City [Spokane City], County, STA, WSDOT, or Other Members of the Council may terminate membership in the Council by giving written notice to the Council prior to August 1 of any year for the following year." Interlocal Agreement, April 28, 2003, page 1. "Other Members" is defined in the agreement as "certain other incorporated towns and cities located within Spokane County." 9 5. The proposed changes align the interlocal agreement with relevant state statutory guidelines, adjust the board membership and voting rights, and add contractual language. Alignment with state statutory language 1. The most substantive changes in the proposed interlocal agreement bring the council's stated purpose and powers in line with state statutory language. In general, these changes simply mirror the applicable statute's terminology and make clear the connection between the SRTC and state law. RCW 47.80.020 authorizes creation of local multijurisdictional transportation councils called "Regional Transportation Planning Organizations ("RPTOs"). As discussed above, this is synonymous to the federal requirements for local government Metropolitan Planning Organizations ("MPOs"). Since the requirement to create a MPO is devised via federal law, while the more granular RPTO is a product of state law, the proposed interlocal agreement now uses the language of RCW 47.80 where appropriate. 23 USC § 134(d); RCW 47.80.020; Proposed Interlocal Agreement, Preamble, Section 1, Section 3, Section 22. 2. In addition, the proposed Purpose section more clearly outlines that nothing in the agreement supersedes the authority of cities and towns and is intended to meet the requirements of 23 USC 49, RCW 47.80, the Washington State Growth Management Act, and county-wide planning policies. Proposed Agreement, Section 2, Section 3(k). 3. While the ability for the council to create committees was in the previous agreement, the proposed agreement sets out two specific committees that are required at a minimum: the Transportation Advisory Council ("TAC") and the Transportation Technical Committee ("TTC"). Proposed Agreement, Section 3{j). Purchase of real property and title in County 4. In the draft agreement dated March 16, 2010, New Section 10 states that "[the] Council may not acquire or use real property to operate a transportation system except as may be specifically authorized by law." It is not clear where this language comes from and under what circumstances it may be "specifically authorized by law." It bears some resemblance to the language in RCW 36.120.110 (3) in which the executive boards of Regional Transportation Investment Districts are prohibited from acquiring or using real property. RPTO's are separate entities from Regional Transportation Investment Districts, however RPTO input is required for some things to take place. See RCW 36.120.030, 040, 080. 5. New Section 10 also states that "[real] property acquired by the Council shall be titled in the name of Spokane County, Washington and shall be restricted by deed to use for transportation related purposes only." The legal foundation for this language is not known and the concern that the language is attempting to address is unclear. Moreover, it is not known why the underlying property would not retain the title of the jurisdiction in which it lies. Voting threshold, membership, and amendments 10 Under RCW Chapter 42.80.060, the executive board membership is required to include the following: ...the state transportation commission, the state department of transportation, the four largest public port districts within the region as determined by gross operating revenues, any incorporated principal city of a metropolitan statistical area within the region, as designated by the United States census bureau, and any incorporated city within the region with a population in excess of eighty thousand. It shall further assure that at least fifty percent of the county and city local elected officials who serve on the executive board also serve on transit agency boards or on a regional transit authority." 6. The proposed agreement includes membership for the state officers as required by RCW 42.80.060. In addition, the proposed agreement provides executive board membership for one elected official from jurisdictions with a minimum of 50,000 people, as opposed to RCW 42.80.060's minimum of 80,000 people. 7. The designation of the City has not changed in the proposed agreement. In the current agreement, the City of Spokane Valley is not expressly named as a party and is instead lumped in with other cities and towns as "Other Members." Proposed Agreement, page 1. Additionally, there seems to be a general approach to change the name of"Council" to "Board," however the change is not made everywhere and in some drafts the term "Board" is used before it was defined. Proposed Agreement, Section 1, 8. There are still some unknowns regarding the composition and selection of the members. Jurisdictions of 5,000 to 50,000 people now jointly select one member to represent them collectively, while jurisdictions 50,000 to 100,000 people continue to appoint one elected official. Proposed Agreement, Section 5. In the proposed agreement there are now four ex officio, non-voting members of the board that each represents a specific area of transportation, such as STA, Rail, and airports. Id. The means by which they are appointed is not yet proposed. Id. 9. Under the proposed agreement, ex officio members of the board also include all legislators whose districts are wholly or partly within the designated boundaries of the council. Proposed Interlocal Agreement, Section 5. Ex officio members are not permitted to serve as board Officers. Id. 10. The non-voting roles of board members has also been drafted differently. In the proposed agreement, "non-voting" board members do get to vote, but only for two limited actions: appointment or dismissal of the Executive Director and approval of the annual budget expenditure division among the members of the agreement. Proposed Agreement, Section 6. 11 11. In regards to the council body, language had been added to previous drafts of the proposed agreement that would have permitted the SRTC board to determine how the SRTC should be formed under state law. Proposed Agreement, Section 1. This language has been removed from the most recent drafts. Id. Options for formation included incorporation as a joint venture, a non- profit corporation, or a partnership. Id. Regardless of the formation of the SRTC, auditing would continue as-is because the funds are public. Id. 12. The proposed interlocal continues to allow for amendments, but the language has been changed to require that any amendment be passed by "...consent of the County and sixty percent (60%) of the cities and towns that represent seventy-five (75%) of the cities' and towns' population." Proposed Agreement, March 16, 2010, Section 13. 13. The Board is also now tasked with "adopting policies and procedures to establish the duties and authorizes [sic] of the executive director."Proposed Agreement, March 16, 2010, Section 7. Contractual language and general terms 14. The proposed agreement adds a number of sections that are contractual in nature: Default (failure to perform for 30 days constitutes an "event of default"), Remedies (if there is an "event of default," the board may pursue any legal remedy available), and General Terms (the agreement is binding and the terms are to be construed under the laws of Washington State). Proposed Agreement, Section 19-21. 15. New Section 21 centralizes definitions of the terms used throughout the agreement: Section 21: GENERAL TERMS This Agreement contains terms and conditions agreed upon by the Members. The Members agree that there are not other understandings, oral or otherwise, regarding the subject matter of this Agreement. This Agreement shall be binding upon the Members hereto, their successors and assigns. In the event any portion of this Agreement should become invalide [sic] or unenforceable, the rest of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. This Agreement shall be construed under the laws of Washington State. Any action at law, suit in equity or judicial proceeding regarding this Agreement or any provision hereto shall be instutited [sic] only in courts of competent jurisdiction within Spokane County, Washington. 12 This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which, when so executed and delivered, shall be an original, but such counterparts shall together constitute but one and the same. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to give, or shall give, whether directly or indirectly, any benefit or right, greater than that enjoyed by the general public, to third persons. The section headings in this Agreement have been interested solely for the purpose of convenience and ready reference. In no way do they purport to and shall not be deemed to define, limit or extend the scope or intent of the sections to which they pertain." 16. In Section 22, the proposed agreement incorporates these new contractual sections (among others) by reference in order to match the framework of RCW 39.34, the Interlocal Cooperation Act. This act simply provides a blueprint for interlocal agreements in which parties can use consistent language to define interlocal purpose, duration, financing, and remedies. RCW 9.34.040. This section also serves as a table of contents for sections that may be relevant to later proposed changes: Section 22: RCW CHAPTER 39.34 REQUIRED CLAUSES A. PURPOSE See Section No. 2 above. B. DURATION This Agreement is perpetual until the joint and comprehensive undertaking is either voluntarily dissolved or discontinued pursuant to RCW 47.80.020. C. ORGANIZATION OF SEPARATE ENTITY AND ITS POWERS See Sections No. 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11 above. D. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PARTIES See provisions above. E. AGREEMENT TO BE FILED 13 This Agreement may be filed with the County Auditor or published on the Members' websites, as available. F. FINANCING See Section Nos. 8 and 9 above. G. TERMINATION See Section No. 14 above. H. PROPERTY UPON TERMINATION Any Member terminating its membership in the Council as provided for in Section 14 hereinabove shall forfeit any ownership interest in any personal or real property owned or held by the Council. Personal property acquired by the Council in the performance of this Agreement shall remain with the Council upon termination of the Agreement. Unless otherwise required by law or agreement, cash and cash proceeds from sale of personal property shall be disbursed to the Members according to the contribution made by the Member as set forth in this Agreement. Real property shall be conveyed/disposed as set forth in this Agreement similar to personal property except where a separate instrument or deed reservation exists." Conclusion: SRTC serves as both an MPO required by federal law (see 23 USC § 134, 135; 23 CFR § 450.300 et. seq.) and as an RTPO authorized by state law (see RCW 47.80). SRTC's most significant authority includes preparing a regional transportation strategy and plan, ensuring that the municipalities in its jurisdictions have plans consistent with the plan, developing an improvement plan, and contracting with entities to meet state and federal transportation legislation. SRTC must consist of local elected officials, officials of public transportation agencies, and appropriate State officials. It must also have a board that gives SRTC policy transportation advice. To modify SRTC's structure, it must be done by amending the SRTC interlocal agreement pursuant to its provisions. 14 if II II Ill I ' 50664.9 _ .,. . _• • Oi4O9, b / W5� .,ro kAr,.• I n itA AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT AMONG SPOKANE COUNTY, CITY OF SPOKANE, WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, SPOKANE TRANSIT AUTHORITY, AND OTHER CITIES AND TOWNS WITHIN SPOKANE COUNTY, TO FORM A SPOKANE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL, DEFINE ITS ORGANIZATION AND POWERS, AND ESTABLISH A REGIONAL COUNCIL JURISDICTIONAL AREA. THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this c -6 day of !`�pr 2003 among the County of Spokane, a political subdivision of the State Of Washington, hereinafter referred to as the"County," the City of Spokane, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, hereinafter referred to as the. "City," the Washington State Department of Transportation, an agency of the State of Washington, hereinafter referred to as "WSDOT," the Spokane Transit Authority, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, hereinafter referred to as "STA," and certain other incorporated towns and cities located within Spokane County, hereinafter referred to as "Other Members,"jointly, along with the County, City, STA and WSDOT referred to as the"Members." WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of chapter 39.34 RCW, two or more public entities may jointly cooperate between each other to perform functions which each may individually perform; and WHEREAS, on December 18, 1991, the President of the'United States signed the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) which provided authorization for highways, highway safety, and mass transportation and enunciated a policy statement "[go develop a National Intermodal Transportation System that is economically efficient, environmentally sound, provide the foundation for the nation to compete in the global economy and will move people and goods in an energy efficient manner;" and WHEREAS, Federal Transportation legislation required the establishment,by agreement between the Governor of the State of Washington and units of general purpose local government, of a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), which in cooperation with the State of Washington shall develop transportation plans and programs for urbanized areas of Washington State; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the above referenced state and federal laws and Federal Transportation legislation, the Members are desirous of establishing a regional transportation - council to carry out those responsibilities of the MPO as provided for in Federal Transportation • legislation as well as other responsibilities determined by the Council. Exhibit B NOW,THEREFORE, it is specifically agreed among the Members hereto as follows: Section 1: NAME A regional body, comprising representatives of the County, City, WSDOT, Washington State Transportation Commission, STA, and Other Members is hereby created and shall be known as the Spokane Regional Transportation Council, referred to hereinafter as the"Council." • Section 2: PURPOSE Recognizing that coordinated transportation planning of the County, City, WSDOT, Washington State Transportation Commission, STA and Other Members are necessarily interwoven and interdependent and that the interests of all citizens will best be served by coordinated and cooperative transportation planning, this Council is established to facilitate such appropriate coordination and cooperation and provide for continuing area wide transportation planning. The Council is not authorized to in any way supersede the authority vested in the County, City, WSDOT, STA or Other Members, but is intended to meet the prerequisites of Federal Transportation legislation. Section 3: POWERS AND FUNCTIONS • The f mctions, responsibilities, and powers of Council shall be as follows: (a) To perform the functions of the MPO for the urbanized area including those functions • set forth in the ISTEA legislation of 1991, Transportation Equity Act for the 215` Century (TEA-21) and the Federal Register as it presently exists, or as it may be hereinafter modified implementing TEA-21 as well as those functions, which may be required hereinafter by Federal Transportation legislation. (b)'To prepare and update a Metropolitan Transportation Plan and Regional Transportation Improvement Program. (c) To administer regional transportation funding programs and consider only those projects which have been approved by the governing bodies of the sponsoring members and which are incorporated within the adopted Metropolitan Transportation Plan. (d) To participate in the maintenance of transportation related data banks and transportation related information. - (e) To contract with the WSDOT or other appropriate entities in order to meet requirements of State and/or Federal Transportation legislation. 2 (f) To create technical and citizen committees to advise the Council on transportation related matters. (g) To perform such other transportation planning related functions as the Council may hereinafter determine to be in the best interests of the Council. The Council, or any of the Members hereto, may receive grants-in-aid from the State or Federal Government or any other department or agency and may accept gifts for the purpose of this Agreement. Section 4: JURISDICTIONAL AND METROPOLITAN AREA DEFINED The Council's jurisdictional area shall consist of all incorporated and unincorporated areas of Spokane County, Washington, and may include contiguous areas across county or state boundaries as deemed appropriate and which meet the criteria of State and/or Federal Transportation legislation. Section 5: GOVERNING BODY AND OFFICERS The governing body of the Council shall be governed by the following thresholds: Jurisdictions under 50,000 population - one (1) person jointly selected by the Other Members, who shall be an elected official from a small town/city;jurisdictions 50,000 to 100,000--one(1) person appointed by each respective governing body, who shall be an elected official; jurisdictions over 100,000 population— two (2.) persons appointed by each respective governing body, who shall be elected officials; one (1) Board Member of STA appointed by the STA Board, who shall be an elected official from a small town/city; two (2) state transportation representatives, one from the Washington State Department of Transportation and appointed by the Chair of the Transportation Commission, and the other from the Washington State Department of Transportation and appointed by the Secretary of Transportation; and one (1) person with private sector transportation provider experience who shall be appointed by a majority vote of the other Council representatives. All Council appointments shall be for a term of three (3) years or the tenure of office of the representative in his/her respective jurisdiction whichever is the lesser time. Alternate Council representatives may serve in the absence of the designated representative so long as the alternate representative is an elected or appointed official of the appointing Member's parent agency. All alternate Council representatives must serve in the same capacity as the regularly designated representative as defined hereinabove Officers of the Council shall include a chair and vice-chair, who shall be elected by majority vote of the Council. Only representatives who are elected officials may be officers. Officers shall serve a one-year term. The chair shall alternate among representatives of the Council. 3 • Section 6: MEETINGS .The Council shall hold regular monthly meetings. The Chair may call a special meeting or executive session or shall call a special meeting at the request of a majority of the Council. The Council shall adopt rules for the conduct of its business consistent with this Agreement and such rules shall prescribe, among other matters, the place of meetings and the methods of providing reasonable notice to Members thereof. Such rules shall be adopted and may be amended by a majority vote (75% ratification of the Member bodies) of the total Council,or by amendment to this Agreement as provided herein. All meetings of the Council shall be open to the public as required by chapter 42.30 RCW, A quorum for the purpose of transacting business shall consist of a simple majority of the Board. All recommendations, motions, or other actions of the Council shall be adopted by a favorable vote of a majority of those present. All Council representatives including officers shall be entitled to one vote. Section 7: STAFF AND SUPPORT The Council shall employ a Transportation Manager and staff as necessary to conduct the • work programs of the Council consistent with this Agreement. The Transportation Manager shall be appointed by and serve at the pleasure of the Council, shall be responsible for record keeping and shall direct the Council staff to carry out the work program and purpose of the Council. The Transportation Manager shall receive Council approval prior to submitting applications) for or acceptance of any grants to carry out those functions set forth in Section 3 hereinabove. Provided, however, in instances where a grant application must be submitted prior to the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Council so that timely Council approval cannot be obtained, the grant application may still be submitted with approval of the chair and vice-chair of the Council. Employees of the Council shall be hired and discharged by and work under the direction of the Transportation Manager. The Council may arrange for support services such as requisitioning and purchasing, payment of expenditures, accounting, payroll, computer processing, legal counsel, and others as deemed necessary. Pay schedules shall be set by the Council consistent with responsibilities performed and • the demand for such personnel in public and private industry, with due consideration to pay - schedules for like positions in Member agencies. Section 8: WORK PROGRAM AND ANNUAL BUDGET The Council shall prepare and adopt a proposed work program and budget for each calendar year. The detailed annual work program shall list specific work projects to be 4 undertaken by the Council. The Transportation Manager shall confer with and inform Members concerning the preparation of and progress on the technical areas of work programs and projects. The Council shall submit the proposed work program and budget to the Members by August 1 of the preceding year. Approval or rejection of such budget by each Member shall be submitted to the Council by November 1 of each year. The annual budget andlor work program of the Council may be amended by vote of the Council, provided such amendment does not require additional budget appropriation, or by the joint approval of the Council and Members where such amendment does require additional budget appropriation. After approval of the Council budget, no Member may terminate or withhold its share during the year for which it was allocated. Section 9: ALLOCATION OF COSTS,APPROPRIATIONS,EXPENDITURES • It is anticipated that most projects and programs of the Council will involve benefit to its Members. Costs of the annual budget expenditures shall be divided among the Members as determined by the Council. Any additional agency joining the Council as a Member, shall contribute as agreed with the Council. Additional contributions to:the Council budget may be made to accomplish projects and programs deemed to be of particular pertinence or benefit to one or more of the Member agencies. Each funding Member approving the proposed Council budget shall submit its payment on or before January 20 of the budget year that it has approved. The funds of such joint operation shall be deposited in the public treasury of Spokane County or the public treasury of any other Member as so agreed upon by the Members; and such deposit shall be subject to the same audit and fiscal controls as the public treasury where the funds are so deposited. The funds shall be used in accordance with the adopted budget and work plan. The Transportation Manager may make expenditures in accordance with the approved Council budget and work plan and shall maintain records of expenditures and report monthly to the Council on budget activity. Payment of all claims shall be signed by the Transportation Manager and approved monthly by the Council. Such claims, with proper affidavits required by law, shall then be certified for payment by the City or County Auditor or as arranged by the Council. - Section 10: INTER-RELATIONSIiIP BETWEEN COUNCIL, CITIES AND COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSIONS Cities and County Planning Commissions shall continue their respective functions as provided by charter andlor State law, including preparation of Cities' and County Comprehensive Plans, to which the Metropolitan Transportation Plan shall be coordinated, and administering the zoning, subdivision and similar implementing controls as maybe assigned them by their respective legislative bodies. - 5 • The successful execution of Council duties and responsibilities in preparing a Metropolitan Transportation Plan, in coordination with local plans,requires comprehensive plans be prepared and kept up-to-date by the City, County, and Other Members for their respective jurisdictions. Section 1 l: AMENDMENTS This Agreement may be amended by mutual agreement of the Members. Section 12: TERMINATION The City, County, STA, WSDOT, or Other Members of the Council may terminate membership in the Council by giving written notice to the Council prior to August 1 of any year for the following year. Section 13: PRIOR WRITTEN AGREEMENTS This Agreement shall supersede the following Agreements: Agreement creating the Spokane Regional Planning Conference, Spokane, Washington, dated December 15, 1966. An Amended Agreement between Spokane County, Washington, and City of Spokane, Washington, to form a Spokane Regional Planning Conference, Define its Organization and Powers, and Establish its Regional Planning District,dated August 31, 1972. Au Amended Agreement between Spokane County, Washington, and the City of Spokane,Washington, and other municipalities, to form a Spokane Regional Council, Define its Organization and Powers, and Establish Regional Council Jurisdiction Area,dated August 15, 1984. An Interloeal Agreement among Spokane County, City of Spokane, Washington State Department of Transportation, Spokane Transit Authority, and Other Cities and Towns Within Spokane County, to Form a Regional Transportation Council, Define its Organization and Powers,and Establish a Regional Council Jurisdictional Area dated October 12, 1993. Section 14: EFFECTIVE DATE • The effective date of this Agreement shall be upon ratification of this Agreement by a majority of the signatories. • 6 Section 15: METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION(MPO) DESIGNATION The execution of this Agreement by the signatures affixed hereto is not intended to act as a revocation of the MPO designation under the Federal Highways Act, which existed prior to the effective date hereinabove. - Section 16: SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST The Council, as provided for herein, shall be the successor in interest to all grants, contracts, and other documents entered into by the Council's predecessor, the Spokane Regional Council. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Members hereto have entered into this Agreement on the day and year set forth herein above. ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners co , 'h of Spokane County, Washington this e2g h day of o tsr1 1e co6. o) r► I , 2003. • . Ar% John Roskelley, Chair cloak -I ST //r11 A ►r • VICKY M. DALTON Phil p D. Harris, Vice-Chair • CLERK OF THE BOARD • -Daniela Erickson, Deputy M. Kate •1 s1in, Commissioner CITY 0 '•KA_ ATTEST: / .yor By City lerk if ... �� App 'd as m: ne MCI 11i " 410:. Assistant City Attorney N 7 WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT SPOKANE TRANSIT AUTHORITY . OF TRANSPORT••TION i j . a. Seit Lary of Tra f++rtatio 1 C irman CITY OF AIRWAY FITS.,WASHINGTON CITY OF CHENEY,WASHINGTON 'Li 1 i AJA.A A _ icil ,1 r Mayor I 0 CITY OF DEER PARK, WASH GTON CI OF FAIRFIELD, WASHINGTON a . k. , \ , tA \ k..._ /6_,V Mayor o CITY OF LATAH,WASHINGTON CITY OFo :E t 'Lb ., WASHINGTON l . /r/X ee .. dam/ / I _ ayor ?yor C P •• • ' AL LAKE,WASHINGTON CITY OF MILLWOOD, WASHINGTON g U 4,1W- Ma. +r - _-- M# r------ Attest: ` 4 ►- , c , 'i').b'r'' • CITY OF ROCKFORD,�W. " GTON CITY OF SPANGLE,W SHINGTON drilliirik A.....14_,......_,...._,,,... • 1/./Z-e-41-1' .V. .--t,--e,44---' Mayo • Mayor CITY OF WAVERLY, WASHINGTON CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON • "0 161 , / ' Mayor r Mayor 4 8 Return To: Spokane Regional Transportation Council 221 W. First Avenue, Suite 310 Spokane, WA 99201 AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT AMONG SPOKANE COUNTY, CITY OF SPOKANE, WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, SPOKANE TRANSIT AUTHORITY, AND OTHER CITIES AND TOWNS WITHIN SPOKANE COUNTY, TO FORM A SPOKANE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION COUNCIL, DEFINE ITS ORGANIZATION AND POWERS, AND ESTABLISH A REGIONAL COUNCIL JURISDICTIONAL AREA. THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into h day of among the County of Spokane, a political subdivision of the State of Washington, hereinafter referred to as the "County," the City of Spokane, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, hereinafter ferc d-to-as n,-.- Ftv-". the Washington State Department of Transportation, an agency of the State of Washington, hereinafter referred to as "WSDOT," the Washington State Transportation Commission hereinafter referred to as "WSTC", thrSpokane Transit Authority, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, hereinafter referred to as "STA," and . ter-I in-othen`r' incorporated towns and cities located within Spokane County, hereinafter referred to as "Other Members," jointly, along with the County, City of Spokarr „ STA and WSDOT referred to as the "Members." W ITNESS ET H: WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of chapter 39.34 RCW, two or more public entities may jointly cooperate between each other to perform functions which each may individually perform; and WHEREAS, on December 18, 1991 August 10, 2005, the President of the United States signed the Inter odal-S-u ce Safe, Accountable Flexible, Efficient., Transportation Efficiency Act of 1g91 .(P TE • - Safe, Accountable Fle ii lc, lrffi , ent which provided authorization for highways, highway safety, and mass transportation and enunciated a policy statement "[t]o develop a 16, 2010 flage 1 Exhibit C National Intermodal Transportation System that is economically efficient, environmentally sound, provide the foundation for the nation to compete in the global economy and will move people and goods in an energy efficient manner;" and WHEREAS, ip 1962 Federal r Lion--fran pprtatic^! legislation required the establishment, by agreement between the Governor of the State of Washington and units of general purpose local government, of a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO), which in cooperation with the State of Washington, shall develop transportation plans and programs for urbanized areas of Washington State; and WHEREAS Ch. 47.80 RVV authorizes the formation of a Regional Transportation Plannin b g Orc�anitin {R P OD voluntary association of local governments within a count •rovided each RTPO shall have as members the county and at leas: sixty perc+ lit of the cities and towns Within the RTi? 's boundaries, representing_ a minimum of seventy-five percent of the cities' and towns' o ulation• and WHEREAS, each k TPO formed by to al governments shall create a transportat o of r board t ? ro it e policy advice to the RTPO and shall allow Qpresentaty s Q major employers within the region, the department of transportation, transit districts, port districts. and member cities, towns, and counties wvithin tie region to participate_ar policy making; and WHEREAS amont other duties each RTPO shall: i develo and periodically update a regional transportation plan in cooperation with the State department of transportation, royiderrs of public transtation and higt capacity transpa rt tion, ports. and local aoverr�r nts within die region and shall ii designate a lead planrrinc apenc+ to coordinate p p reation of said re ar local transpc rttatic plan and carry out the ottrer respr srf iliti'es of the or anon izzat r7, and WHEREAS, RCW 47.80.020 provides that the RTPO in an urbanized area shall be the same as the MPG desk nated for federal trans ortation planning purposes. and WHEREAS, pursuant to the above referenced state and federal laws_- r" Fecteraatlen4e94s-lation, the Members are desirous of establishing a regional transportation council ("Council) to carry out those responsibilities of Plarch 16. 2010 2 the MPO as provided for in Federal Transportation legislation as well as other responsibilities determined by the Council. NOW, THEREFORE, it is specifically agreed among the Members hereto as follows: Section 1: NAME/ORGANI AT1ON A regiennl borlyvolLrnlary assoc'iatien and Joint board, comprising representatives of the County, City of Spokane. City of Spokane Valley. 'Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOTL_Washington State Transportation Commission-,(WSTCI, Spokane Transit_ 4uthor tI_(STA)_, and Other Members is hereby created and shall be known as the Spokane Regional Transportation Council, referred to hereinafter as the "Council." The -Beard r y ereaft + tarmin e- rtc precise--o arzi ion as --a sa ga r- rr s-t tie--er +-to-inoludc a joint venture, nen-profit Corp n organized-pkrrs. . Ap r 21.03-or-21.06 yRC'wlose rnereV re. ip it die-roiteel—olel +-io-t 6cipatm g publi erl i herein-or r a portnerchip organ -pi t-te a C.!' - . ,whose a ars a� -ii it- - -g--public agencies. All fun --of-.any s� corporation-or-part1e •€ -to-audit-I n-thc nnr r-pco�; , flaw for the--and-It-in f l dt- tear ed e ,say - _ r :Ma-live shall obtain author y -telte--a on-a r this--subparagraph of Section 1 Section 2: PURPOSE Recognizing that coordinated transportation planning of the County, Cities and Town,. WSDOT, 's`:: ::rin tort tat --Try tion-Commiss n WSTC_, STA and Other Members are necessarily interwoven and interdependent and that the interests of all citizens will best be served by coordinated_ani, cooperative, ,._ ; ,ray :°; zI•, transportation planning, this Council is established to facilitate such appropriate coordination and cooperation and provide for continuing area wide transportation planning program in accordance with Section . herein. The Council is not authorized to in any way supersede the authority vested in the County, Cit +Citiesand TOS:•rr',, WSDOT, WSTC , STA or Other Members, but is intended to meet the prerequisites of F e a--Tranporlation legislation United :States, Code Titles 23 and T441€49, and RCW Chapter 47.80. t rc.h_1 ,_.010 f' 3 Section 3: POWERS AND FUNCTIONS The functions, responsibilities, and powers of Council shall be as follows: (a) To perform the functions of the—PO for the urbanized--area-including a Transportation IVtanactoment:lArea (TM for ti a metropolitan area, which includes those functions set forth in the ISTEA ; AFETEA-L J legislation of 1:T portatio+t fr the 21' Century-(-TEA-2--14 August 10, 2005, and t e--Feder E-# Eglster related rules. as it-pres n#ly..exist—or-as--it 11:m --bye-hereinafter irrvie i EA 21amerided to Implement SAPETEA-LL! as well as those functions, which may be required hereinafter by subsequent Federal Transportation legislation to be iii ernento€1 by TMA. (b) To perform the functions of a letro_polltan Planning Organization (MPG) as set forth in Title 23 United States Code and Title 49 United States Code as currentl adopted or as amended, and 23 CFR Parts 450 and 500 and 40 CFR Part 613, as currently adopted or as amended. (c;I To perform the function s of a Re i Transportation Planning Organization (RTPO) as set forth in Ch. 47.80 RCW. as currently adopted or as amended, and Ch, 468-86 WAC as currently ado ted or as amended, (-b)(d) To prepare and update a Metropolitan Transportation Planand-Regional =-ran pc rtation4 # r ep , , , pursuant to 23 CFR Parts 4 0, arid 500 and 49 CFR Part 613. e o engage in regional transportation planning as set forth in RCS?' 47,82.030. (-00 To administer regional transportation funding programs and consider r4iy-those projects which have been approved by the governing bodies of the sponsoring members and which are incorporated within the adopted Metropolitan Transportation Plan. ig) To participate in the development and maintenance of transportation related data banks an nsportation-related_information necessary+ to Supt ors the functions and responsibilities of the Council. Mardi 1 , 2010 Page 4 () To promote he reciional trans Qrtation interests, plans and pra_jects to local, state anti federal public and private entitles. O)(i) To contract with the WSDOT or other appropriate entities in order to meet requirements of State and/or Federal Transportation legislation. WO To create te-ohnical-and-citizen committees as necessary, to advise the Gil Board on regional transportation related matters brougl irvre the Board. At a minimum this shall include: a. the Transportation Advisory ounc€l _TAC lit s composition and responsibilities shall be defined by the Council, bb. the Iran, s tion Techr_i Committee (TTG whose composition and res•onsibilities shall be defined b the Council, (kl To c+ornp with the Trans Transportation requirements set forth 'n the Washington State Growth Maria ement Act Land C , 47.80 R W. consistent with Spokane County ounty-wide Planning.Policies, M(1) To perform such other transportation planning and prodrarn related functions as the C Gi-Board may hereinafter determine to be in the best interests of the Council and the members thereof. which are consistent with the terms of this Agreement and related federal and state law, The Council, or any of the Members hereto, may receive grants-in-aid from the State or Federal Government or any other department or agency and may accept gifts from public or private entities for the p rose purposes authorized in this Agreement. Section 4: JURISDICTIONAL AND METROPOLITAN AREA DEFINED The Council's jurisdictional area shall consist of all incorporated and unincorporated areas of Spokane County, Washington, and may include contiguous areas across county or state boundaries as deemed appropriate and which meet the criteria of State and/or Federal Transportation legislation. Section 5: GOVERNING BODY AND OFFICERS The governing body (the "Board") of the Council shall be Ri er established by the following thresholds: March 16, 2010. 5 Jurisdictions under 50,000 pork tiar.- people - One ( r arson jointly selected bar iurisdlctions with_populations between 50,000 and 5,0_00 people plus one (1) person jointly selected by the Ot"e Fr°-mbe a urisdidons with pulations fewer than : ,000 people. Thorson selected shall be an elected official from a small town/city; Jurisdictions 50,000 to 100,000 neopi } - one (1) person appointed by each respective governing body, who shall be an elected official; Jurisdictions over 100,000 people- two (2) persons appointed by each respective governing body, who shall be elected officials; (The population of Spokane ou _�nt�cludes the population of its cities and towns) One (1) Board Member of STA, who shall be appointed by the STA Board e ai —ected-oft ciai 1r rs small townicity;; Two (2) scat t e-rtation State Transportation representatives, ,r tives, one from-the Wa inQton..State IJyartment of Iran:e:rtatio1 n �xeint' e b I iF-of the Transportation-Go m sior- the-other-(1) from the Washington State Department of Transportation and appointed by the Secretary of Transportation, and one 1 from the Washin•ton State Trans•ortation Commission anointed fc the Chair of the Commission; One (1) person with private sector transportation provider experience who shall be appointed by a majority vote of the other Council representatives; and AB-Ore '1 'ersofl who is Chair of the Transportation Advisory Counc'll,� provided such person resides within the jurisdiction of the MPOCouncil.. There shall be four (4] ex officio , non-vc ting members serving on the Board representing different modes of transportation, which shall include One (1) person representing STA, who shall beappointed by the STA Board; One (1) person representing Rail: who shall be appointed by the mMembers ; One (1) person representing Airports; who shall itbe a ointet f the Airport Board; and The Chair of the TTC March 16:1/2 Page 6 Pursuant to RCW 47.60.040 all legislators whose districts are wholly or partlyl within the desk nated boundaries of the Council. are considered ex officio (non- voting) members of the Board. All Board appointments shall be for a term of three (3) years or the tenure of office of the representative in his/her respective jurisdiction, whichever is the lesser time. Alternate coui,G1 G o: rr,_representatives may serve in the absence of the designated representative so long as the alternate representative is an elected or appointed official of the appointing Member's parent agency (or governing body, appropriate) and whose name has been placed on record with the Council. All alternate iun il._Board representatives must serve in the same capacity as the regularly designated representative as defined hereinabove. OfficersTof-the Co it The Board shall include7eleu a Gila irChair and v+ce-oh-a-Ir—whonsh li be-elected Vice- hair "'Officers"]by majority vote of the Goui-oilBoard. Only representatives who are elected officials may be office Officer all-sea ear- r 1� 1 i�- l ail a1ternat mo r esentat;fvo^ of e. ouneil_ The term for Officers may be up to two (2) years in each office. Ex officio members may riot serve as Officers_ Section 6: MEETINGS The Council shall hold regular monthly Board meetings. The Chair may call a special meeting or executive session or shall call a special meeting at the request of a majority of the GOur:,. The Cooni#-board shall adopt rules for the conduct of its business consistent with this Agreement and such rules shall prescribe the place of meetings, the method of providing reasonable notice to Members thereof, the form of the agenda, the regular meeting date and such other matters that relate to the conduct of the Council's business. Such rules shall be adopted and may be amended by a seventy-five percent (75%) positive vote of the Board, or by amendment to this Agreement as provided herein. All meetings of the Board shall be open to the public as required by chapter 42.30 RCW. A quorum for the purpose of transacting business shall consist of a simple majority of the Board. All recommendations, motions, or other actions of the Council Board'shall be adopted by a favorable vote of a majority of those present. All Coun l- cosent,atives-infol-64-nq-cfficers Votinq Board members_shall be entitled to one vote. Provided however, that the March 3,6. .Q1O ?Oge 7 following enumerated actions shall take an affirmative vote of a majority of the total membership o the Board Appointment or dismissal of tine Executive Director; and ) Approval of the annual budget expenditure division among the Members Section 7: STAFF AND SUPPORT The :Council-Board shall employ a T ns ation Manager determine the positions, duties and staffworkinq conditions of enipto_yees as necessary to conduct the work programs of the Council consistent with this Agreement. The Transportation.MariaaeF An Executive Director shall be appointed by and serve solely at the pleasure of the Ce lBoard. The be rrci sliali Pe-responsible-for fire z- '- e -and -shall dir- . e -out-the.-work program e -cif-the-GaunciI TIC—rmien ma%gar-Gil-ail-re eive-Co und I a rpceva-l-racier-t-o-submittinq--adopt policies and procedures to establish the duties and authorizes of the Executive Director, including authority to make financial exoendltu i •. `"r' behalf of the Boar- The Board shall approve application(s) for or acceptance of any grants to carry out those functions set forth in Section 3 hereinabove. Provided, however, in instances where a grant application must be submitted prior to the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Council ; : so that timely Council Board approval cannot be obtained, the grant application may still be submitted with mutual approval of the and-vice-chair of the cefl Chair and Vice-Chair. fovees -o---Lintess otherwise deternti'rred b the CouncI oardl, earl soeos ro at-will arnd, shall be hired and discharged by and work under the direction of the Trar}spsrlatio a cter Executive_Director. The DounGI1-Board may arrange for support services such as requisitioning and purchasing, payment of expenditures, accounting, payroll, computer processing, legal counsel, and others as deemed necessary. Pay schedules shall be set by the CouncilBoard consistent with responsibilities performed and the demand for such personnel in public and private industry, with due consideration to pay schedules for like positions in Member agencies. Section 8: WORK PROGRAM AND ANNUAL BUDGET The __shall prepare and adopt a proposed work program and budget for each calendar year. The detailed annual work program shall list specific work projects to be undertaken by the Council. The 17-Fa-risoor4ation Manacrer-Execrative Director or designee shall confer with and inform Members concerning the preparation of and progress on the technical areas of work programs and projects. The prnased annual ldet shall set forth tl methodology for dtermininq the allocation of costs, aroririations and ex endltures tc each member. The C-o-u-nc+I Board shall submit the proposed work program and budget to the Members by August 1 of the preceding year. Approval or rejection of such budget by each Member shall be submitted to the Council by November 1 of each year. Members that have not previously been required to contribute funds toward the annual budget shall be Oven written notice one (1) year in advance of a ro osed bud et assessment. The annual budget and/or work program of the Council may be amended by vote of the Cou-noill3card, provided such amendment does not require additional budget appropriation,or- by the pint approval of the- ouncil and Members w rere.such-aread rie rt-does require-additional-budget eppropr-iatiion. After approval of the Council budget, no Member may terminate or withhold its share during the year for which it was allocated. Section 9: ALLOCATION OF COSTS, APPROPRIATIONS, EXPENDITURES It is anticipated that most projects and programs of the Council will involve mutual benefit to its Members. Costs of the annual budget expenditures shall be divided among the Members as determined-may- the CoLHl recommended by the Board am approved dbythe Members in th _budget approval _process, Any additional agency joining the Council as a Member, shall contribute as agreed with the ouncifeoard. Additional contributions to the Council budget may be made to accomplish projects and programs deemed to be of particular pertinence or benefit to one or more of the Member agencies. Each funding Member approving the proposed Council budget shall submit its payment on or before January 20 of the budget year that it has approved. The funds of such joint operation shall be deposited in the public treasury of !he City of _Spokane iuor the public treasury of any other Member as so agreed upon by the Members; and such deposit shall be subject to the same audit and fiscal controls as the public treasury where the funds are March 16, 201Q i',.:1;_9 so deposited. The funds shall be used in accordance with the adopted budget and work plan. The ertation-ManagerExecutive Director may make expenditures in accordance with the approved Council budget -and work plan and approved policies and procctdiii_c s, and shall maintain records of expenditures and report monthly to the Council E oar _,_on budget activity, Payment of all claims shall be signed by the Thnspert n—Manager Executive Director or desig,ee, and approved monthly by the i ,F11,wi eriI Boa rd. Such claims, with proper affidavits required by law, shall then be certified for payment by the City car Cc ty- tt r. of Spokane or as arranged by the f iusilBoard. Section 10: REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY The Council may, through gift, de_v_i_sa�p rohas lease or other form of come ante, acquire hold rnana.e use and disco a of real and personal property necessary for th first undertaking set forth ,herein with such property ac€luisition upon such terms and conditions as agre c bV the Beam. it is re co any public or private entity may appropriate funds and may sell, Lase, give or otherwise supply real and personal property, personnel and services to the Council or other legal or administrative entity for the purpose of o erati' r tt�o otrrt er Wive undertaking. The runcil may not acquire or use real property to o2prate a transportation s y s t e m e coc pt as rr�ay be pecificall ° authorized by law. I I property acquired by the Cotincil shall be titled in the name of Spokane County, 1ashinton and shall be_restrited by deed to use for transportation related purposes only Section 11: INSURANCE The Council shall obtain property and liability insurance for the matters set forth in this A reernerrivith covers es and limits reasonably determined by the Council, provided, insurance coverageA for comprehensive general liability auto liability, employ meet practices Ilability, pul lic officials errors a omissions liability, shall not be less than $_10,000,000 in the aqpaciptip. March 16, 2010 . 10 Section 12: INTER-RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COUNCIL, CITIES AND COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSIONS Cities and County Planning Commissions shall continue their respective functions as provided by charter and/or State law, including preparation of Cities' and County Comprehensive Plans, to which the Metropolitan Transportation Plan and IFegiional Transportation Improvement '. -- shall be coordinated, and administering the zoning, subdivision and similar implementing controls as may be assigned them by their respective legislative bodies. The successful execution of Council duties and responsibilities in preparing a Metropolitan Transportation Plan and Regional Transportation improvement r tin, in coordination with state and local plans, requires comprehensive plans be prepared and kept up-to-date by the City, County, and Other Members for their respective jurisdictions. Section L.: AMENDMENTS This Agreement may be amended by n utual_-unan reement- f the-M , sconsent of the Count and sixty r ercent 60% of the cities and towns that represent seventy-f+ve percent 175%) of the cities' and towns' population. Section 4-214: TERMINATION The ` /Cities, County, STA, WSDOT, WS, r C or Other Members of the Council may terminate membership in the Council by giving written notice to the Council prior to August 1 of any year for the following year. Section 1315: PRIOR WRITTEN AGREEMENTS This Agreement shall supersede the following Agreements: Agreement creating the Spokane Regional Planning Conference, Spokane, Washington, dated December 15, 1966. An Amended Agreement between Spokane County, Washington, and City of Spokane, Washington, to form a Spokane Regional Planning Conference, Define its Organization and Powers, and Establish its Regional Planning District, dated August 31, 1972. March 16,_2010 _11 An Amended Agreement between Spokane County, Washington, and the City of Spokane, Washington, and other municipalities, to form Spokane Regional Council, Define its Organization and Powers, and Establish Regional Council Jurisdiction Area, dated August 15, 1984. An Interlocal Agreement among Spokane County, City of Spokane, Washington State Department of Transportation, Spokane Transit Authority, and Other Cities and Towns "` :. _H ,__Spokane County, to Fr-omform a Regional Transportation Council, Define its Organization and Powers, and Establish a Regional Council Jurisdictional Area dated October 12, 1993. An Interlocal Agreement among Spokane County, City of Spokane, Washington State Department of Transportation, Spokane Transit Authority, and other Cities and Towns within Spokane County to form a Spokane Regional Transportation Council, Define its Organization and Powers, and Establish a Regional Council Jurisdictional Area dated April 28, 2003. Section EFFECTIVE DATE The effective date of this Agreement shall be upon ratification of this Agreement by--maierity all of-the .>: =- the County and, at least, sixty pardent_. 0%) of the cities and towns within the council area that represent seventv_five eroent (75%) of the cities' and towns' o wul_ation. Section 17: METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION (MPO) DESIGNATION The execution of this Agreement by the signatures affixed hereto Members is not intended to act as a revocation of the MPO designation-or constitute a_suk tantial change in authority or respons i it tv of the MPO and shall not be interpreted to require_the redesignation of the IVIPO under the F-ederal Hi --e cisted-prior to the--effeotive date-1 rei ove23 CFR § 450.310. Section 18: SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST The Council, as provided for herein, shall be the successor in interest to all grants, contracts, and other documents entered into by the Council's predecessor, the Spokane Regional Council. Section 19: DEFAULT _ Failure by any Member to perform. observe or corn tly with the covenants as reerne is or conditions on its part contained in this Agreement uhe ti at_failure carptroues for a reriod of thirty+ f3 } days after written notice from the Council to the defaultim Member shall constitute an "Event of Default,°' Section 20: REMEDIES In the event of an Event of Default the Council may at any time,without waiving or limiting any other right ht or remedy, pursue any_remedy al€owed by law including, bar way of a arr p€e and without limitation, specific performance dec€oratory iudgment and other equitable reedies, and recovery cif attorney" m fees and other costs for such enforcement action. Section 21: GENERAL TERMS This Agreement contains terms and conditions agreed upon by the Members_ The Members agree that there are not other understandings, oral or otherwise regarding the subject matter of this Aareement_ This Actreeme�at shall be bind€riot upon the Members hereto, their successors and assigns. In the event are •ortlon of this Agreement should become invalide or unenforceable. the rest of the A.regiment shall rernai in fu I force and effect This Agreement shall be construed under the laws of Washington State; Any action at law, suit in equit+ or iudiclal proceeding regarding this Agreement or any provision hereto shall be institutit d taunted only in courts of competent Jurisdiction within Spokane County. Washington. This greem nt ay be executed In any number of counterparts, acb of which, when so executed and delivered, shall be an original, but such counterparts shall together constitute but one and the same, Nothing In this Agreement is Intended to give, or shall give, whether directly or indirectly, acv benefit or richt greater than that enjoyed by the general public, to third: persons; March to, 2010 Page 13 The section headings in this Agreement have been Interestst rt+ d solely for the_purpose of convenience and ready refer nce. In no way do they purport to and shall not be deemed to define, limit, or extend the scope or intent of the sections to which they pertain. Section 22=IR RCW CHAPTER 39.34 REQUIRED CLAUSES A. PURPOSE See Section No. 2 above. B. DURATION This Agreement is ,perpetual until the loin': and comprehensive undertaking is either voluntaril dis lyed or discontinued pursuant to R T8O O Ci, C. ORGANIZATION OF SEPARATE ENTITY AND ITS POWERS 5 : ation N1 - . 91,1-0--and-1 The Board shall administer the joint and cooperative undertakings set forth herein. D. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE PAI ,TIFS See provisions above. E. AGREEMENT T TO BE PILED This Agreement may be filed with the County Auditor or published on the Members' vyebsites, as available. F. FINANCCNG See Section Nos. B and 9 above., G. TERi+.+1INATi N See Section No. 14 above. H. PROPERTY UPON TERMINATION 1'i;.ircb 16, 2010 Page 14 Member terminating its merribershlp in the Council as rc y ded for in Section 1i hereirnabove shall forfeit any ownership Interest in any personal or rr al pror erty owned or held by the Council, Personal property acquired by the Council In the performance of this Agreement shall rem i h�Fae disposed of by the C until u•on termination of the A•reernent. Unless otherwise reiuired b law or agreement, cash and cash proceeds_from sale of personal ro ert shall be disbursed to the Members according to the contribution..made by the Member asset forth in this Agreement. Real- 1 Y—shaft-be--oerweyedt' i pose as set forth--- --this Agree +[ r�#e erset . _ I re a, separate i• attar Went-- rr a l--resermation-i cal property shall be conveyed/disposed as yet forth in this Agreement in the same manner as •ersonel •ro.ert Cxc- it where 8 so•arate instrument oi`ld edl reservation st uith regard #oany real property__irt which instance it shall control,-) IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Members hereto have entered into this Agreement on the day and year . 94t forth—taeroi of their respective. ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County, Washington this day of Mark Richard er *i e-M !_. , Chair ATTEST: DANIELA ERICKSON vi-af Ic--I act r Bonnie MaCi , , Vice- Chair CLERK OF THE BOARD tviarch 1.+ , ZQ. P , 15 By: _ Goa- Danie&a Erickson spot, - Todd Mielke, Clerk of the Board Commissioner ATTEST: CITY OF SPOKANE By City Clerk Mayor Date: Approved as to form: Assistant City Attorney WASHINGTON STATE SPOKANE TRANSIT AUTHORITY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Secretary of Transportation Chair WASHINGTON STATE TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION Chair Date: CITY OF AIRWAY HIS., CITY OF CHENEY, WASHINGTON WASHINGTON Mayor Mayor — — Mat• 201(1 '.16 CITY OF DEER PARK, WASHINGTON CITY OF FAIRFIELD, WASHINGTON Mayor Mayor Date: CITY OF LATAH, WASHINGTON CITY OF LIBERTY LK., WASHINGTON Mayor Mayor Date CITY OF MEDICAL LAKE, CITY OF MILLWOOD, WASHINGTON WASHINGTON Mayor Mayor CITY OF ROCKFORD, WASHINGTON CITY OF SPANGLE, WASHINGTON Mayor Mayor CITY OF WAVERLY, WASHINGTON CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, WASHINGTON Mayor Mayor March 16, 2010 �i...,, _17 J : 7 f . Spokane Re loon)Transportation Council 221 W.First Avenue,Suite 310 Spokane,WA 99201-3613 ))) \\\,.. / (509)3,13-6370 FAX: (509)313.6.100 3.e) MEMORANDUM SRTC Inter-local Agreement Update Date: March 5, 2010 To: SRTC Board From: Stan Schwartz, Legal Counsel Glenn F. Miles, Transportation Manager Subject: SRTC Interlocal Agreement Update Attached is the latest draft of the Interlocal Agreement that reflects comments from Spokane County, City of Spokane and STA plus a letter from the City of Spokane. I have also received some comments from Liberty Lake, some of which are in the Agreement and others that will be discussed with the, Board. Following our presentation to the Spokane Valley City Council, 1 understand they have a workshop scheduled for March 23 to review and perhaps modify the Interlocal. I will contact City Attorney, Mike Connelly, to get more information and direction. Given the above, I do not anticipate STRC Board Action on the Interlocal Agreement at the regular March.meeting. Exhibit D • 7 }��' OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY SPOKANE�I 808 W. SPOKANE FALLS BLVD 1 Oil JP ate. SPOKANE, WASHINGTON 99201.3126 / )''„ (509)625-6225 TELEPHONE '• (509)625-6277 FACSIMILE s )\ '1 )) )) . HOWARD F. DELANEY February 2, 2010 CITY ATTORNEY PATRICK J.DALTON Stanley M. Schwartz SENIOR ASSISTANT ATTORNEY Witherspoon Kelly Davenport & Toole, P.S. 422 W. Riverside Avenue, Suite 1100 PRACTICE GROUPS Spokane, WA 99201-0300 Administrative BARBARA A. BURNS Re: Revised SRTC Interlocal Agreement MICHAEL J.Piccolo TIMOTHY E. SZAMBELAN Dear Stan, Jim A, hLEDSOA The City Council reviewed the revised SRTC Interlocal Agreement at its January 28th study session. Based on its discussion, the City has Environmental/Utilities the following revisions and comments to the agreement. ROBERT G. BEAUMIER,JR. CARRIE E.HOLTAN Section 5:- Governing Body and Officers Labor Relations The City believes further discussion by the Board is necessary in PATRICK J.DALTON regards to the makeup of the membership. As revised, the Board ERIKA,JACOBSON membership is increased to an even number. The City is concerned that the larger number of board members will create a cumbersome Land Use/Real Estate process and that the even number of members will create a situation JAMES A. RICHMAN where decisions cannot be made because of a tie vote. One solution to reducing the number of board members and eliminating an even Litigation number of members is to change the private sector representative to Rocco TREPPIEDI a non-Voting ex official position. in addition, the City will want to SALVATORE 3. FAGGIANO discuss the potential of including, as either a voting member or non- ELLEN M. O'HARA voting ex official member, a person representing a multi-modal BRUCE E. Cox interest in transportation. Section 7: Staff and Support The City believes additional language is appropriate to clarify the duties and functions of the Executive Director, including the authority to make financial expenditures on behalf of the Board. The duties and functions would be set forth in separate policies and procedures adopted by the Board. A suggested policy regarding financial expenditures would be to impose a dollar amount limitation on expenditure made by the Executive Director. Proposed language has been inserted in the revised agreement. • Stanley M. Schwartz Witherspoon Kelley Davenport & Toole, P,S, February 2, 2010 Page 2 Section 8: Work Program and Annual Budget The City believes that it is appropriate to provide an explanation of the financial allocation of the SRTC. annual budget so that the methodology for determining the allocation of costs, appropriations and expenditures is established and understood by each member agency. Proposed language has been inserted in the revised agreement, Section 9: Allocation of Costs, Appropriations and Expenditures • Additional language has been added to reflect the previous revisions in Section 7 regarding the authority of the Executive Director to make expenditures. Proposed language has been inserted in the revised agreement. Section 10: Real and Personal Property The City recognizes that the interlocal agreement must comply with the requirement of RCW 39,34.030(4)(b) by explaining the manner by which SRTC shall acquire, hold and dispose of real and personal property used in the joint or cooperative undertaking. However, the City believes further discussion with the SRTC Board is appropriate to specifically resolve the issue of SRTC purchasing real property. I will forward to you by e-mail an electronic.copy of the revised agreement with the changes discussed above. The revisions were made to the revised copy generated by Laura McAloon so that only one revised draft will be created. Please let me know if you have any questions, Sincerely, Michael J. Piccolo Assistant City Attorney Enclosure via email o: Laura D. MCAloon James Emacio K & L Gates Chief Civil Prosecuting Attorney 613 W. Riverside Avenue, Suite 300 1115 W. Broadway Avenue Spokane, WA 99201 Spokane, WA 99260 H:1MJP\SRTC1Feb..2!Jr Re Revised SRTC ILA.doc DRAFT ADVANCE AGENDA For Planning Discussion Purposes Only as of March 19, 2010; 1:30 p.m. Please note this is a work in progress; items are tentative To: Council & Staff From: City Clerk, by direction of Acting City Manager Re: Draft Schedule for Upcoming Council Meetings Tuesday,March 30,2010, 2:00 p.m.- 4:30 p.m. Spokane Valley Council Chambers [due Mon March 22] Joint Meeting with City of Spokane Mayor and Council Tentative Topics: Animal Control; Solid Waste;Jail; Transportation Benefit District March 30,2010, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,March 22] 1. International Trade Alliance 4th Quarter Report—Mark Peters, Exec. Dir. (15 minutes) 2. Energy Efficiency Block Grant Update—Mike Basinger (20 minutes) 3. Annual Comp Plan Proposed Amendments— Christina Janssen/Mike Basinger (30 minutes) 4. Airway Heights Interlocal,Plan Review Services—Mike Jackson (15 minutes) 5. Admin Report: Barker Bridge Update— Steve Worley (20 minutes) 6. Advance Agenda (5 minutes) 7. Executive Session [*estimated meeting: 105 minutes] April 6,2010, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,March 29] 1. Spokane Valley Arts Council Update—Dr. Harkin (10 minutes) 2. Collaborative Planning, Boundary Review Board— Susan Winchell; Brett Sheckler (30 minutes) 3. Commute Trip Reduction (CTR)Plan—Morgan Koudelka (15 minutes) 4. Snow Operations—Neil Kersten (20 minutes) 5. Solid Waste Update—Mike Jackson (15 minutes) 6. Transportation Benefit District—Cary Driskell (30 minutes) 7. Comp Plan Update—Greg McCormick (15 minutes) 8. Advance Agenda (5 minutes) 9. Executive Session: [*estimated meeting: 140 minutes] April 13,2010 Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. Idue date Mon,April 5] Proclamation: Take Kids to Work Day 1. Consent Agenda: Claims,Payroll, Minutes (5 minutes) 2. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance Adult Entertainment — Cary Driskell (10 minutes) 3. First Reading Proposed Ordinance Amending Comp Plan— Christina Janssen/Mike Basinger(20 minutes) 4. First Reading Proposed Ordinance Amending Zoning Map—Christina Janssen/Mike Basinger(10 minutes) 5. Proposed Amended Fee Resolution,Adult entertainment Appeal Process— Cary Driskell (10 minutes) 6. Proposed Resolution Adopting Amended 2010 TIP— Steve Worley (10 minutes) 7. Admin Report: Advance Agenda (5 minutes) 8. Executive Session: [*estimated meeting: 70 minutes] April 20, 2010, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,April 19] 1. Advance Agenda 2. Code Enforcement Update—Kathy McClung (20 minutes) 3. Executive Session [*estimated meeting: minutes] Draft Advance Agenda 3/19/2010 1:49:12 PM Page 1 of 3 April 27,2010,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,April 191 1. Consent Agenda: Claims,Payroll, Minutes (5 minutes) 2. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance Amending Comp Plan— Christina Janssen/Mike Basinger(10 minutes) 3. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance Amending Zoning Map—Christina Janssen/Mike Basinger(10 minutes) 4. First Reading Proposed Ordinance Amending CTR Plan—Morgan Koudelka (10 minutes) 5. Admin Report: Advance Agenda (5 minutes) 6. Admin Report: Council Broadcasting—Greg Bingaman/Morgan Koudelka (70 minutes) 7. Info Only: Department Reports 8. Executive Session [estimated meeting: 110 minutes] May 4,2010, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,April 26] 1. Six-Year 2011-2016 Transp. Improvement Plan— Steve Worley (20 minutes) 2. Advance Agenda (5 minutes) 3. Executive Session [*estimated meeting: minutes] May 11,2010 Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. 'due date Mon,May 3] 1. Consent Agenda: Claims,Payroll, Minutes (5 minutes) 2. First Reading Proposed Ordinance Amending CTR Plan—Morgan Koudelka (10 minutes) 3. Admin Report: Advance Agenda (5 minutes) 4. Executive Session: [*estimated meeting: minutes] May 18, 2010, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,May 101 1. Advance Agenda 2. Executive Session [*estimated meeting: minutes] May 25,2010,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,May 171 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Six-Year 2011-2016 Transp. Improvement Plan (10 minutes) 2. Consent Agenda: Claims,Payroll, Minutes (5 minutes) 3. Admin Report: Advance Agenda (5 minutes) 4. Info Only: Department Reports 5. Executive Session restimated meeting: minutes] June 1,2010, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,May 24] 1. Advance Agenda (5 minutes) 2. Executive Session [*estimated meeting: minutes] June 8,2010 Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,May 311 1. Consent Agenda: Claims,Payroll, Minutes (5 minutes) 2. Proposed Resolution Adopting Six-Year 2011-2016 TIP— Steve Worley (10 minutes) 3. Admin Report: Advance Agenda 4. Executive Session [*estimated meeting: minutes] June 15,2010, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon, June 7] 1. Advance Agenda (5 minutes) 2. Executive Session [*estimated meeting: minutes] Draft Advance Agenda 3/19/2010 1:49:12 PM Page 2 of 3 June 22,2010 Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,June 141 1. Consent Agenda: Claims,Payroll, Minutes (5 minutes) 2. Executive Session [*estimated meeting: minutes] June 29,2010, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,June 21] 1. Advance Agenda (5 minutes) 2. Executive Session [*estimated meeting: minutes] OTHER PENDING AND/OR UPCOMING ISSUES/MEETINGS: Accomplishments Report—Mike Jackson ADA Plan Affordable Housing Participation Alternative Analysis (contracts) Area Agency on Aging Bidding Contracts (SVMC 3. —bidding exceptions) Budget(2010 Amendment) Budget 2011 (fall 2010) Community Development Block Grant(Fall 2010) Concurrency East Gateway Monument Structure # Hotel/Motel Grant Proposals for 2011 (Nov 2010) Law Enforcement Contract Lobbyist Presentation(Gordon, Thomas,Honeywell) Milwaukee Right-of-way 1 Outside Agencies Presentation (August) Overweight/over size vehicle ordinance Planned Action Ordinance Retreat, summer(June ) Sheriff Office Request, Emergency Mgmt Update Solid Waste Board/Governance ■ Sprague Appleway Corridor Environ. Assessment Transportation Benefit District: (a). Establish ord.; (b)set public hearing; (c) draft resolution; (d) ballot language Transportation Impacts Waste Management Leased Site WIRA,Water Protection Commitment,public education =request for Council's early consideration #=Awaiting action by others * =doesn't include time for public or council comments Draft Advance Agenda 3/19/2010 1:49:12 PM Page 3 of 3 pok .ne Community Development .000 Valley Monthly Report y February 2010 PERMIT CENTER Revenue Permits Permit revenue for the month of February was $83,804. This is an improvement over Feb. '09 by approx 19%. Permit Revenue $200,000 $150,000 - $100,000 $50,000 $0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec _2010 Revenue 2009 Revenue Land Use Land Use revenue for the month of February is $11,298. Land Use revenue for February 2010 is below Feb of'09 by about $800.00 but year to date is ahead of last year so far. Page 1 of 10 Spokane Community Development 4000 Valley Monthly Report y February 2010 Land Use Revenue $80,000 .=S $70,000 $60,000 $50,000 $40,000 $30,000 $20,000 1„, $10,000 '„ so Jan Feb Mar April May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec G2010 Revenue G2009 Revenue Page 2 of 10 pok .ne Community Development .0000 Valley Monthly Report y February 2010 rah' izluatton The valuation' for February was $6,339,645. $30,000,000 Permit Valuation $25,000,000 $20,000,000 , $15,000,000 $10,000,000 $5,000,000 $0 —" Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec 2010 Valuation —12009 Valuation Office f7inancia1 ianaagementPermit_Information (Permits lss'ued) February 2010 Dwelling Residential New Separate Demolition Units Structures Dwelling Units Permits Demolished Single Family Residence 9 0 0 0 Duplex Triplex 4-Plex Apartments February 2010 New Tenant Commercial Buildings Improvements Additions 10 9 0 1 Per the currently adopted Master Fee Schedule, valuations reported above for commercial and residential construction permits are"assigned based on the value of the construction work as stated by the applicant or the value calculated by the Building Official using the latest valuation data published in the Building Safety Journal by the International Code Council, whichever is greatest." Page 3 of 10 pok .ne Community Development .000 Valley Monthly Report y February 2010 Permit Activity Certificate of Occupancy The Community Development staff issued 8 Certificates of Occupancy in February. They were Rocket Bakery, Consolidated Supply, One Church storage bldg, Jacob's Upholstery, Wilbur Ellis, Icon Corporation, Real Deals Home Decor, Alliance Machine Inc. Permits Issued Community Development issued a total of 200 permits in February, this is right in line with February of last year Construction Permits Issued 350 300 250 200 Aril ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ 150 Fri . . I . i . • . . i 100 0 1 ■ ■ i . . . . . ■ m 50 d I • 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec •2010 Permits 158 200 •2009 Permits 159 192 221 250 260 302 305 275 255 331 200 243 r Page 4 of 10 poka.ne Community Development 40000 Valley Monthly Report y February 2010 Land Use Applications In the month of February there were 3 boundary line adjustments, 1 conditional use permit, 2 pre- application meeting requests, 2 preliminary binding site plans, 1 preliminary short subdivision, 2 temporary sign permits, 1 temporary use permit. Commercial Pre-application Meetings During the month of February, Community Development staff held 3 commercial pre-application meetings which included an equipment storage business, maintenance building and medical office. . SEPA Determinations Four SEPA determinations were issued in February, a Determination of Non Significance (DNS) for a 52-lot subdivision, 2 code amendments and a grade and fill. Hearing Examiner The Hearing Examiner had one hearing in February. SUB-04-07, a subdivision to divide 3.8 acres into 17 single family lots with 4 lots designated as single family attached development. Business Licenses Staff Approved 134 business licenses in February. Home Occupation Permits Staff approved 5 home occupation permits in February. Entertainers Licenses Staff processed 8 adult entertainment licenses for the month of February. Express Permits Staff processed 4 Express Permits in February. CustomerSerrIce The Permit Center staff assisted 346 customers at the counter and handled 373 customers' inquires by phone in the Permit Center during February. The Permit Center staff provided an average target date of 10 working days for Commercial projects, 5 working days for Residential platted and 10 working days for Residential un-platted. This target date represents the time to first comments issued to the applicant. Page 5of10 >%7Community Development V ale Monthly Report February 2010 Inspections Right of Way The Right-of-Way inspector performed 491 inspections in February. Right-of-Way Inspections 1200 1000 • 800 • • 600 — • 400 200 • • • 0 O O O Q Q O O Jan Feb ar Apr. May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec 0 2010 221 491 2009 164 265 506 774 1137 1058 1058 641 860 718 555 174 Building Plans Examiners reviewed 59 projects February and have 26 pending projects were awaiting review at the end of month. There were 187 commercial inspections and 387 residential inspections in February. Commercial is steady to last year and residential is up. 700 Building Inspections Performed 600 500 400 - 300 • 200 100 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec ■2010 Commercial 393 387 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • 2010 Residential 229 187 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2009 Commercial 221 237 304 257 302 628 649 582 580 584 459 438 X2009 Residential 220 188 199 181 143 189 222 219 202 322 166 253 Page 6 of 10 poka.ne Community Development 0 Ville Monthly Report y February 2010 Development Engineering During the month of February the Development Engineering Inspector performed 18 inspections. Development Engineering Inspections 40 30 20 10 id 0 1111 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec — 2010 • 2009 UPDATES Planning Planning Commission The Planning Commission met twice in February. During the first meeting the Commission held a public hearing regarding two code amendments, one regarding a change to fencing and modifications to some clearview triangle standards the other a privately initiated amendment to conditionally allow second-hand and consignment stores in an I-1 zone and a study session regarding the annual Comprehensive Plan amendments. The second meeting was the public hearing for the Comprehensive Plan amendments. City Center Environmental Impact Statement and Planned Action Ordinance (PAO) The final City Center EIS was issued in February. The Final EIS includes comments and responses to comments received on the Draft EIS. The next step is to draft a "Planned Action Ordinance" that addresses impacts identified in the FEIS. Staff has scheduled this item with the Planning Commission for a public hearing on March 25th. Growth Management Steering Committee of Elected Officials The Steering Committee of Elected Officials (SCEO) cancelled its February meeting, the next scheduled meeting is March 17th. The PTAC met twice in February to discuss the ongoing 10 year Urban Growth Area Review effort. 2010 Comprehensive Plan Amendments/Updates The Community Development Department received one (1) request for a site-specific Comprehensive Plan Amendment for 2010. The City initiated two site-specific Comprehensive Plan Amendments. Sites approved for a Comprehensive Plan amendment will automatically receive a zoning designation consistent with the new land use designation. The 2010 Comprehensive Plan text amendments include amendments to five Comprehensive Plan Elements: Chapter 2 - Land Use, Chapter 3 — Transportation, Chapter 4 — Capital Facilities and Public Services, Chapter 7 — Economic Development, and Chapter 8 — Natural Environment. The Page 7 of 10 poka.ne Community Development 4000 Valley Monthly Report y February 2010 amendments may also entail minor changes to other elements referencing the proposed amendments. On February 25, 2010, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the 2010 Comprehensive Plan Amendments. The Planning Commission received public testimony, deliberated on the 2010 amendments, and recommended approval as presented by staff. Code Amendments The Planning Commission held study sessions and public hearings in February on proposed code amendments. The "batch" code amendment includes clear view triangle, fencing and other amendments and a privately initiated amendment to conditionally allow second hand/consignment stores in the I-1, Light Industrial zoning district. City Council was briefed on these amendments at a study session on February 23rd Shoreline Master Program Work continued on the SMP update. The Technical Review Draft of the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report was issued for comment. An open house was conducted on Feb 4, 2010, to gather present and gather input on the Inventory report. Dpartment-Vie e Energy Grant Energy Grant funds became available in February. Public Works continues transportation projects that will result in energy conservation and carbon footprint reduction. The Avista Utilities partnering project began with a soft-launch of home energy audits. Full advertisement and official kickoff is expected in March. An expanded work plan for the Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan has been developed. ADA Study Individual departments are working on the ADA self-evaluation surveys. Field surveys of curb ramps continue. A list of stakeholders is being developed and a meeting will be scheduled with them after the ADA project is presented to the City Council (date to be assigned). • Bike/Pedestrian Plan (BPMP) Staff developed a work program outlining tasks and the anticipated work products. Staff is continuing to compile a stakeholder contact list to categorizing interest in the BPMP to ensure an inclusive public participation process. Training On March 9, 2010 Greg McCormick, Scott Kuhta, Mary May and Mike Basinger attended a webinar sponsored by American Planning Association (AICP continuing education) ethics in planning. Wellhead Protection Scott attended a wellhead protection committee meeting, a regional committee that recently became active after an extended time off. The focus of the group is to collaboratively develop regulations that will protect drinking water. Page 8 of 10 Spvkane Community Development 4000 Tel Monthly Report V February 2010 Cote Compliance Citizen Action Requests Code Compliance officers received 97 Citizen Action Requests for the month of February. 2010 Code Total Violations Reported - by Category 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Clear View Triangle 2 0 •Complaint- No Violation 3 2 •Environmental 0 0 Junk Auto 10 19 •Property 16 19 ['Signs 15 31 •Solid Waste 16 26 Code Violation Totals 120 100 80 60i 40 20 LfLILIIIThiEI Jan Feb Mar Apr Ma Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec y ▪2010 62 97 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ▪2009 33 36 97 94 111 50 89 98 51 61 22 98 Page 9 of 10 Siiokane Community Development V Valle Monthly Report February 2010 Right-of-Way Site Distance Compliance Code Compliance Officers continue to collect data points. Staff is currently processing a code amendment regarding the Clearview Triangles and held a public hearing for this amendment during the February 11 meeting of the Planning Commission. UPCOMING DATES OF INTEREST 1. DATE INTEREST 1 March 2 Joint meeting with City Council and Planning Commission — Shoreline Master Program update March 5 I REDCON —Kathy McClung on the panel. March 11 Hearing Examiner—Elephant Boys Appeal March 11 Planning Commission Regular Meeting —Cancelled No Business. March 25 Hearing Examiner—SUB-01-09 Rezone r-3 to R-4 and 12 lots between 411' and 611' off Progress March 25 Planning Commission Regular Meeting Public Hearing regarding the Planned Action Ordinance. April 8 I Planning Commission Regular Meeting April 13 I Council Meeting —Comprehensive Plan Amendments 1St reading April 22 I Planning Commission Regular Meeting April 27 I Council Meeting —Comprehensive Plan Amendments 2 na reading Page 10 of 10 sio' s ane Valley 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 • Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.921.1000 • Fax: 509.921.1008 • cityhall@spokanevalley.org Memorandum To: Mike Jackson, Acting City Manager From: Ken Thompson, Finance Director Date: March 11, 2010 Re February Report February highlights in Finance included: Financial reports Reports showing a comparison of revenues and expenditures at February 28, 2010, to the 2010 Budget, are attached. Sales tax receipts for 2010 have been attached for your review as well. It appears sales tax receipts for 2010 are tracking very close to 2009. Gambling tax receipts are expected to have a large uncollectible portion, as casinos struggle to make ends meet. Staff is pursuing collection of the delinquent gambling tax but full collection is unlikely. Beginning Fund Balance in the General Fund will be greater than our estimates. The investment report is also attached for your review. Staff preparing 2009 financial records Staff has started the process to ready 2009 financial records for the audit in 2010. Other tasks +A review of televising council meetings is underway. +Full width pave back is being investigating +A property tax reduction is being examined +Possible amendments to the 2010 are being reviewed. +Plans are being prepared for the preparation of the 2011 Budget City of Spokane Valley General Fund Budget Variance Report For the Period Ended February 28, 2010 Adopted Budget February YTD Unrealized Percent 2010 • Revenues Revenues Revenue Realized General Fund Revenues: Begining Fund Balance $ 19,375,000 19,375,000 $ - 100.00% 6 Property Tax 10,969,500 21,833 21,833 10,947,667 0.20% Sales Tax 16,600,000 1,693,910 1,693,974 14,906,026 10.20% Gambling Tax 425,000 7,130 6 424,994 0.00% 12 Franchise Fees/Business Licenses 1,100,000 6,375 12,536 1,087,464 1.14% 12 State Shared Revenues 1,450,000 731 731 1,449,269 0.05% 12 Planning&Building Fees 1,649,786 91,374 180,188 1,469,598 10.92% Fines and Forfeitures 1,594,700 144,208 155,343 1,439,357 9.74% Recreation&Centerpiece Fees 740,000 37,036 121,877 618,123 16.47% Investment Interest 416,864 11,420 16,077 400,787 3.86% Operating Transfers 220,000 - - 220,000 0.00% 17 Total General Fund Revenues: $ 54,540,850 2,014,018 21,577,566 $ 32,963,284 39.56% Adopted Budget February YTD Unrealized Percent 2010 Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Realized General Fund Expenditures: Legislative Branch 322,120 19,387 92,470 229,650 28.71% Executive&Legislative Support 1,063,842 317,963 394,623 669,219 37.09% Public Safety 22,062,268 1,318,576 1,528,865 20,533,403 6.93% Operations&Administrative Svcs 1,892,382 121,756 252,018 1,640,364 13.32% Public Works 893,793 56,554 111,696 782,097 12.50% Planning&Community Dev. 3,552,450 216,944 450,081 3,102,369 12.67% Parks&Recreation 2,926,033 122,251 200,375 2,725,658 6.85% General Government 21,827,963 114,730 419,563 21,408,400 1.92% 18 Total General Fund Expenditures: $ 54,540,851 $ 2,288,162 $ 3,449,690 $ 51,091,181 6.32% 03/11/2010 4:28 PM City of Spokane Valley Other Funds Budget Variance Report For the period ended February 28, 2010 Adopted Budget February YTD Unrealized Percent 2010 Revenues Revenues Revenue Realized Other Funds Revenues: Street Fund $ 7,399,050 $ 518,278 $ 406,995 6,992,055 5.50% 8 Trails and Paths 8,000 4 4 7,996 0.05% 3 Hotel/Motel Fund 400,000 22,764 22,764 377,236 5.69% Civic Facilities Replacement 1,240,000 99 99 1,239,901 0.01% 16 Debt Service-LTGO 03 650,000 - - 650,000 0.00% 2 Capital Projects Fund 1,948,000 30,209 30,209 1,917,791 1.55% 3 Special Capital Projects Fund 612,000 30,209 30,209 581,791 4.94% 3 Street Capital Projects 10,572,000 60,575 398 10,571,602 0.00% 3 Community Developmt Block Grnts 300,000 - - 300,000 0.00% 14 Capital Grants Fund 2,465,000 22,100 8,406 2,456,594 0.34% Barker Bridge Reconstruction 1,767,000 67,636 24,050 1,742,951 1.36% Stormwater Mgmt Fund 4,398,015 1,891 1,891 4,396,124 0,04% 8 Equip.Rental&Replacement 919,000 141 141 918,859 0.02% 8 Risk Management 258,000 3 258,003 (3) 100.00% Reserves: Centerpiece Operating 350,000 62 62 349,938 0.02% 7 Service Level Stabilization 5,400,000 955 955 5,399,045 0.02% 7 Winter Weather 505,000 - - 505,000 0.00% 13 Parks Capital 820,000 24 24 819,976 0.00% 3 Civic Buildings 5,827,000 1,029 1,029 5,825,971 0.02% 7 Total Other Funds Revenues: $ 45,838,065 S 755,986 S 785,247 S 45,052,818 1.71% Adopted Budget February YTD Unrealized Percent 2010 Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Realized Other Funds Expenditures: Street Fund $ 7,399,050 181,343 272,235 $ 7,126,815 3.68% 18 Trails and Paths 8,000 - - 8,000 0.00% 3 Hotel/Motel Fund 400,000 16,606 16,606 383,394 4.15% Civic Facilities Replacement 1,240,000 - - 1,240,000 0.00% 16 Debt Service LTGO 03 650,000 - (50,419) 700,419 -7.76% Capital Projects Fund 1,948,000 - - 1,948,000 0.00% 3 Special Capital Projects Fund 612,000 - - 612,000 0.00% 3 Street Capital Projects 10,572,000 85,845 49,131 10,522,869 0.46% 3 Community Developmt Block Grnts 300,000 - - 300,000 0.00% 14 Capital Grants Fund 2,465,000 24,848 46,950 2,418,050 1.90% Barker Bridge Reconstruction 1,767,000 21,950 47,683 1,719,317 2.70% Stormwater Mgmt Fund 4,398,015 39,131 79,354 4,318,661 1.80% 18 Equip. Rental&Replacemnt 919,000 - - 919,000 0.00% 9 Risk Management 258,000 - 288,597 (30,597) 111.86% Reserves: Centerpiece Operating 350,000 - - 350,000 0.00% 10 Service Level Stabilization 5,400,000 - - 5,400,000 0.00% 13 Winter Weather 505,000 - - 505,000 0.00% 13 Parks Capital 820,000 64,283 64,283 755,717 7.84% Civic Facilities Capital 5,827,000 17,866 17,866 5,809,134 0.31% 3 Total Other Funds Expenditures: $ 45,838,065 $ 451,872 832,286 $ 45,005,779 1112% 03141/2010 4.28 PM ' City of Spokane Valley Sales Tax Receipts Month by Month Comparison Year to date Month Percentage Received 2008 2009 Change February $ 1,690,170.61 $ 1,693,910.09 March 1,245,885.86 April 1,210,210.64 May 1,297,589.85 June 1,254,330.03 July 1,312,964.99 August 1,494,486.56 September 1,381,203.54 October 1,393,353.36 November 1,417,465.22 December 1,314,434.56 January 2010 1,221,873.05 2011 $ 1 6,233,968.27 $ 1,693,910.09 City of Spokane Valley Investment Report For the Month of February 2010 Total LGIP* Moiuntain West MM BB CD Investments Beginning $ 38,583,619.79 $ 52,644.21 $ 5,000,000.00 $ 43,636,264.00 Deposits 1,887,156.59 - $ 1,887,156.59 Withdrawls (1,500,000.00) - $ (1,500,000.00) Interest 7,789.36 36.35 - $ 7,825.71 Ending $ 38,978,565.74. $ 52,680.56 $ 5,000,000.00 $ 44,031,246.30 Balances by Fund 001 General Fund $ 23,531,399.93 101 Street Fund 1,904,442.43 102 Arterial Street - 103 Paths &Trails 21,585.52 105 Hotel/Motel 325,085.97 120 CenterPlace Operating Reserve 348,406.52 121 Service Level Stabilization Reserve 5,397,875.63 122 Winter Weather Reserve - 123 Civic Facilities Replacement 561,667.60 301 Capital Projects 1,500,422.92 302 Special Capital Projects 1,500,477.69 304 Mirabeau Point Project 41,346.85 309 Parks Capital Project 136,550.81 310 Civic Buildings Capital Projects 5,816,664.60 402 Stormwater Management 2,132,526.87 501 Equipment Rental & Replacement 795,987.23 502 Risk Management 16,778.06 $ 44,031,218.63 Pending Journal Entries $ 27.67 $ 44,031,246.30 *Local Government Investment Pool FOOTNOTES 1 Most costs are typically late in the year. 2 Debt paid twice each year(June and December.) 3 Capital projects often take a number of years to plan, engineer, acquire right of way and construct. 4 For Discovery Park. 5 Small amount of 05 library tax due district. Budgeted amount is too high. 6 Estimated, pending 09 review. 7 Interest earnings. 8 Beg. Bal. included which understates percent realized. 9 For replacement of vehicles & computers. 10 Required operating reserve, no expenditures planned for 2009. 11 Revenue for 2010 events will be moved to 2010. 12 Quarterly Payment to City. 13 Emergency use only. 14 Fund being phased out. 15 Most of this fund spent in late 08. 16 In reserve for replacement of buildings. 17 Transfers made quarterly. 18 Includes projected balances at 12-31-09, which understates percent realized. 03/11/2010 4:28 PM MEMO TO: Mike Jackson, City Manager FROM: Rick VanLeuven, Chief of Police DATE: March 12, 2010 RE: Monthly Report February 2010 February 2010: February 2009: CAD incidents: 4,506 CAD incidents: 4,835 Reports taken: 1,410 Reports taken: 1,600 Traffic stops: 1,648 Traffic stops: 1,711 Traffic reports: 261 Traffic reports: 296 CAD incidents indicate calls for service as well as self-initiated officer contacts. Hot spot maps are attached showing February residential burglaries, commercial burglaries, traffic collision hot spots and vehicle prowling hot spots, along with January 2010 and February 2010 stolen vehicle hot spots. Also attached are nine bar graphs for 2007, 2008, 2009 and February 2010: commercial burglary, garage burglary, residential burglary, forgery, malicious mischief, stolen vehicles, theft, vehicle prowling, and property crimes comparisons for 2007 through 2009. ADMINISTRATIVE: In early February, Mike Kralicek spoke to area law enforcement officers at the Sheriffs Training Center. His presentation was entitled "A Story of Courage and Survival." Chief VanLeuven attended the Spokane Valley Retreat at Centerplace on February 9th along with Spokane Valley Council members and city administration. Chief VanLeuven and Sheriff Knezovich recorded Public Safety Announcements at KXLY, announcing the Child Car Seat Patrols being conducted in the next few months. This emphasis patrol is funded by a grant through the Traffic Safety Commission. COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING: S.C.O.P.E. conducted a basic training class for new volunteers at the end of February, which included 25 new volunteers,with several recruits being retired law enforcement. S.C.O.P.E. participated in the following events during the month of February: • Law Enforcement Charity Hockey Game at the Spokane Arena,with all the proceeds of the event going to the Lakewood Memorial Trust Fund,benefitting families of the officers recently killed on duty. • Basic and COP Training • Greater Spokane Substance Abuse Council Coalition Meeting • Spokane Safe Kids Meeting • Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) Meeting • Participated in the Council of Governments on March 25, and • Open house at the Valley HUB on March 27 Page 1 February 2010 Volunteers Hours per station: CV S.C.O.P.E 806.0 hrs. Edgecliff S.C.O.P.E. 435.0 hrs. Trentwood S.C.O.P.E. 319.5 hrs. University S.C.O.P.E. 494.0 hrs. Total SV February 2,054.5 hrs. • S.C.O.P.E. Incident Response Team (SIRT) volunteers contributed 77 on-scene hours (including travel time) in February, responding to crime scenes, structure fires, motor vehicle accidents (including a hit and run) and providing traffic control. Of those hours, 21 hours were for incidents in the City of Spokane Valley. Year to date total volunteer hours contributed by SIRT, including training, stand-by, response and special events, is 1,032 hours. Most of the new SIRT applicants have signed up for flagging and defensive driving. Our SIRT "Basic" starts right after our next meeting on the March 13th. • We are beginning to report on juvenile runaways within the City of Spokane Valley, which are tracked by SCOPE volunteer Georgiana Sutherlin. For January, there were a total of 69 runaway reports made to the Sheriffs office, with 2 being from Spokane Valley. Both those juveniles have returned home and are no longer listed as runaways. In February, there were a total of 44 juvenile runaways,with 5 being from Spokane Valley; 4 have returned home and were cleared as runaways. • Abandoned vehicles tagged by S.C.O.P.E. volunteers for impoundment in the Spokane Valley in January totaled 32 and in February 17, with 7 and 2, respectively, vehicles eventually cited and towed. Nine hulks were processed in January and 14 hulks processed in February. During the month of February, a total of 53 vehicles were processed. S.C.O.P.E. DISABLED PARKING ACTIVITY REPORT JANUARY -DECEMBER 2010 City of Spokane Valley # of # of # of Disabled # of # of Non - Vol. Hrs Infractions Warnings Disabled Issued Issued Infractions Issued January 9 360 63 93 2 February 8 342 39 122 2 March Total 17 702 102 215 4 Spokane County # of # of # of Disabled # of # of Non - Vol. Hrs Infractions Warnings Disabled Issued Issued Infractions Issued January 6 47 1 23 0 February 5 78.5 0 15 0 March Total 11 125.5 1 38 0 Page 2 OPERATIONS: • Crime Spree - Two men went on a crime spree in early February, burglarizing at least three businesses in less than an hour. In all three burglaries, the suspects had the same plan: smash, grab, and get out. The Shell convenience store near Argonne and Mission was the first to be hit. Around 4:00 a.m.,two men shattered the front door, and crawled inside. A clerk says they left with a safe and a cash register. The next stop was four miles away, at Mission and Sullivan. The pattern was exactly the same, smashing in the front door, and a safe was also taken. Minutes later,the same suspects they hit a Taco Bell fast food restaurant at Sprague and University. Spokane Valley Police say the men were seen on surveillance video wearing dark hooded shirts, masks and gloves. Within a couple of hours of the incidents, Deputy Childress was called to a stolen vehicle recovery near the Taco Bell. Because he was aware of the incidents that had occurred on the prior shift, he was able to recognize some very small pieces of evidence located in the vehicle as tying the stolen vehicle to the burglaries. He had the vehicle towed for evidence processing and requested items to be printed that he rightfully believed were evidence. Detective Toliver was then assigned the case approximately one hour after the vehicle was recovered, and he and Detective Keyser immediately assisted in the processing of the stolen vehicle for more evidence. In just the next four working days, Toliver and Keyser were able to identify three subjects who had committed not just those three burglaries, but several others in Spokane County in the preceding four months. They were able to arrest the subjects for those crimes, obtain confessions from two of the three, and execute search warrants at two apartments, two storage units, and on two vehicles. They ultimately recovered evidence from the vehicles and apartments linking the subjects to the crimes. The result of their efforts and exceptional investigation skills were the prompt resolution of these cases and the arrest of very skilled and prolific criminals who were likely to continue victimizing Spokane Valley business owners. • A report was made in early February from an Idaho businessman regarding someone ordering large quantities of merchandise with compromised credit card account numbers, all being sent to a Spokane Valley address. Upon further research, eight other associated reports were found, all with essentially the same information. A UPS Security Supervisor assisted with the investigation and determined there were over 40 UPS deliveries made to that address since mid-December 2009. In addition,there were three other associated addresses identified. In late February, two search warrants were served by Spokane Valley Police detectives back-to-back at addresses in the Spokane Valley. The primary suspect was on probation for prior convictions of 1st Degree I.D. Theft, and had an active Department of Corrections warrant for Escape from Community Custody. He was located during one of the search warrants and taken into custody. A substantial amount of evidence was found to include stolen mail, I.D.'s, and credit cards, belonging to approximately 45 other persons. Although the investigation is on-going, it is anticipated there will be over 20 felony charges filed against the suspect. • Trio Survives Spectacular Crash -A 22-year-old Spokane man faces charges of Driving While under the Influence of Alcohol and Attempting to Elude a Police Vehicle after his 90+mph escape attempt ended in a spectacular crash at Sprague and Lee about 11:40 p.m. The suspect was not arrested, but was taken to a downtown hospital for treatment of minor injuries he suffered when he crashed his girlfriend's 2007 Saturn. Two passengers in the car, a 22-year-old man and 15-year-old boy, also were not seriously injured. Officer Jason Karnitz was patrolling the area of Sprague and Carnahan when he spotted the Saturn run a stop sign, tires squealing, as it turned westbound on Sprague. He caught up to the car and signaled it to stop with his emergency lights. The driver pulled over and stopped, but began revving the engine as the officer approached on foot. Fearing the car would back into him,the officer retreated to his patrol car whereupon the driver of the Saturn accelerated away at 90+mph and ran a red light at Altamont. Officer Karnitz discovered the crash scene at Sprague and Page 3 Lee. The Saturn had left the north side of Sprague, careened through the parking lot of a Zip's Drive- In, and then struck two dump trucks and a Ford Crown Victoria on a used car lot next door. He saw the suspect driver crawling away from the vehicle to the north and the 22-year-old ejected partially through the rear window. The teen passenger was outside the car and had tried to run away as well. Spokane Police Officer Cory Lyons captured the suspect whose escape was interrupted when he caught a business security cable across his neck. • Counterfeit Bills—In early, February, a man entered the GTX Truck Stop on East Cataldo and used a counterfeit $100 bill to purchase scratch lottery tickets. He was described as a white male in his 50's who had a beard. The following day, a man entered the Shell convenience store on East Broadway and used a counterfeit$100 bill to purchase $50 in scratch lotto tickets. The gas station manager had a bad feeling when the suspect asked for lottery tickets. The manager said the man handed him a $100 bill and because the suspect looked nervous, he checked the bill to see if it was real. The manager held the bill up to the light to check for the security thread. The manager gave the lottery tickets and $50 in change to the suspect. It wasn't until after the suspect was gone that he realized the bill was a fake. Police say the suspect bleached a$5 bill and altered it to look like a$100 bill, which appears very authentic. The Secret Service has also been called to help out with the case. • Burglar Nabbed, Property Recovered - Spokane Valley police recovered a large quantity of property stolen in a pair of residential burglaries that occurred at the end of February. One suspect was arrested and charged with Second-Degree Identity Theft and Possession of a Stolen Motor Vehicle. Detectives also have probable cause for the arrest of his partner in crime, who is currently wanted for Residential Burglary. Both could face additional felony charges as the investigation is furthered. According to Property Crimes Sgt. John Nowels, a residence was burglarized in the 11100 block of East Twenty-Second sometime in mid-February. In that break-in, the family's Dodge Durango was stolen and the home "cleaned out." The second burglary occurred in the 12000 block of East Twenty- Fourth and that family's Mitsubishi Outlander was stolen. That home was "cleaned out" as well, but the burglary was not discovered until later when the family returned from a Hawaiian vacation. Luckily, Spokane Police had stopped the Outlander after the burglary occurred and identified the driver and one of the passengers. In a follow-up to the traffic stop,members of the gang investigation team recognized the suspect's name and contacted him for further interviews. During questioning, they discovered he possessed a check stolen in the East Twenty-Fourth burglary. It was made out to him. That tidbit of information became key to linking the burglary, discovered afterward, to the suspect. Spokane Valley Police detective Roger Knight is leading the investigation, and said that both the Outlander and Durango have been recovered, as well as jewelry and other items stolen from both homes. • Bullet Narrowly Misses Sleeping Toddler-A three-year-old narrowly escaped injury when a suspect angry about a noise complaint fired a shot through the wall of an East Sprague apartment complex. Officers were called to the apartment on East Sprague about 10:25 p.m. by a man who reported the suspect shooting at his apartment from the parking lot below. When officers arrived, they saw a group of people standing on the upper landing and two bullet casings on the ground below. The complainant told them that he and a friend had been playing cards in another part of the complex and were walking back to his apartment when they were confronted by a pair of males demanding to know why he had called police about noise coming from an apartment next door. One of the suspects said he could "go crazy" at any moment. He was holding his hand under his sweatshirt near the waistband of his pants. When he began to lift the object out from under his shirt, the complainant thought it might be a gun and retreated into his apartment. He told officers he heard a pistol slide being worked as he closed the door. Moments later, shots were fired into the apartment wall. One of the bullets went into a bedroom where the complainant's three-year-old was sleeping. The bullet passed through the exterior wall about three feet off the floor, struck a metal bed post on the child's Page 4 bed and fell to the blankets. The child's mother moved the blanket to check the child and the bullet fell to the floor. The two suspects were gone when officers arrived. Investigation is ongoing. • Recognition of a Job Well Done — We often highlight officers who have performed a great investigation and arrested "the bad guy," but fail to bring to light when an officer simply goes the extra distance in following up a report. Deputy Jerad Kiehn was traveling down Sprague Avenue on a Sunday afternoon when he pulled a car over and found the driver's status to be suspended (DWLS). In doing some further checking, Deputy Kiehn determined there was a current,valid restraining order, between the driver and the passenger. Both persons were adamant that the last Protection Order between them had ended more than three months ago and explained numerous conversations the female driver has had with District Court in getting the restraining order dropped. They even got married based on those assurances from District Court. Deputy Kiehn further searched through records and understood why these two believed they were not disobeying an order. It was pointed out by them that their scheduled wedding date was significantly moved forward after being informed that the male was suffering from abdominal cancer. He has since become involved in regular chemotherapy treatment, with the next chemo session set for the following (Monday) morning at 0800AM. If he was booked into jail this afternoon, he undoubtedly was going to be unavailable for that important medical procedure. It was concluded that there was some question and/or confusion about the validity of the Protection Order, or at least whether this family had been officially mislead, albeit inadvertently, into believing it was no longer in effect. With that, Deputy Kiehn notified the shift commander of the circumstances, after which he concurred that no booking should be done and the male needed to be released to his parents. The subject had been mostly cooperative throughout the entire incident, but was especially thankful and gracious upon learning what we intended to do. Although it meant using much more work time and doing twice as much written paperwork, Deputy Kiehn is to be commended on"going the extra mile." Page 5 2009 FEBRUARY CRIME REPORT To date: Yearly totals: Feb-10 Feb-09 2010 2009 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 BURGLARY 65 55 145 104 725 753 584 714 744 997 FORGERY 17 22 50 66 297 354 365 334 464 465 MALICIOUS MISCHIEF 78 88 163 171 1245 893 1,265 1,122 904 1,224 NON-CRIMINAL 62 88 139 174 892 944 839 811 749 916 PROPERTY OTHER 93 70 167 150 933 828 890 982 1,154 1,665 RECOVERED VEHICLES 36 17 57 31 187 319 343 403 333 390 STOLEN VEHICLES 53 34 90 52 298 496 478 711 603 577 THEFT 160 176 342 332 2162 1,846 1,881 1,888 2,256 2,853 UIOBC 0 0 0 0 4 4 8 11 8 10 VEHICLE OTHER 0 0 0 1 5 7 3 3 5 40 VEHICLE PROWLING 89 56 218 166 920 1069 682 937 958 1,382 TOTAL PROPERTY CRIMES 653 606 1,371 1,247 7,668 7,513 7,338 7,916 8,178 10,519 ASSAULT 59 69 154 149 927 869 853 846 894 880 DOA/SUICIDE 16 18 37 32 210 269 221 167 159 164 DOMESTIC VIOLENCE 88 73 184 173 1226 1063 874 736 762 755 HOMICIDE 0 0 0 0 3 3 1 5 1 5 KIDNAP 2 5 2 5 21 16 23 22 35 24 MENTAL 27 25 58 50 310 360 350 425 425 386 MP 8 5 18 13 115 95 83 88 97 106 PERSONS OTHER 149 102 333 244 1621 1,354 1,337 1,159 1,256 1,624 ROBBERY 2 6 8 18 75 71 60 58 56 58 TELEPHONE HARASSMENT 9 12 20 31 159 95 73 83 92 190 TOTAL MAJOR CRIMES 360 315 814 715 4,667 4,195 3,875 3,589 3,777 4,192 ADULT RAPE 3 2 6 6 35 44 43 29 39 37 CHILD ABUSE 8 12 19 20 159 148 104 78 101 126 CUSTODIAL INTERFERENCE 5 10 16 20 157 86 92 105 88 205 SEX REGISTRATION F 0 1 0 1 2 3 4 3 6 4 INDECENT LIBERTIES 0 1 2 2 10 11 18 15 9 21 CHILD MOLESTATION 5 1 6 4 35 66 46 69 67 77 CHILD RAPE 1 6 1 9 35 39 31 62 35 30 RUNAWAY 31 30 53 68 440 369 295 309 311 437 SEX OTHER 19 12 37 33 211 179 194 203 181 162 STALKING 0 2 0 4 15 21 17 17 27 35 SUSPICIOUS PERSON 16 18 30 37 175 142 152 177 244 341 TOTAL SEX CRIMES 88 95 170 204 1271 1,108 996 1,067 1,108 1,475 DRUG 48 71 98 145 670 838 807 665 891 999 ISU OTHER 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 TOTAL ISU 48 71 98 145 671 838 808 665 891 1,000 TOTAL TRAFFIC REPORTS 261 285 557 529 3,183 3,811 3,800 3,345 2,403 2,776 TOTAL REPORTS RECEIVED 1,410 1,372 3,010 2,840 17,460 17,465 16,817 16,582 16,357 19,962 }sur211 itimmor in PI!PUPA roe areal -M� IIow INN 4 Freder 1=1,-,..;,"".__=Env w��wll E 7111 �� Brld.e 1��1 Gi '� Li..II 111111�=m +��_. 11111111111iIU•I iw" re ■ 'F! I !ox N e it �A.•1, _ I.m I��� Broadwa j .rounds UmmoRpME I: �E 11=-7aMM 1110 4 Ii1w.� m war m% IkMt .. m i erma �rt� IILJIiwr i--u eruM=wln .INlMwcslu 1PIIII•M CwS1ww.T.71ww .wwww3SSI- .r•r_—'. • 0===.7 >. •__G�_r ° ==== 3 mop s Ilk • "- � 1RI•th Ems% ,a Piggy IIIIC�Y��i�[ slllllr• oa •••••:1•1•1 I =PM mi YI.. w.-c,r«:�w1��wewusuullww>sE 1 0 2 03-4 Low Medium Low Medium High 0;5 (Mile 2010 February Traffic Collision Hotspots 45 40 35 30 25 20 1 1 5 0 5 0 Spokane Valley Commercial Burglary JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC ■2007 P12008 2009 ❑2010 ,,. 111111AMm 111111111111 11■ 1111 Ern.i re 111■IMAl•11111`■I P., r_m_om_..il m.- 'g1. u10 I��Broadwa C j .rounds IALEEE 11_ M P•- 'IL'VI.Gr4•ii Isnwr!ki. �L•il:�3SJ�/�. pi LLSUMIu.r, ��usllwM� •� WX UMMMM EINAMMw1I NPRINE WA 19 •■MSSSM •M-1•■■ •MAM7MM •■MMM •MMMl'Y' •==MM `L•11IriYIA �MH1E7wF�. tr, ��iM ice'Gl IWI ,,, 113 ► RI Illifi?11�•i�[ "1Z1!11�11 M �, �:,1w1 111 i re '.:r3 '' w. ` . - --� usmewr•�wcs��wwwww� c s�a�f.7!I��� 0 _� t�■ C�E3� [M�111'.1 • 2010 February Commercial Burglary Hotspots 50 - 45 40 35 Spokane Valley Forgery I fi JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 2007 • 2008 2009 ❑2010 25 20 15 10 5 0 Spokane Valley Garage Burglary i JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 2007 i 2008 2009 ❑2010 200 - 180 160 140 120 100 - 80 - 60 - 40 - 20 - 0 Spokane Valley Malicious Mischief I I 1 1 1 1 H 1 1 1 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 2007 • 2008 2009 ❑2010 2500 - 2000 1500 1000 500 Spokane Valley Property Crimes Comparisons (2010 is through February) 1 Commercial Residential Burglary Burglary Forgery Malicious Mischief 1 1 Stolen Vehicle t Theft Vehicle Prowling 2007 •2008 2009 ❑2010 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Spokane Valley Residential Burglary JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 2007 • 2008 2009 ❑2010 al Clements Jo E Y No Cent al lin Sanson Granite nt S Well Ilesle G 7llh�i'�'• m.e1i11111i■= _ e6J■IVRR—"MiiiiEm.ire 1111■ rt i �1� 1� PkIm FP/ mEl■ , ..11111111111, sh- Nora "'r— , . .,• vi rf J•1C�J© AFICEB1f111, 1 .► ■11■■11■ r1��1-1!■li��■ .r a.ue °—' X11■� PITAL. LaramrrAirsii 0t,. 1, i_41° i 18th Jen e )tip 2 st cL 32nd ire 10 U ,i,,y doo7 point 39 0 co 44th 44th E 44th 0 Y 0 cg m Residential Burglary 0 1 02 0 0 0 O Low •Medium •High 0 0.5 Mile 2010 February Residential Burglary Hotspots Map Produced: 10 March 2010 EMe mamma= EMEtWil nomor rM� Pal1-tali I =M IA ir-cttrag Freder INOVA Brid a �LI---G i.WC Li.4mmY:■IIIIC_i Mm lb ra�tip° Ingzsgvmpa E eLL�■�IIIIIIUU yuiEm.ire , 1�■Ij' `�- 'i�`jIj11111 F �� roKo°X sii �. a �� ` fV ■� riiiilMrir ILA EMS' 0 ME MEI I= NOM MEW � >. r4�l11���■■■■1�1� �Y a.ue •= •I�i�� I�UU rain m- . rd *1 IMF NNNEN lintFEENE isrimom Iri—:roinumsb..._ reinlillEaRth- ..• uI.•ma• ..... PIM=<CUI eru=Mwe MILIMEMINII PMRIIMMikill •■suss ••rrrrrcrTra.= i==NOS •--csru F1 •==WIIIIII ..Mll==a.Al 1F-' EINNIII 11^ 1!1��@i'ili'Gl• iosillii i•SPisL•[a ■ era 0 2 03 o Low •Medium 1111 High Mile2010 January & February Stolen Vehicle Hotspots 10Maroh2010 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 Spokane Valley Stolen Vehicles JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 2007 • 2008 2009 ®2010 250 - 200 150 100 50 0 Spokane Valley Theft N JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 2007 • 2008 2009 ❑2010 IA � Freder Ira16 L.•J91LLaJn__)urr, �i .rounds 19 I._EEM ���!CEI. •: 3rdl MINN w-IiPIELY iEilralalVES um i 1F€iE■- .r , � ><.w. woe,im rr��� .I 1il"-!;7_' ..... APM_t" L 9F7!__.•I .7JA_tf111 MILIMEMINII PMRIIMMikill CI.L_.T.11_ •■_us_ •�w��, •L&AIM .__G3'19Ir IVANINIZni c _■■.. 1;. R1.1!@i'ili'Gl liP Ita `na1mLrr% h Li B�■■rwYY �llll��m pig ra\toy �� E 10111 I111111ur'12111Em.ire�, PITMEN:00W ■ ' O.----�mEll ll' a�A..fi mal c Bh 90 _ andia r� _ Norar^` •E 1 � fi P ■`� �./ Iii■■[�Sl�ll��� 0a1�'1 11 111�Mp ixn M41�1 roadwa v. _-F#J_E£G•__rJ.L`7,1111[!lIL Vehicle Prowling 0 1 02 03 04-6 El Low •Medium •High 2010 February Vehicle Prowling Hotspots 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 Spokane Valley Vehicle Prowling 1 W JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC 2007 • 2008 2009 ❑2010 Spol�ane Valley PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT February 2010 AGREEMENTS FOR SERVICES ADOPTED AND IN OPERATION • Street Maintenance—2010 Signal, Sign & Striping County Interlocal • Street Sweeping —AAA sweeping • Street and Stormwater Maintenance and Repair contract—Poe Asphalt Paving Inc. • Vactoring Contract—AAA Sweeping • Engineering Services Support—Agreements with private engineering firms • Street Maintenance (Pines & Trent) —WSDOT Interlocal • Solid Waste - Regional Solid Waste Interlocal • Winter operations —Snow Removal — Poe Asphalt WASTEWATER • Status of the process can be monitored at: http://www.spokaneriver.net/ http://www.ecy.wa.goy/programs/wq/tmdl/spokaneriver/dissolved oxygen/status.html http://www.spokanecounty.org/utilities/WaterReclamation/content.aspx?c=2224 and http://www.spokaneriverpartners.com/ REGIONAL SOLID WASTE SYSTEM Neil is a member of the technical advisory committee to the Solid Waste Liaison Board. The committee provided oversight to the Performance Audit of the Spokane Regional Solid Waste System which was complete in July, 2009. The advisory committee recommended that the Waste to Energy contract be extended to 2014 to provide enough time to properly investigate alternate solid waste disposal solutions, to give a newly formed Regional Governance structure a chance to be part of the decision making process, and give time to prove the viability of operating a 20-year old waste-to-energy plant under market conditions. STREET MASTER PLAN • Received all updated traffic counts and accident data from JUB. Need to evaluate for future projects and present to council with an update on pavement management. CAPITAL PROJECTS BRIDGE PROJECTS • Barker Road Bridge Project (0003) Project winter shut-down extended until March 15; non-critical path items such as utility installation will continue until then. • Bridge Maintenance and Repair All minor repairs complete for 2009. There is $500,000 in the 2010 street fund for bridge repairs and will need to be put out for bid. Received 10 bridge inspection reports from Spokane County that need to be reviewed and a repair list developed for bidding. 1 updated March 19.2010 ROAD CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS • Pines/Mansfield (0005) Contract with Inland Asphalt is done but still have work to do with Union Pacific. • Sprague/Evergreen PCCP Intersection Project (0102) Retainage released, closing out project. • Sprague/McDonald PCCP Intersection Project (0104) Retainage released, closing out project. • Blake Road Repair (0132) Waiting for final paperwork from subcontractors before releasing retainage. STREET PRESERVATION PROJECTS • Sprague Ave Resurfacing — University to Evergreen (Phase 1) (0110) Inland Asphalt awarded project. Paving complete. Most plastic striping complete — Bowdish & University intersection still need striping; will complete when weather allows. • Sprague Ave Resurfacing — Evergreen to Sullivan (Phase 2) (0115) Design 100% complete; waiting for construction funding. The work is planned to be done at night. ROAD DESIGN • 44th Avenue Pathway- Woodruff Rd. to Sands Rd. (0054) Preparing final design for tentative April bid, and summer construction. • Broadway Ave Safety Improvement — Park Rd to Pines Rd (0063) Century West was selected to design this project. Notice to Proceed given February 18. • Sprague/Sullivan PCCP Intersection (0065) In final design, scheduled to bid in April; with three week construction starting June 21. • Broadway Ave Reconstruction — Moore to Flora (0088) Still in ROW acquisition phase. ROW scheduled to be completed in March. Project scheduled to go to bid in May for construction this summer. • Indiana Avenue Extension — 3,600 e/o Sullivan to Mission & Flora (0112) Working on final design. Scheduled to be bid and constructed this summer. • Indiana/Sullivan PCCP Intersection (0113) STA has approved project delay until 2011. • Broadway/Sullivan PCCP Intersection (0114) Out to bid February 12. • Park Rd — Broadway Ave to Indiana Ave — (0069) DESIGN ONLY Survey is complete. Received estimate to design using full-width right-of-way acquisition. (30% design) 2 updated March 19.2010 • ADA Improvements 2009 (0127) Drawings 80% complete. Currently scheduled for bid in April and construction in May/June 2010. SEWER PROJECTS • West Ponderosa Sewer Project (0106) Phase 1 — Paving complete; punchlist items remain. Phase 2—All main complete except for Holman from Woodruff Road to VanMarter. This portion will be constructed in 2010. Prepping remaining roads for asphalt; work will start March 8th. • Valleyview Sewer Project (0107) North Valleyview Stormwater(tied into the Valleyview Sewer Project) (0111) Minor paving issues to deal with in the spring. • Rotchford Acres Sewer Project (0108) Paving complete. • Clement Sewer Project (0109) Paving complete. • West Farms Sewer Project (0128) County design is 100% complete. Bids have been opened. Awaiting award. • South Green Acres Sewer Project (0129) Phase 3 (north of Mission) —County design 100% complete. Project is out to bid. Phase 4 (south of Mission) —County design 50% complete. Project is scheduled to bid in June. • Corbin Sewer Project (0130) County design 75% complete. Project is scheduled to bid in April. • Cronk Sewer Project (0131) County design 50% complete. Project is scheduled to bid in April. • White Birch Sewer Project Century West design for County 90% complete. Project to be bid under Broadway (Moore to Flora). PARKS PROJECTS • Valley Mission Park Upgrade (0076) Punchlist items remaining. Tied up in dispute resolution. • Discovery Playground (0086) Project on winter shut down. Restroom building installed and remaining concrete flatwork has been completed. Waiting for warmer weather to complete rubber surfacing throughout park and to complete the landscaping. Grand opening set for May 13. STORM WATER PROJECTS • Stormwater Decant Facility—to be programmed with 2011-2017 Stormwater Plan. 3 updated March 19.2010 • 2008 Problematic Flood Areas Project Design done; specs in draft form. Anticipate small works bid this fall/winter of 13 projects for construction in Spring/Summer 2010. 1. Robinhood Street, 1300— 1400 Block: add capture, catchbasins, and expand UIC for under- designed area. 2. Herald Street, 8th to 9th Ave.: add capture, catchbasins, and expand existing UIC. 3. Oberlin Street, South of 11th Avenue: additional stormwater capture and swale. 4. 10th Avenue, Little John Ct. to Mariam St: additional stormwater capture, manhole structure 5. University and 16th, NE Corner: replace (2) existing UIC's, provide overflow to 16th Ave system. 6. 43rd, Hollow and Forest Meadows: repair of crushed culvert pipe 7. Union, North of Mission: added capture of stormwater 8. 550 S. Sullivan Road: increase intercept of stormwater before existing drywell 9. 2316 N. Girrard: replace existing failing pipe sump with catchbasin and single depth drywell 10. Yardley Area Drywell Rim Grouting: Repair Rims 11. Woodruff and Holman: Lower existing grades and piping 12. 8th and Woodlawn: increase intercept of stormwater before existing drywell 13. 5700 E. 8th: new intercept and swale with drywell. 14. 11th and Herald — improve catchbasins and rehabilitate existing failing UIC. 15. • Phase II Implementation Project (DOE Grant G0600363) 70% Expended — Includes various tasks to help the City implement requirements under the Department of Ecology's Phase II Municipal Stormwater Permit. Staff worked on Public Education and Outreach Tasks including development of brochures, content for web page(s), and procedures for the Illicit Discharge, Detection, and Elimination. City staff has proposed to Ecology staff to amend grant to expend remaining budget on equipment. OTHER PROJECTS • City Hall Project (0089) On hold. • Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Meeting with Community Development periodically on scope of project. • Bike and pedestrian Master Plan Implementation (0134) No work on this until Master Plan in complete • Street Maintenance Storage Facility Part of long-range stormwater plan currently under development. On hold. • Capital Project Planning and Grant Application Currently working on federal earmark grant applications and Amended 2010 TIP. • Street Master Plan/Pavement Management Plan Need to update Council on Pavement Management Plan • Sullivan Road SB Bridge over Spokane River Replacement (Planning) Call for bridge projects anticipated April 2010. 4 updated March 19.2010 TRAFFIC • Argonne Corridor Improvements (0060) Selected DKS Associates as the most qualified consultant for this project. Beginning scope/fee discussions. • Pines Rd ITS (0061) Selected Transpo Group as the most qualified consultant for this project. Beginning scope/fee discussions. • Sprague/Appleway/Dishman ITS (0072) Construction complete, beginning project closeout. • Sprague Ave ITS ($400,000) (0133) This project will install fiber along Sprague from University to Sullivan and then north on Sullivan to tie in with the existing network. Conduit and other equipment will be installed as needed to complete the run. This also includes crossing Pines. Some of the funds will be used to develop an ITS Master Plan that will provide us with guidance on location and implementation of future ITS projects. Selected Transpo Group as the most qualified consultant for this project. Beginning scope/fee discussions. • City-wide Coordination ($75,000) This project will develop and implement traffic signal coordination on corridors and during time periods where they currently do not exist, i.e. weekends. • Traffic Signal Phasing ($33,500) This project will change the phasing at several intersections throughout the city from exclusive to exclusive/permissive phasing by install flashing yellow arrows. We have completed one intersection (Broadway/Walmart Entrance) and are awaiting the arrival of parts to complete the others. • Signal LEDS ($65,000) This project will complete the installation of LEDs in the City's signals. Plan to purchase and install LEDs later in 2010. STREET & STORMWATER MAINTENANCE ACTIVITY The following is a summary of Public Works/Contractor maintenance activities in the City of Spokane Valley for February 2010: Winter Street and Stormwater Maintenance Items: • City of Spokane Valley Personnel and Poe Asphalt are providing pothole patching. • Triple A sweeping has begun the annual Spring Sweeping Program. • Triple A has also begun the Vactoring underground Storm Water structure cleaning Program. • Geiger crews are providing Litter pickup services. • City of Spokane Valley personnel are preparing Asphalt Maintenance activities for the construction season of 2010. • City of Spokane Valley personnel remain on standby for Winter Operations. Emergency Winter Snow Operations: • Lease signed for Waste Management facility; COSV purchased 6 used WSDOT plows/sanders; Poe contract approved to prepare the equipment, facilities and any other necessary activities to be ready for winter snow operations; a second Poe contract was approved for winter operations 5 updated March 19.2010 Stormwater: • 2009 County Sewer Projects — Met with County staff during rain event to witness flow bypass and ponding in several areas of the Ponderosa Sewer projects. • 2010 County Sewer Projects — Started reviewing County sewer plans for 2010— suggested ditching efforts in the West Farms and South Green Acres areas. Developed details for ditches and researching existing problems and complaints in those areas. • Sweeping & Structure Cleaning Study-. Contacted a consultant to possibly assist with this study. Consultant has submitted a proposed scope of work. • Pines/Mansfield fire station Swale - On-hold through spring/summer 2010 to see if this resolves itself with continued root growth. • Ecology SW Grants - Received a $50k grant that will need to be expended by June 2011. • SW Permit Compliance Tracking —Compiled a list of Ecology Stormwater Permit compliance deadlines to be tracked on a monthly basis by spreadsheet. Developing filing method for tracking records relating to the Ecology Stormwater Permit that will also utilize Laserfiche electronic filing method. • Upper Valleyview Drainage — Met internally (Fall 2009) to discuss the runoff from private roads/subdivisions in the County flowing onto City streets in the Valleyview Neighborhood. • 16th and Shamrock Drainage— Drafted a historical outline of this problem from the Ridgemont Estates No. 3, 2nd and 1st Additions (County developments) which discharge onto properties and the public streets in the City of Spokane Valley. Began a draft report to answer if the developer or his engineer followed the County's "Guidelines for Stormwater Management" in 2003. • SW Evaluation Form — Developed a form to help evaluate stormwater problems and give a relative basis for priority ranking. Continued evaluation of historic and new stormwater problems and ranking them to further develop a stormwater improvement program. Created a new map showing location and ranking of stormwater problems that have been evaluated.)lth and Herald Drainage— Received a report on a failing system at this intersection. Provided an initial investigation and evaluated through the new ranking process. The problem ranked high in our program and is now included on the SW Maintenance/Improvement Project list and will be under design. • 2009 Stormwater Fee Assessor Rolls Update —Completed update to the Assessor Rolls for Stormwater Fee adjustments. Provided ongoing support. 6 updated March 19.2010 Spokane. 001*Valley 2010 PROJECTS February-10 0003 Barker Road Bridge Replacement-Barker Rd.at Spokane River 0005 Pines/Mansfield Project-Wilbur to Pines,to 1-90 0063 Broadway Ave. Safety Improvements-Park Rd to Pines Rd 0065 Sprague Sullivan PCCP Intersection Project 0069 Park Road Phase 2-Broadway to Indiana(PE only) 0088 Broadway Ave.-Moore to Flora(PE, RW) 0112 Indiana Avenue Extension Project(3600 ft east of Sullivan Rd to Flora Rd) 0113 Indiana Sullivan PCCP Intersection Project 0114 Broadway Sullivan PCCP Intersection Project 0127 ADA Improvements 2009 0132 Blake Road Repair Project BR TIB/CMAQ TIB STP(U) STP(U) TIB TIB STA STA CDBG City Knutson Knutson Knutson Aldworth Knutson Aldworth Aldworth Aldworth Aldworth Aldworth Aldworth Feb-08 Apr-08 N/A Apr-09 TBD May-10 Jul-10 Jan-10 Feb-10 Apr-10 14-Oct-09 100% 100% 0% 65% 20% 80% 50% 0% 100% 95% 100% 82% 97% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 99% 6/30/10 11/30/09 9/1/10 7/21/10 11/1/09 10/15/10 10/1/10 10/1/11 10/1/10 7/1/10 11/6/09 $ 11,317,000 $ 6,350,000 $ 932,850 $ 1,677,000 $ 304,500 $ 2,198,000 $ 1,881,000 $ 1,342,000 $ 1,230,000 $ 110,000 $ 90,000 Traffic Projects 0060 Argonne Road ITS(190 to Trent Ave) CMAQ TBD TBD 0% 0% TBD $ 1,296,000 0061 Pines ITS(Trent Ave to Sprague) CMAQ TBD TBD 0% 0% TBD $ 2,083,200 0133 Sprague ITS EECBG TBD TBD 0% 0% TBD $ 400,000 0137 City-wide Signal Coordination EECBG TBD TBD 0% 0% TBD $ 75,000 Street Preservation Projects 0110 Sprague Ave Resurfacing Phase I-University to Evergreen 0115 Sprague Ave Resurfacing Phase II-Evergreen to Sullivan Econ. Stim. Arlt Apr-09 Econ. Stim. Arlt May-10 100% 95% 99% 0% 5/1/10 $ 3,898,000 10/1/10 $ 1,944,000 Sewer Projects 0106 W Ponderosa Ph 1 -Paveback-Locust to Van Marter, City Limits to D-M City Arlt Feb-09 100% 99% 11/1/09 $ 699,542 0106 W Ponderosa Ph 2-Paveback-Locust to Van Marter, City Limits to D-M City Arlt Feb-09 100% 85% 6/1/10 $ 515,793 0107 Valleyview-Paveback-Buttercup to David, Lake to 13th City Arlt Mar-09 100% 99% 11/1/09 $ 755,200 0109 Clement-Paveback-Flora to Greenacres,6th to Sprague City Arlt Apr-09 100% 95% 11/1/09 $ 350,225 0128 West Farms-Paveback-McDonald to Rees,Wellesley to City Limits City Arlt Feb-10 100% 0% 11/1/10 TBD 0129 South Greenacres Ph 3-Paveback-Flora to Barker, 1-90 to Spokane River City Arlt Mar-10 100% 0% 11/1/10 TBD 0129 South Greenacres Ph 4-Paveback-Flora to Barker, 1-90 to Spokane River City Arlt Jun-10 50% 0% 6/1/11 TBD 0130 Corbin-Paveback-Long to Hodges, Sprague to Appleway City Arlt Mar-10 75% 0% 11/1/10 TBD 0131 Cronk-Paveback-Barker to City Limits, 190 to Mission City Arlt Apr-10 50% 0% 11/1/10 TBD Parks Projects 0086 Discovery Playground Parks/State Worley 8 PW Rpt Feb 2010 Construction Projects May-09 100% 95% 4/31/2010 $ 1,676,000 Estimated Project Proposed Design Construction Construction Total Project # Road Projects Funding Manager Bid Date Complete Complete Completion Cost 0003 Barker Road Bridge Replacement-Barker Rd.at Spokane River 0005 Pines/Mansfield Project-Wilbur to Pines,to 1-90 0063 Broadway Ave. Safety Improvements-Park Rd to Pines Rd 0065 Sprague Sullivan PCCP Intersection Project 0069 Park Road Phase 2-Broadway to Indiana(PE only) 0088 Broadway Ave.-Moore to Flora(PE, RW) 0112 Indiana Avenue Extension Project(3600 ft east of Sullivan Rd to Flora Rd) 0113 Indiana Sullivan PCCP Intersection Project 0114 Broadway Sullivan PCCP Intersection Project 0127 ADA Improvements 2009 0132 Blake Road Repair Project BR TIB/CMAQ TIB STP(U) STP(U) TIB TIB STA STA CDBG City Knutson Knutson Knutson Aldworth Knutson Aldworth Aldworth Aldworth Aldworth Aldworth Aldworth Feb-08 Apr-08 N/A Apr-09 TBD May-10 Jul-10 Jan-10 Feb-10 Apr-10 14-Oct-09 100% 100% 0% 65% 20% 80% 50% 0% 100% 95% 100% 82% 97% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 99% 6/30/10 11/30/09 9/1/10 7/21/10 11/1/09 10/15/10 10/1/10 10/1/11 10/1/10 7/1/10 11/6/09 $ 11,317,000 $ 6,350,000 $ 932,850 $ 1,677,000 $ 304,500 $ 2,198,000 $ 1,881,000 $ 1,342,000 $ 1,230,000 $ 110,000 $ 90,000 Traffic Projects 0060 Argonne Road ITS(190 to Trent Ave) CMAQ TBD TBD 0% 0% TBD $ 1,296,000 0061 Pines ITS(Trent Ave to Sprague) CMAQ TBD TBD 0% 0% TBD $ 2,083,200 0133 Sprague ITS EECBG TBD TBD 0% 0% TBD $ 400,000 0137 City-wide Signal Coordination EECBG TBD TBD 0% 0% TBD $ 75,000 Street Preservation Projects 0110 Sprague Ave Resurfacing Phase I-University to Evergreen 0115 Sprague Ave Resurfacing Phase II-Evergreen to Sullivan Econ. Stim. Arlt Apr-09 Econ. Stim. Arlt May-10 100% 95% 99% 0% 5/1/10 $ 3,898,000 10/1/10 $ 1,944,000 Sewer Projects 0106 W Ponderosa Ph 1 -Paveback-Locust to Van Marter, City Limits to D-M City Arlt Feb-09 100% 99% 11/1/09 $ 699,542 0106 W Ponderosa Ph 2-Paveback-Locust to Van Marter, City Limits to D-M City Arlt Feb-09 100% 85% 6/1/10 $ 515,793 0107 Valleyview-Paveback-Buttercup to David, Lake to 13th City Arlt Mar-09 100% 99% 11/1/09 $ 755,200 0109 Clement-Paveback-Flora to Greenacres,6th to Sprague City Arlt Apr-09 100% 95% 11/1/09 $ 350,225 0128 West Farms-Paveback-McDonald to Rees,Wellesley to City Limits City Arlt Feb-10 100% 0% 11/1/10 TBD 0129 South Greenacres Ph 3-Paveback-Flora to Barker, 1-90 to Spokane River City Arlt Mar-10 100% 0% 11/1/10 TBD 0129 South Greenacres Ph 4-Paveback-Flora to Barker, 1-90 to Spokane River City Arlt Jun-10 50% 0% 6/1/11 TBD 0130 Corbin-Paveback-Long to Hodges, Sprague to Appleway City Arlt Mar-10 75% 0% 11/1/10 TBD 0131 Cronk-Paveback-Barker to City Limits, 190 to Mission City Arlt Apr-10 50% 0% 11/1/10 TBD Parks Projects 0086 Discovery Playground Parks/State Worley 8 PW Rpt Feb 2010 Construction Projects May-09 100% 95% 4/31/2010 $ 1,676,000 2010 PROJECTS Stormwater Projects Stormwater Decant Facility(08/09)-On Hold 2008 Problematic Flood Areas Project City Jenkins N/A 0% City Clary N/A 100% 0% TBD TBD 0% 10/31/09 TBD Other Projects 0054 44th Avenue Pathway-Woodruff to Sands (PE) STP(E) Aldworth Apr-10 85% 50% 7/1/10 $ 355,000 0089 City Hall Programming/Site Planning City Kersten TBD Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan(coordination with Comm Dev) EECBG TBD n/a n/a n/a n/a $ 38,500 Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Implementation EECBG TBD TBD 0% 0% TBD $ 100,000 Street Maintenance Storage Facility City Kersten 4/30/09 $ 43,500 Bridge Maintenance City Worley n/a n/a n/a n/a $ 500,000 Capital Project Planning and Grant Applications City Worley n/a n/a n/a n/a $ 50,000 Street Master Plan/Pavement Management Plan City Worley n/a n/a n/a n/a $ 200,000 Sullivan Road SB Bridge over Spokane River Replacement(Planning) City TBD n/a n/a n/a n/a TBD $ 42,412,310 8 PW Rpt Feb 2010 Construction Projects Estimated Project Proposed Design Construction Construction Total Project # Road Projects Funding Manager Bid Date Complete Complete Completion Cost Stormwater Projects Stormwater Decant Facility(08/09)-On Hold 2008 Problematic Flood Areas Project City Jenkins N/A 0% City Clary N/A 100% 0% TBD TBD 0% 10/31/09 TBD Other Projects 0054 44th Avenue Pathway-Woodruff to Sands (PE) STP(E) Aldworth Apr-10 85% 50% 7/1/10 $ 355,000 0089 City Hall Programming/Site Planning City Kersten TBD Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan(coordination with Comm Dev) EECBG TBD n/a n/a n/a n/a $ 38,500 Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan Implementation EECBG TBD TBD 0% 0% TBD $ 100,000 Street Maintenance Storage Facility City Kersten 4/30/09 $ 43,500 Bridge Maintenance City Worley n/a n/a n/a n/a $ 500,000 Capital Project Planning and Grant Applications City Worley n/a n/a n/a n/a $ 50,000 Street Master Plan/Pavement Management Plan City Worley n/a n/a n/a n/a $ 200,000 Sullivan Road SB Bridge over Spokane River Replacement(Planning) City TBD n/a n/a n/a n/a TBD $ 42,412,310 8 PW Rpt Feb 2010 Construction Projects 2010 PROJECTS Projects in Closeout Phase 0016 Appleway Avenue Reconstruction-Tschirley to Hodges 0062 Sprague/Appleway/Dishman ITS-Sprague/Appleway/Dishman 0066 Broadway Ave. Rehab Phase 2-Fancher to Thierman (PE) 0067 Broadway/Fancher PCC Intersection-Broadway and Fancher 0068 Broadway Ave. Grind/Overlay-I-90 to Park Rd. 0071 Signal Controller Upgrade 0073 Park Rd Swimming Pool Upgrade-Park Rd. 0074 Terrace View Swimming Pool Upgrade-24th and Terrace View 0075 Valley Mission Swimming Pool Upgrade-Mission Ave. 0076 Valley Mission Park Upgrade-Mission Ave. 0077 Sprague/Conklin Signal-Sprague and Conklin 0092 Sprague/Bowdish PCC Intersection-Sprague and Bowdish 0098 Sprague ADA Improvements 0100 16th Ave and Bettman Rd&Drainage Improvements 0102 Evergreen/Sprague PCCP Intersection Project 0104 McDonald/Sprague PCCP Intersection Project 0103 Pines/Sprague PCCP Intersection Project 0105 24th and Adams Sidewalk 0108 Rotchford Acres-Paveback-Sullivan to Steen, 16th to 10th Valleyview Drainage Improvements West Ponderosa Drainage Improvements STP(U) Arlt Sep-07 100% CMAQ Knutson N/A 100% STP(U) Aldworth June 100% STP(U) Aldworth Feb-09 100% Aldworth Aug-08 100% CMAQ Knutson N/A 100% Parks West Mar-08 100% Parks West Mar-08 100% Parks West Mar-08 100% Parks West Mar-09 100% Developers Arlt N/A 100% STA Aldworth May-08 100% CDBG Aldworth Feb-09 100% City Aldworth Mar-09 100% STA Aldworth May-09 100% STA Aldworth May-09 100% STA Aldworth Apr-09 100% Vera Aldworth Feb-09 100% City Arlt Apr-09 100% City Arlt N/A 100% City Arlt Mar-09 100% 8 PW Rpt Feb 2010 Construction Projects 100% 12/1/08 $ 6,099,568 100% 9/30/09 $ 830,700 100% 9/1/09 $ 500,000 100% 5/29/09 $ 1,295,000 100% 11/1/08 $ 351,000 100% 8/1/09 $ 258,400 100% 6/5/09 $ 1,017,361 100% 6/5/09 $ 1,314,337 100% 6/5/09 $ 1,122,994 100% 6/15/09 $ 372,000 100% 5/1/09 $ 300,000 100% 11/1/08 $ 892,000 100% 6/30/09 $ 53,261 100% 9/1/09 $ 116,563 100% 10/1/09 $ 653,232 100% 10/1/09 $ 610,987 100% 10/1/09 $ 806,093 100% 8/31/09 $ 50,000 100% 11/1/09 $ 387,817 100% 10/31/09 $ 30,732 100% 9/1/09 $ 172,248 Total $ 17,031,313 Estimated Project Proposed Design Construction Construction Total Project # Road Projects Funding Manager Bid Date Complete Complete Completion Cost Projects in Closeout Phase 0016 Appleway Avenue Reconstruction-Tschirley to Hodges 0062 Sprague/Appleway/Dishman ITS-Sprague/Appleway/Dishman 0066 Broadway Ave. Rehab Phase 2-Fancher to Thierman (PE) 0067 Broadway/Fancher PCC Intersection-Broadway and Fancher 0068 Broadway Ave. Grind/Overlay-I-90 to Park Rd. 0071 Signal Controller Upgrade 0073 Park Rd Swimming Pool Upgrade-Park Rd. 0074 Terrace View Swimming Pool Upgrade-24th and Terrace View 0075 Valley Mission Swimming Pool Upgrade-Mission Ave. 0076 Valley Mission Park Upgrade-Mission Ave. 0077 Sprague/Conklin Signal-Sprague and Conklin 0092 Sprague/Bowdish PCC Intersection-Sprague and Bowdish 0098 Sprague ADA Improvements 0100 16th Ave and Bettman Rd&Drainage Improvements 0102 Evergreen/Sprague PCCP Intersection Project 0104 McDonald/Sprague PCCP Intersection Project 0103 Pines/Sprague PCCP Intersection Project 0105 24th and Adams Sidewalk 0108 Rotchford Acres-Paveback-Sullivan to Steen, 16th to 10th Valleyview Drainage Improvements West Ponderosa Drainage Improvements STP(U) Arlt Sep-07 100% CMAQ Knutson N/A 100% STP(U) Aldworth June 100% STP(U) Aldworth Feb-09 100% Aldworth Aug-08 100% CMAQ Knutson N/A 100% Parks West Mar-08 100% Parks West Mar-08 100% Parks West Mar-08 100% Parks West Mar-09 100% Developers Arlt N/A 100% STA Aldworth May-08 100% CDBG Aldworth Feb-09 100% City Aldworth Mar-09 100% STA Aldworth May-09 100% STA Aldworth May-09 100% STA Aldworth Apr-09 100% Vera Aldworth Feb-09 100% City Arlt Apr-09 100% City Arlt N/A 100% City Arlt Mar-09 100% 8 PW Rpt Feb 2010 Construction Projects 100% 12/1/08 $ 6,099,568 100% 9/30/09 $ 830,700 100% 9/1/09 $ 500,000 100% 5/29/09 $ 1,295,000 100% 11/1/08 $ 351,000 100% 8/1/09 $ 258,400 100% 6/5/09 $ 1,017,361 100% 6/5/09 $ 1,314,337 100% 6/5/09 $ 1,122,994 100% 6/15/09 $ 372,000 100% 5/1/09 $ 300,000 100% 11/1/08 $ 892,000 100% 6/30/09 $ 53,261 100% 9/1/09 $ 116,563 100% 10/1/09 $ 653,232 100% 10/1/09 $ 610,987 100% 10/1/09 $ 806,093 100% 8/31/09 $ 50,000 100% 11/1/09 $ 387,817 100% 10/31/09 $ 30,732 100% 9/1/09 $ 172,248 Total $ 17,031,313 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: March 23, 2010 City Manager Sign-off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Refreshment Policy: Spokane Valley Meeting and Customer Relation Policy GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Spokane Valley Resolution 04-004 BACKGROUND, PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Prior t o this City's official incorporation date of March 3 1, 2003, and during the first few y ears of incorporation,councilmembers and staff were on a feverish meeting schedule, and several times met more than once a night. From multiple council meetings to numerous committee meetings, members of the then council felt it would be reasonable to take a few moments to share a meal together prior to the council meeting. This informal setting gave staff and councilmembers an opportunity to relax before a meeting, and to get to know each other in a non-intimidating atmosphere. Because the Open Public Meetings Act only applies to meetings and not social gatherings,this was deemed legitimate. Social g atherings ar e ex pressly exc epted from t he 0 pen P ublic Meetings Act unless, of course, official business is discussed or transacted at the gatherings. RCW 42.30.070 provides in relevant part as follows: "It shall not be a violation of the requirements of this chapter for a majority of the members of a governing body to travel together or gather for purposes other than a regular meeting or a special meeting as these terms are used in this chapter: PROVIDED, That they take no action as defined in this chapter." The Act defines the term "meeting"t o be any meeting "at which action is taken." The term 'action" is defined as: the transaction of the official business of a public agency by a governing body i ncluding bu t no t limited t o receipt of p ublic t estimony, de liberations, di scussions, considerations, reviews, evaluations, and final actions. Final action means a collective positive or negative decision, or an actual vote by a majority of the members of a governing body when sitting as a body or entity,upon a motion,proposal, resolution, order, or ordinance. During the February 17, 2004 council meeting, Finance Director Thompson explained that the City often provides r efreshment a nd light m eals pr for t o, du ring a nd/or a fter city m eetings a nd t hat t he S tate Auditor's Office advised that a formal policy regarding this practice was preferred;hence on February 24, 2004 Council adopted Resolution 04-004 adopting the C ity's meeting and customer relation policy, a copy of which is attached. It should be noted that part of the policy states that"The City is not required to provide coffee, meals and/or light refreshments at meetings"and that this resolution does not obligate such practice,but does permit it. OPTIONS: Meals are at council discretion. They can be continued or discontinued at any time. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: STAFF CONTACT: ATTACHMENTS: Policy Resolution 04-004; 2009 Expenses for Meals prior to Council meeting CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: March 23, 2010 City Manager Sign-off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ® information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Spokane County - Taylor Cottages PUD (Planned Unit Development) GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: The project applicant, South Park Land Developer LLC, filed the Taylor Cottages preliminary subdivision application with Spokane County on 11/19/09. This filing initiated the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Comment period which remains open until the applicant has satisfied all the County's concerns regarding traffic, floodplains, stormwater, utility connections, fire access, and street design issues. The County will schedule a hearing after all their development standards have been met and they have received comments from all agencies stating that their concerns have been addressed. At that time mitigations would be incorporated into the Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance (MDNS) and the project will go before the County's Hearing Examiner. The proposed project is a mix of 157 single family dwellings, 40 duplexes, 30 cottages and 24 townhouses for a total of 251 units on approximately 74 acres. As currently zoned, the applicant could build over 400 units on this property. With the exception of a few alleys, all streets within the project will be public. Connections to existing roads will be made onto the county's segment of south Park, and onto Spokane Valley streets at the east end of 14th Avenue and the intersection of 12th Avenue/Coleman Road. One of our main concerns is storm water. The development is at the bottom of a large drainage area that drains through the City of Spokane Valley. A significant area within our City is designated as Flood Zone "A". City staff has requested a copy of the concept drainage plan which would include any modifications to the floodplain. We have not received this document. Our other concern is traffic impact to the neighborhoods and City arterials. We attended a meeting at Spokane County to develop a preliminary scope for the traffic impact study. At that meeting we also discussed changes to the internal street network that were desired by both City and County staff. Following that meeting we attended the first of two neighborhood meetings on 2/24/10. The purpose of the first neighborhood meeting was to get public input on the scope of the traffic impact study. The developer's engineer is currently working on the traffic study. Upon completion and acceptance of the traffic study by Spokane County and Spokane Valley, a second neighborhood meeting will be held to discuss the results of the analysis. At that time City staff will prepare mitigation requests for submission to the County and the Hearing Examiner. If the County's Building and Planning Division agrees with our requested mitigation it will be included in the Mitigated Determination of Non-Significance. If not, our request will be forwarded to the Hearing Examiner for consideration during the hearing. Attached are comments that have gone to Spokane County. OPTIONS: RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: STAFF CONTACT: Neil Kersten ATTACHMENTS Spokane County Notice of Preliminary Plat and PUD of Taylor Cottages dated 12/8/09, Memo dated 12/14/09, E-mail dated 1/5/10, E-mail dated 12/24/09 and a map showing the location of the project and Flood Zones in the City of Spokane Valley SpCIT okane 11141141111111111111kez, Development Engineering �1Talley 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 ♦ Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.921.1000 • Fax: 509.921.1008 • cityhall @spokanevalley.org Memorandum To: Tammy Jones, Senior Planner(Spokane County) From: Wayne McGavran —Development Engineering Technician Date: December 14, 2009 Re: PE-2024-09/PUD-03-09: 251 Lot Plat Technical Review Comments The following are comments from the SEPA checklist: The SEPA checklist was reviewed for environmental impacts due to the proposed project only. Once designs for the development itself are submitted then comments can be prepared addressing the site details and anticipated traffic impacts. Per SEPA sections: 1. Section B ENVIRONMENTAL, Part 14 Transportation: A Professional Transportation Engineer, Licensed in the State of Washington, shall submit a trip generation and distribution letter for review. The letter should address the traffic for all the development phases proposed for the property. The City of Spokane Valley Traffic Engineer will review this letter to determine if any further traffic study is required. Parking and traffic circulation patterns shall be shown on the site plan along with the appropriate pavement markings and signage. This letter will be required prior to SEPA determination. The following recommended conditions are to be included in the staff report. Prior to final plat or issuance of any building permit, the following items shall be addressed: Design 1. A Professional Engineer, licensed in the State of Washington, shall prepare required engineering documents (including civil/street plans, drainage plans, drainage calculations, traffic studies, shared access driveway plans, etc.) Plans shall conform to the 2001 Spokane County Standards for Road and Sewer Construction (or as amended), the 2008 Spokane Regional Stormwater Manual (or as amended), the City of Spokane Valley Uniform Development Code and all other federal, state and local regulations, as applicable. 2. A concept drainage report is required. Report to be approved before setting a hearing date and prior to the submittal of civil plans for review. Once this report is accepted then the applicant may submit final design documents as described below and above. The City of Spokane Valley has concerns as to how the sormwater from Park Road and Beverly Drive, as well as the existing culverts under Park Road, will be handled with the construction of this development. The concept drainage report shall address these issues. 3. Frontage improvements are required on Park Road. Park Road is designated as a Collector Arterial street. Frontage improvements include 18.5 feet of asphalt width from road centerline, Type B curb and gutter (2 feet), 10-foot roadside Swale, and a 5 foot sidewalk. The total width of improvements is 35.5 feet. Current right-of-way is 60 feet; 1/2 of the right-of-way being 30 feet. The minimum 1/2 right-of-way width, which is to 2 feet behind the back of curb, is 22.5 feet. A border easement, which extends from the right-of-way to back of sidewalk, of 5.5 feet is required. This shall be designated on the final plat language and map. The border easement width was determined assuming that the center of the road coincides with the center of the right-of-way. Applicant is to confirm right-of-way location and width(s). Note—the building setback begins at the edge of the border easement, 4. This project is expected to generate more than 10 peak-hour, vehicle trips. In order to determine additional concurrency requirements, a traffic impact analysis is likely to be required. Per UDC Section 22.20 Concurrency, a Professional Civil Engineer, Licensed in the State of Washington, shall submit for review and acceptance a trip generation and distribution letter including a proposed scope for a traffic impact analysis (TIA). The proposed TIA scope shall be accepted prior to preparation and submittal of the full TIA. The document should address: a. Traffic for all development phases proposed for the property; b. Timing of project phases; and c, Parking and traffic circulation patterns including driveway location and trip distribution at the driveway approaches. Transportation concurrency is required prior to SEPA determination and prior to release of building permit. 5. No direct access is allowed from parcel (s)to Park Road. 6. Stormwater from Park Road will need to be taken onsite for treatment and disposal, since it has historically flowed onto this property. 7. Show any utility easements (i.e. Telephone,power, etc.). The permittee is responsible for arranging for all necessary utility adjustments,relocations, or improvements as required for completion of the project. The developer needs to contact the purveyors of each affected utility regarding private service, utility improvement, and any relocation and adjustment costs. All rigid objects shall be located out of the clear zone, These clear zone requirements can be found in the 2001 Spokane County Road and Sewer Standards, or as amended. 8. All new dry wells and other injection wells must be registered with the Underground Injection Control program (UIC) at Department of Ecology prior to use and the discharge from the well(s)must comply with the ground water quality requirement (nonendangerment standard) at the top of the ground water table. Contact the UIC staff at UIC Program, Department of Ecology, P.O. Box 47600, Olympia, WA 98504-7600, (360) 407-6143 or go to: http://www,ecy.wa.gov/programs/wq/gmdwtr/uic/registration/reg_info.html for registration forms and further information. Copies of the registration for drywells, which receive public road stormwater runoff, are to be sent to Development Engineering. The City of Spokane Valley NPDES Permit Number is WARO4-6507. Construction 9. A pre-construction conference with Development Engineering is required prior to the start of construction. During this meeting, standards and submittal requirements for the Construction Certification will be given to the project engineer/inspector. 10. Permits are required for any access to or work within the right-of-way of the Spokane Valley roadway system. A traffic control plan will be required. 11. Construction within the proposed public streets and easements shall be performed under the direct supervision of a licensed Washington State Professional Engineer/Land Surveyor. All work is subject to inspection by the City Senior Development Engineer or by his staff. 12.Upon completion of the improvements, a Construction Certification package and record drawings are required for the improvements and shall be submitted and approved prior to releasing the performance surety or Final Plat approval. Final Plat 13. Border easements must be designated on the final plat map. Neil Kersten From: Neil Kersten Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 4:11 PM To: 'Jones, Tammy' Subject: FW: Preliminary Plat of Taylor Cottages Tammy, Below are some additional comments to those already submitted by the City: • The existing downstream drainage path travels through existing homes sites in Spokane Valley. There is no dedicated drainage easement, structure or natural channel path through most of this area. Due to potential significant impacts to existing properties within downstream area and the 100-year flood plain in the City of Spokane Valley, the City requests direct participation and coordination with Spokane County on the review and approval of any and all floodplain analyses required for this proposed development. Studies should include a comprehensive drainage report and floodplain analysis for the entire flood plain basin. • Although you indicate a community meeting is not required, I would request that community meetings be conducted due to the significant impact of the development on the surrounding neighborhoods for both traffic and drainage. If you have any questions, please contact me. Thanks, Neil Kersten Public Works Director Spokane Valley, WA 50-720-5000 From: Jones, Tammy [mailto:TMJones©spokanecounty.org] Sent: Sunday, December 27, 2009 3:15 PM To: Neil Kersten Subject: Preliminary Plat of Taylor Cottages Hello, This e-mail is in response to your phone message. Comments on PE-2025-09,Taylor Cottages, are due as soon as possible. The application is on hold for the applicant to satisy commenting agency responses, but if you are requesting additional information/ studies the request should be submitted soon. A community meeting is not required in this area. A public hearing will be scheduled after the applicant submits additional studies and makes requested changes to the application materials, Let me know if you have any additional questions. Thanks, Tammy Jones Senior Planner 1 Neil Kersten From: Inge Note Sent: Thursday, December 24, 2009 9:57 AM To: Jones, Tammy Cc: 'Engelhard, Scott; 'Greene, Barry'; Neil Kersten Subject: SEPA comments on Taylor Cottages Tammy, I discussed several of these issues with Scott, Barry, and the developer's reps at the traffic study scoping meeting, but want to make sure you have them as well for inclusion in the SEPA comments. • The project will impact the City of Spokane Valley's transportation system and a traffic impact analysis will be required. The scoping of this study was discussed earlier this week, but additional analysis may be required based on comments received at the 1st neighborhood traffic meeting. • The primary access to the subdivision will require out-of-direction travel for many of the residents if they desire to head north on Park from their home. We think this may lead to a higher number of trips on the local street connections. We would like to see the street on the NE corner of the property connect into Park instead of being a cul-de-sac and have cross connections at roads#2,#4 and#5 so that most of the lots will have convenient access to Park. This would provide a more direct access for a large portion of the development. • Several of the neighbors have already raised their concerns regarding cut-through traffic. We want to work with the developer's representatives to look at options for developer-funded traffic calming measures on Coleman, 14th, and possibly other neighborhood streets to mitigate the impact. + We have a concern regarding the sight distance on the vertical curve just south of Beverly on Park. The location of the new access points should be evaluated to ensure they have adequate sight distance to see approaching traffic on Park Road. Thanks, inga Note,PE,PTOE Senior Traffic Engineer City of Spokane Valley 11707 E.Sprague Ave.,Suite 106 Spokane Valley,WA 09206 Ph: (509)720-5011 Fax:(509)921-1008 1 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: March 23, 2010 City Manager Sign-off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation ® executive session AGENDA ITEM TITLE: EXECUTIVE SESSION: Pending Litigation [RCW 42.30.110(i)] GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: OPTIONS: RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to adjourn into executive session for approximately minutes to discuss Pending Litigation and that no action is anticipated thereafter. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: STAFF CONTACT: ATTACHMENTS: