Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
2010, 02-23 Regular Meeting
17 Lmd 6 AGENDA VALLEY CITY COUNCIL GULAR MEETING ,L MEETING FORMAT Tuesday, February 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 Meetin CALL TO ORDER: INVOCATION: Pastor Gary Hebden, The Intersection Church PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 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. 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 WNOUCHER NUMBERS: TOTAL AMOUNT 02/03/2010 19552, 19553 $1,368.80 02/05/2010 19554 $42,463.81 02/16/2010 19555 through 19573 $167,848.45 02/16/2010 19574 through 19626; 129100029, 205100008 $1,739,597.41 02/17/2010 3085, 3089, 3090, 3091 $59,493.22 GRAND TOTAL $2,010,771.69 b. Approval of Payroll for Period Ending February 15, 2010: $258,808.26 c. Approval of Holcim Amendment to Access and Indemnity Agreement d. Approval of Study Session Format Council Meeting Minutes of February 2, 2010 NEW BUSINESS 2. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 10 -003 Alarm Regulations — Cary Driskell/Rick VanLeuven [public comment] 3. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 10 -004 Uniform Development Code, Development Agreements - Christina Janssen/Mike Connelly [public comment] A ... ,t� RPTl1— XA—tiR a paoe 1 nf') ,Mmi 4. Proposed Resolution 10 -005 Withdrawing from Participation in Cable Advisory Board — Morgan Koudelka [public comment] 5. Motion Consideration: Paveback Financing— Ken Thompson [public comment] 6. Motion Consideration: Paveback Interlocal Agreement — Steve Worley [public comment] 7. Motion Consideration: City Hall Negotiations — Mike Connelly [public comment] 8. Motion Consideration: Law Enforcement Memorandum of Understanding (Precinct Command Position) — Mike Jackson [public comment] PUBLIC COMMENTS: This is an opportunity for the public to speak on any subject not on th for action. When you come to the podium, please state your name and address for the record remarks to three minutes. ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS 9. Uniform Development Code Amendment CTA 08 -09 — Marty Palaniuk 10. Uniform Development Code Amendment CTA 01 -10 — Karen Kendall 11. Panhandling Update — Cary Driskell 12. Property Tax Update— Ken Thompson 13. Surplus Property: Parcel Near 16608 E Broadway — Steve Worley 14. Advance Agenda — Mayor Towey INFORMATION ONLY: (will not be reported or discussed) 15. Department Reports 16. Spokane County Library District Fourth Quarter Report 17. Transportation Benefit District 18. EXECUTIVE SESSION Pending Litigation [RCW 42.30.110(i)] ADJOURNMENT General Meeting2 Schedule (meeting schedule is always subject to change) Regular Council meetings are generally held every Tuesday bel!innintZ at 6:00 p.m. The F meeting formats are generally held the 2 nd and 4ch 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 eg nerally held the V - 3 d and sometimes 5` Tuesdays. Study Session formats DO NOT have time allocated for general public comments; but if action items are included, comment 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 02 -23 -10 Regular Meeting Page 2 of 2 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: 02 -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 W/VOUCHER NUMBERS: TOTAL AMOUNT 02/03/2010 19552, 19553 $1,368.80 02/05/2010 19554 $42,463.81 02/16/2010 19555 through 19573 $167,848.45 02/16/2010 19574 through 19626; 129100029, 205100008 $1,739,597.41 02/17/2010 3085, 3089, 3090, 3091 $59,493.22 GRAND TOTAL $2,010,771.69 RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Approve claims for vouchers as listed above. BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: STAFF CONTACT: Ken Thompson, Finance Director ATTACHMENTS Voucher Lists vchlist Voucher List Page: 1 02/03/2010 2:40:52PM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Vo ucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description /Account Amount 19552 213/2010 001606 BANNER BANK 0638 JAN 10:0638 52.00 4375 JAN 10: 4375 150.00 4458 JAN 10: 4458 243.18 4720 JAN 10: 4720 709.40 8861 JAN 10: 8861 179.00 Total : 1,333.58 19553 2/3/2010 001169 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Jan 2010 PETTY CASH: 7643 THRU 48,31,34,: 35.22 Total : 35.22 2 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total : 1,368.80 2 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 1,368.80 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: 1 vchlist Voucher List Page: 1 02/05/2010 2:24:18PM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description /Account Amount 19554 2/5/2010 001873 ACME CONCRETE PAVING INC 09 -026 42397 0104 SPRAGUE /MCDONALD INT CC 9,394.22 09 -026 42396 0102 SPRAGUE /EVERGREEN INT C 33,069.59 42396 1 Vouchers for bank code : apbank 1 Vouchers in this report 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 Total : 42,463.81 Bank total : 42,463.81 Total vouchers : 42,463.81 Page: 1 Page: 1 Voucher List Page: 1 uchlist 02/16/2010 10:27:07AM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description /Account Amount 19555 2/1612010 000334 ARGUS JANITORIAL LLC 004685 JANITORIAL SVCS: JAN 2010 PREC 2,165.23 Total : 2,165.23 19556 2/16/2010 000030 AVISTA February 2010 UTILITIES: PARKS MASTER AVISTP 8,833.53 February 2010 UTILITIES: PW MASTER AVISTA 24,587.03 Total : 33,420.56 19557 2/16/2010 001545 BERNARDO WILLS ARCHITECTS PC 2009 -3190 42106 CITY HALL CONCEPTUAL SITE PLP 17,866.26 Total : 17,866.26 19558 2/16/2010 000143 CITY OF SPOKANE 2009 Fees LATE CHARGES FOR PW TRANSFE 12.75 Total : 12.75 19559 2/1612010 000109 COFFEE SYSTEMS INC 3820 - 045082 COFFEE SERVICE: CP 110.50 Total : 110.50 19560 2/16/2010 001148 COLUMBIA PAINT & COATINGS Jan 2010 SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE 63.87 Total : 63.87 19561 2/16/2010 000321 GREATER SPOKANE INC 71439 4TH QTR 2009: GRANT REIMBURSE 16,000.00 Total : 16,000.00 19562 2/16/2010 000070 INLAND POWER & LIGHT CO January 2010 UTILITIES:PW 452.97 Total : 452.97 19563 2/16/2010 000353 INT'L TRADE ALLIANCE SPV122009 4TH QTR 2009 6,500.00 Total : 6,500.00 19564 2/16/2010 000388 IRVIN WATER DIST. #6 Jan 2010 UTILITIES: PARKS 182.60 Total : 182.60 19565 2/16/2010 001640 MAINTENANCE SOLUTIONS, INC 111313602 SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE 1Z 356.42 Total : 356.42 19566 2/16/2010 000132 MODERN ELECTRIC WATER CO January 2010 UTILITIES: PARKS AND PW 10,130.36 Total : 10,130.36 Page: 1 vchlist Voucher List Page: 2 02/16/2010 10:27:07AM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description /Account Amount 19567 2/1612010 000193 NORTHWEST CHRISTIAN SCHOOL INC February 2010 CITY HALL RENT 37,468.47 Total : 37,468.47 19568 2/16/2010 000709 SENSKE LAWN & TREE CARE INC. January 2010 ACCOUNT 268644 PRECINCT SER\ 1,180.50 Total : 1,180.50 19569 2/16/2010 000935 SERVICE PAPER CO 11251074 SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE 63.80 Total : 63.80 19570 2/16/2010 000323 SPOKANE CO UTILITIES FEB 2010 SPOKANE COUNTY SEWER 1,757.67 Total : 1,757.67 19571 2/16/2010 000405 SPOKANE VALLEY PARTNERS 2010 Grant TOTAL FOR 2010 GRANT AWARD 25,000.00 Total : 25,000.00 19572 2/16/2010 000167 VERA WATER & POWER January 2010 UTILITIES: JAN 2010 2,531.49 Total : 2,531.49 19573 2/16/2010 002111 WASTE MANAGEMENT OF SPOKANE Jan, Feb, March 2010 42546 2010 LEASE ON MAINTENANCE FA 12,585.00 Total : 12,585.00 19 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total : 167,848.45 19 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers : 167,848.45 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 vchlist Voucher List Page: 1 02/16/2010 1:06:01 PM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description /Account Amount 19574 2/16/2010 000197 AIRFACTZ 40717 BACKGROUND CHECKS: HR 40.00 Total : 40.00 19575 2/16/2010 001081 ALSCO LSPO747015 FLOOR MATS: CITY HALL 19.69 Total : 19.69 19576 2/16/2010 000335 ALTON'S TIRE INC. 8080003669 OILS CHANGE: 40209D 36.65 Total : 36.65 19577 2/16/2010 001012 ASSOC BUSINESS SYSTEMS 378502 COPIER COSTS: LEGAL 22.91 378548 COPIER COSTS: CD 113.74 Total : 136.65 19578 2/16/2010 000841 BCI CREATIVE INC 9569 WEB DESIGN 45.00 Total : 45.00 19579 2/16/2010 000796 BUDINGER & ASSOC INC M08218 -13 42110 GEOTECH & MATERIALS TESTING 464.10 Total : 464.10 19580 2116/2010 000729 CH2MHILL INC 3735576 41025 0003 - BARKER ROAD BRIDGE 15,832.25 3735705 42433 PARK RD RECON 0069 ENG SVCS 4,267.06 Total : 20,099.31 19581 2/16/2010 001169 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Feb 2010 CP /PARKS PETTY CASH: 6939 13.36 February 2010 FRONT DESK PETTY CASH: 8778, f 40.73 Total : 54.09 19582 2/16/2010 001780 CLC ASSOCIATES, INC 30495 42488 SURVEY SERVICES FOR PROJECT 1,746.00 Total : 1,746.00 19583 2/16/2010 000109 COFFEE SYSTEMS INC 3820:045183 COFFEE SUPPLIES: COUNCIL 32.61 Total : 32.61 19584 2116/2010 001148 COLUMBIA PAINT & COATINGS 9243 -1 SUPPLIES: CP 63.87 Total : 63.87 19585 2/1612010 001888 COMCAST FEBRUARY 2010 HIGH SPEED INTERNET 108.95 Page: 1 vchlist REFUND OF PRE - APPLICATION FE 250.00 Voucher List Page: 2 02116/2010 1:06:01 PM Spokane Valley 33593 LEGAL PUBLICATION Bank code: apbank LEGAL PUBLICATION 25.00 33598 LEGAL PUBLICATION Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description /Account Amount 19585 2/16/2010 001888 001888 COMCAST (Continued) Total : 108.95 19586 2/16/2010 000425 DAY WIRELESS SYSTEMS 53819 42519 DAY WIRELESS 6,657.88 Total : 6,657.88 19587 2/16/2010 001603 DEMPSEY, ROSE Expenses CITY LEGISLATIVE ACTION CONFE 331.00 Total : 331.00 19588 2/15/2010 001280 DEPT OF LICENSING Claim # 09 -12081 RELEASE OF INSURANCE INFORM 10.00 Total : 10.00 19589 2116/2010 002138 ELECTROTECHNICS 0054376 -IN SOFTWARE REPAIRS 310.49 Total : 310.49 19590 2/16/2010 002157 ELJAY OIL COMPANY 4163744 OIL PRODUCTS FOR SNOW PLOW 1,151.95 Total : 1,151.95 19591 2116/2010 001232 FASTENAL CO PURCHASING IDLEW66235 42527 2010 SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP 105.44 Total : 105.44 19592 2/1612010 000106 FEDEX 9- 483 -98068 SHIPPING CHARGES: LEGAL 29.05 Total : 29.05 19593 2/16/2010 002134 FIRST AMERICAN TITLE 861- 425924453 GUARANTEE: LITIGATION --REF # JI 830.47 Total : 830.47 19594 2/16/2010 002252 FRANKS, WARREN BLDG REFUND REFUND OF PRE - APPLICATION FE 250.00 Total : 250.00 19595 2/16/2010 001447 FREE PRESS PUBLISHING INC 33592 LEGAL PUBLICATION 100.80 33593 LEGAL PUBLICATION 129.60 33597 LEGAL PUBLICATION 25.00 33598 LEGAL PUBLICATION 34.00 33599 LEGAL PUBLICATION 31.45 33600 LEGAL PUBLICATION 64.60 82080 LEGAL PUBLICATION 357.50 Total : 742.95 Page: 2 vchlist VOUCIIer List Page: 3 02/16/2010 1:06:011 Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description /Account Amount 19596 2116/2010 001003 GEOENGINEERS INC 0105179 CONSTRUCTION SUPPORT SERVI( 368.00 Total : 368.00 19597 2/16/2010 002076 GINNO CONSTRUCTION OF IDAHO Payment #7 42434 DISCOVERY PARK CONSTRUCTIOI 61,068.61 Total : 61,068.61 19598 2/16/2010 001009 GOTHMANN, WILLIAM Expenses CITY LEGISLATIVE ACTION CONF 344.07 Total : 344.07 19599 2/16/2010 002235 GRAFOS, DEAN Expenses CITY LEGISLATIVE ACTION CONFE 333.50 Total : 333.50 19600 2/16/2010 000007 GRAINGER 9165146581 42528 2010 SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP 13.68 9168398692 42528 2010 SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP 36.68 Total : 50.36 19601 2/16/2010 000505 H & H FINANCIAL SERVICES INC. FEBRUARY 2010 LEASE PAYMENT 954.39 JANUARY 2010 LEASE PAYMENT 954.39 Total : 1,908.78 19602 2/16/2010 002201 HARBOR FREIGHTTOOLS 02- 363769 42529 2010 SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP 62.99 Total : 62.99 19603 2/16/2010 001728 HP FINANCIAL SERVICES CO FEB 2010 LEASE PYMT 2,441.55 Total : 2,441.55 19604 2/16/2010 000259 HUMANIX INC. 173109 STAFFING SERVICE: LASERFICHE 454.40 173172 STAFFING SERVICE: LASERFICHE 528.95 Total : 983.35 19605 2/16/2010 000265 JACKSON, MIKE FEB 2010 MONTHLY AUTO ALLOWANCE 385.56 Total : 385.56 19606 2/1612010 000258 MICROFLEX INC. 0019122 Taxtools software rental January 201( 343.83 Total : 343.83 19607 2/16/2010 001035 NETWORK DESIGN & MANAGEMENT 17646 JANUARY SYSTEM MAINTENANCE 8,775.00 Total : 8,775.00 Page: 3 vchlist 02116/2010 1:06:01 PM Voucher List Spokane Valley Page: 4 Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description /Account Amount 19608 2/16/2010 000652 OFFICE DEPOT INC. 505746832001 OFFICE SUPPLIES: ADMIN 194.70 505939488001 OFFICE SUPPLIES: KITCHEN 505.66 505940441001 KITCHEN SUPPLIES 186.33 505940442001 KITCHEN SUPPLIES 151.73 Total : 1,048.42 19609 2/16/2010 000512 OFFICETEAM 30582702 STAFFING SVCS: LASERFICHE 513.45 30619090 STAFFING SVCS: LASERFICHE 652.00 Total : 1,165.45 19610 2/16/2010 000058 OMA Jan 2010 FITNESS EXAM FOR EMPLOYEE 65.00 Total : 65.00 19611 2116/2010 000064 SCHIMMELS, GARY Expense AWC EXPENSES 438.50 Total : 438.50 19612 2116/2010 000172 SPOKANE CO ENGINEER VLY0912 COUNTY SERVICES 66,552.58 Total : 66,562.58 19613 2/16/2010 000090 SPOKANE CO INFO SYSTEMS 50305147 COUNTY IT SUPPORT 16,032.58 Total : 16,032.58 19614 2/16/2010 001100 SPOKANE CO SHERIFF'S OFFICE Dec 2009 NIGHT TIME SEAT BELT GRANT 2,878.63 Total : 2,878.63 19615 2/16/2010 000617 SPOKANE CO TREASURER 4th QTR 2009 4TH QUARTER 2009: LIQUOR TAX 4,775.20 Total : 4,775.20 19616 2/16/2010 000084 STANDARD REGISTER CO 5417871 CHECK STOCK: FIN 1,106.41 Total : 1,106.41 19617 2/16/2010 002212 STANLEY SECURITY SOLUTIONS 7019117 INSTALLATION CHARGES— PRECIS 4,143.64 Total : 4,143.64 19618 2/16/2010 001875 STRATA S090422 -IN 42489 GEOTECH SVCS FOR PROJECT #0 1,817.95 Total : 1,817.95 19619 2116/2010 002253 STRONG, MIKE BLDG REFUND REFUND ON MECHANICAL PERMIT 38.00 Page: 4 vchlist ON CALL ENGINEER DESIGN SERA, Voucner List Page: 5 02/16/2010 1:06:01 PM Spokane Valley ON CALL ENGINEER DESIGN SER\ Bank code : apbank ON CALL ENGINEER DESIGN SER\ 2,400.00 Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description /Account Amount 19619 2/16/2010 002253 002253 STRONG, MIKE (Continued) Total : 38.00 19620 2/16/2010 001895 TAYLOR ENGINEERING INC #1 42523 ON CALL ENGINEER DESIGN SERA 560.00 19621 19622 19623 19624 19625 19626 129100029 #1 Inv #1 invoice #1 Invoice #1 2/16/2010 002254 TOWEY, TOM Expenses Expenses 2/1612010 001464 TW TELECOM 03359886 2/16/2010 002188 VALLEY BEST -WAY BLDG SUPPLY Jan 2010 2/16/2010 002215 VANGUARD CLEANING SYSTEMS 2/16/2010 000087 VERIZON WIRELESS 2116/2010 000089 XO COMMUNICATIONS 1/29/2010 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER 205100008 2/512010 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER 55 Vouchers for bank code : apbank 55 Vouchers in this report 12129 6374147007 0234526448 JANUARY 2010 JAN 2009 42523 ON CALL ENGINEER DESIGN SERA, 1,800.00 42523 ON CALL ENGINEER DESIGN SERA 1,000.00 42523 ON CALL ENGINEER DESIGN SER\ 4,160.00 42523 ON CALL ENGINEER DESIGN SER\ 2,400.00 Total : 9,920.00 MILEAGE EXPENSE 68.50 CITY ACTION CONFERENCE 336.00 Total : 404.50 NTERNET /DATA LILNES:CP 1,709.43 Total : 1,709.43 42540 2010 SMALL TOOLS & EQUIP 213.07 Total : 213.07 WINTER MAINT FACILITY 150.00 Total : 150.00 AIRCRAFT CARDS FOR STREET Mi 702.06 Total : 702.06 INTERNET /DATA LINES: FEBRUAR` 244.62 Total : 244.62 JANUARY 09: SHERIFF SERVICES 1,266,811.17 Total : 1,266,811.17 SPOKANE COUNTY SERVICES 249,038.45 Total : 249,038.45 Bank total : 1,739,597.41 Total vouchers : 1,739,597.41 Page: 5 vchlist Voucher List Page: 6 02/16/2010 1:06:01 PM Spokane Valley Bank code: apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO # Description /Account Amount 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: 6 vchlist Voucher List Page: 1 02117/2010 9:49:14AM Spokane Valley Bank code : apbank Voucher Date Vendor Invoice 3085 2/19/2010 000162 VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS, 401A EX Ben32444 3089 2/19/2010 000048 VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS, 401A PL Ben32446 3090 2/19/2010 000145 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS, 4: Ben32448 3091 2/19/2010 000682 EFTPS Ben32450 27,782.31 4 Vouchers for bank code : apbank Bank total : 4 Vouchers in this report 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. /' 2�� 2JI '7 1 / 1 &-- Finance Director Date PO # Description /Account Amount 401 EXEC PLAN: Payment 607.03 Total : 607.03 401A: Payment 27,585.06 Total : 27,585.06 457 DEFERRED COMPENSATION: F 3,518.82 Total : 3,518.82 FEDERAL TAXES: Payment 27,782.31 Total : 27,782.31 Bank total : 59,493.22 �Cppy Total vouchers : 59,493.22 Page: 1 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: 02 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 February 15, 2010: GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: BACKGROUND: OPTIONS: RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Budget/Financial impacts: Gross: $ 228,479.25 Benefits: $ 30,329.01 Total payroll $ 258,808.26 STAFF CONTACT: Raba Nimri ATTACHMENTS CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: February 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: Amendment to access agreement — soils testing on park property at Myrtle Point. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Approval by Council December 8, 2009; administrative report February 16, 2010. BACKGROUND: The City inherited park property at Myrtle Point along the Spokane River when the City incorporated. Approximately one acre of the property in contaminated with cement kiln dust (CKD) as a result of the cement factory that was operated on the property immediately south of the site, owned by Holcim (US) Inc. Holcim acknowledges its responsibility to address the off -site contamination, and is working actively with the City and the Washington State Department of Ecology to do so. One of potential options for dealing with the contamination is a pilot project Holcim is working with Waste Management on. Waste Management is testing the use of such soils (high alkaline) to keep heavy metals from migrating in landfills. Holcim has requested the ability to take a suitable size sample to a Waste Management landfill site in Oregon for the test (10 truck loads). Based on this, the City entered into an access agreement so Holcim and Waste Management can take the sample. The proposed access agreement was to end no later than March 1, 2010. *Updated information - Holcim has been trying to work with the propertV owner between the City's property and the public road to get the last access agreement, but has unable to do so to date. This process is apparently close to finalizing though. Holcim has requested some additional time to complete getting access, then collecting the soil samples for the test discussed above. In the event the soils are not suitable for the intended purpose, the City will continue to work with DOE and Holcim to determine what actions should be taken in the future. OPTIONS: RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Approve the "Amendment to Access and Indemnity Agreement" between the City of Spokane Valley and Holcim, Inc., and authorize the City Manager or designee to execute the document. BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None STAFF CONTACT: Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: Proposed amendment to the access agreement for Myrtle Point AMENDMENT TO ACCESS AND INDEMNITY AGREEMENT The following is an Amendment to the December 9, 2009 Access and Indemnity Agreement ( "Agreement ") made and entered into by and between Holcim (US) Inc. ( "Holcim" or "Licensee ") and the City of Spokane Valley ( "City" or "Licensor "). See Agreement, attached hereto as Appendix A. RECITALS WHEREAS Holcim and the City have entered into an Agreement to allow Holcim to access the City's Property (as defined in the Agreement) for the purpose of conducting certain cement kiln dust ( "CKD ") excavation and investigation activities; and WHEREAS weather conditions have delayed, and may continue to affect, the completion of such excavation and investigation activities; NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements described herein and in the Agreement, and for good and valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, it is agreed that the Agreement shall be amended to extend the expiration of the license from March 1, 2010 until July 31, 2010 such that Paragraph C.1.1 of the Agreement shall be amended to read as follows: C. THE CITY'S PERFORMANCE OBLIGATIONS 1.1 The City hereby grants Holcim and Holcim's Representatives a reasonable, non - exclusive, non - revocable license to access the City's Property for the sole purpose of allowing Holcim, and Holcim's Representatives: (a) to conduct CKD excavation and investigation activities, and (b) to repair, rebuild, or replace damaged fencing. This license shall expire no later than July 31, 2010. All other terms of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. Dated this day of , 2010. City of Spokane Valley (Licensor) Holcim (US) Inc. (Licensee) L'In Name: go Name: Title: Title: DEC -18 -2009 15:20 FROM:HOLCIM NRPO 24 734 529 4224 TO:914052396766 P.2 DAD Hokin Draft 091123 ACCESS AN INDEMNITY AGREE1 Ii ,NT THIS ACCFSS AN IN 1TY A REEMENT ( "Agreement"} is .1nade and eptered OF into as of -the - 9 - -day of 2009, by and between Holcim (LYS) Inc. :("Holcim" or "Licensee ") andthe City of Spokane Valley ( "City" or. "Liamsor "). IRtECUALS WHIMEAS Holcim owns a certain parcel of real property ( "Holcim's Proporty") lagated at 1.22018u pirc Way in the City of Spokane Valley, Washington; And WHEREAS the City owns a certain parcel of real property (the "City's Prpperty`� loeeiied adjacent to, and immediately nortb o� Holcim's Property, parcel number 45046.9062; and W149REAS Holcim desires to have access to the City's Property for purposes of conducting certain cement kiln dust ("CKD') excavation and investigation activities; NOW 1118REFORE, in consideration of the milwal covenants and agreements described below, and for good and valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, it is agreed - that 1~lolcim and its representatives shall have a license to access the City's Property subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement, A: TERN18 AND DEFINITIONS 1.1 Claim: For purposes of this Agreement, "Claim" shall mean any and all, administrative; regLilatory, or judicial actions, suits, demands, demand letters, directives, claims, licros, ixavcstigations, proceedings, or notices of injury, noncompliance, or violation (written or bral) by any person alleging potential liability arising out of, based on, or resulting. from the .aetivitiesperformod by Holcim or any of ljolcim's Representatives pursuant - to this Agreement. 1.2 Holcim's Representatives: For purposes of this Agreement, "Holaizn's Representatives" shall mean Holcim's employees, agents, consultants, attorneys, contractors, End subcontractors who are performing services for Holcim upon the City's Property. 0. HOLCINS PERFORMANCE OBLIGATIONS 1.1 Holcim shall obtabi, at its owil expense, and prior to any access w the City's; Property by Holcim and/or Holcim's Representatives, all necessary perniits and authorizations .6f whatever nature from any and all governmental agencies. In connection therewith, Holcim will comply, and will cause 1Tolcim's Representatives to comply, with all federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and permits applicable to the activities performed by Holcim or Roleft's Representatives pursuant to this Agreement. 1.2 Holcim agrees to maintain the existing .fence around the City's Property to the extent reasonably possible during the performance of activities authorized by this. Agvci r tent and, if any portion of the fence suffers damage caused by the actions or inactions of Holcim or Rolcizn's Repres entatives, Holcim shall repair, rebuild, or replace the damaged fence at Holcim's sole cost and expense. Page 1 of 3 DEC -18 -2009 15:20 FROM:HOLCIM NAPO 24 734 529 4224 TO:914052396766 P.3 0 Holcim Dmit 0.91123 C. THV CITY'S PERFORMANCE OBLIGATIONS 1.1 Tile City hereby grants Holcim and I301cim's Representatives a reasonable,110ft- exclusive, non - revocable license to access the City's Property for the sole purpose of allowing Holcian and Holcim's Representatives. (a) to conduct CKD excavation and: investigation activities, mid (b) to repair, rebuild, or replace drrnaned fencing. This license shall expire no later than March 1, 2016. 1). INDEMNITY AND ASSUMPTION OF JJABrLITY 1.1 l;Tolcim shall indemnify, assume liability for, hold harmless, and defend the City and its officers, ernpioyces, agents, and representatives from and against any and all Claims, suits, liabilities, actions, legal proceedings, administrative enforcement actions, and demands, whethef foreseen or unforeseen, arising from, or related to, the activities perfornted by H.OlciL and/or by Holcim.'s Representatives pursuant to this Agrccment. K. MISC IILLANEO US 1.1 Severubility. It is understood and agreed that if any one or more of the provisions or part of.'any provision. contained in this Agreement shall be held to be unenforecable in any respect, such invalidity, illegality, or unenforceability shall riot affect any other pfbvisioib and this ,Agreement shall be co.nstrue.d as if such invalid, illegal, or unen.forccable provision dad not exist. 1,2 Binding Effect. Upon execution, this Agreement shall be binding upon Holcim and the City, and their respective parent companies, subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, directors, employees, representatives, agents, heirs, successors, and/or assigns, t:3 No Admission. Neither this Agreement nor the Parties' execution of this Agreement is intended to constitute any admission of fact or conclusion of law. The 'Parties. agree that this 'Agrccment and the Panties' execution of this Agreement shall. 'not be used in ariy proceeding involving the Parties, or any third parties, as evidence of ajiy disputed fact or conclusion of law, except in proceedings relating to the enforcement of the terms and conditions of this Agreement, 1.4 Complete Agreement. This Agreement coutains the complete expression of the agreement between the City and. Holcim and there are no promises, representaitions, or inducem.erts verbal or written, except such as are herein provided, and the terins of this Agreement cannot be varied or terminated except by the written agreement of the City and FTolcim, 1.5 Adequate Consideration, Both Parties agree that the mutual promises contained herein constitute adequate consideration to bind the parties to the provisions of this Agreemcnt. 1.6 Assignment. The City extends the rights of access under the Agreement solely to Holcim and Holcim's Representatives as described herciu, and Holcirn, may not under ,any circumstancds assign .its interest in, or rights or obligations under, this Agreement without the prior writt'cn consent and approval of the City, which. shall not be unreasonably withheld. Pagc 2 of 3 DEC -10 -2009 15:21 FROM:HOLCIM NAPO 24 734 529 4224 TO:914O52396766 P.4/4 D"D Holcim Draft 09112:1 1,.7. Choice of Law. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of th.e State Of Washi ngton. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the patties hereto have caused this Ai recment to be executed by their duly autharized Representatives its of the day and year first above written. City of Spokane Valley (i:.icensor 'Name: ✓ CSC Tine; r Holci;m�KUS) Inc. (Licensee) By:J� Name: Title: Page 3 of 3 DRAFT MINUTES SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING STUDY SESSION FORMAT Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers Spokane Valley, Washington February 2, 2010 6:00 p.m. Attendance: Councilmembers Staff Tom Towey, Mayor Mike Jackson, Deputy City Manager Gary Schimmels, Deputy Mayor Mike Connelly, City Attorney Rose Dempsey, Councilmember Ken Thompson, Finance Director Bill Gothmann, Councilmember Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney Dean Grafos, Councilmember Rick VanLeuven, Police Chief Brenda Grassel, Councilmember Neil Kersten, Public Works Director Mike Stone, Parks & Recreation Director Kathy McClung, Community Development Dir. Absent: Greg McCormick, Planning Manager Bob McCaslin, Councilmember Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer Christina Janssen, Assistant Planner Bill Miller, IT Specialist Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk ACTION ITEMS: lb Proposed Resolution 10 -003: Cijy Manager Vacancy — Mike Connelly City Attorney Connelly explained that of the two items on tonight's agenda under action items, he suggested Council address the resolution first, then proceed with the discussion of a permanent city manager, and Council concurred. Mr. Connelly stated that this resolution will allow council to designate a qualified administrator to perform the duties of City Manager as the prior city manager is no longer here, and to begin the process of selecting a permanent manager, and that such process follows statute. He explained that Deputy City Manager Mike Jackson has been acting in that role throughout January, but he would have to be designated to perform the City Manager duties prior to February 5, 2010. Also RCW 35.13.050, Mr. Connelly explained, discusses who is qualified is serve as city manager, and it indicates that the person should be selected on the basis of the person's executive and administrative qualifications, with special reference to that person's actual experience in or knowledge of accepted practice in respect to those duties; that it is a general guideline, and he asked Council to look for someone who is familiar with the duties and responsibilities and has the skill sets necessary to operate in that capacity, and said that should be considered both for an acting city manager as well as a permanent city manager. Mr. Connelly said that Council engaged in a detailed evaluation of the qualifications of Mr. Jackson and Council met yesterday in executive session to evaluate those qualifications. Attorney Connelly said that there is a resolution on the dais tonight before each Councilmember, which is an alternative draft resolution to that which was part of the council's original packet materials, which would allow the designation of Mr. Jackson now, and a contract to be negotiated later rather than take both actions tonight. It was then moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded, to approve the alternative draft resolution 10 -003. City Attorney Connelly went over the contents of the alternative draft resolution, pointing out that Section 1 designates Deputy City Manager Mike Jackson to perform the duties of City Manager until such time as a permanent City Manager is selected; and that Section 2 authorizes the Mayor to negotiate and prepare a "Letter of Agreement for Acting City Manager" with the Deputy City Manager for Council Council Meeting Minutes: 2 -02 -2010 Page I of 6 Approved by Council: DRAFT consideration. Councilmember Dempsey said she is glad Mr. Jackson put his name forward and said we are fortunate to have him. Councilmember Grassel said that RCW 35A.13.150, states that the council may designate a qualified administrative officer of the city to perform the duties of manager; and she asked if Council has an option to leave that position vacant and leave Mr. Jackson as the Deputy City Manager, and what would be the consequences of doing so. Mr. Connelly said there is not an option to not have someone designated with the authority of the City Manager; that there are a number of statutory duties that are exclusive to the City Manager under the Council/City Manager form of government; and the referred to "may" means that Council has the option of appointing someone outside the city as an interim city manager, or appointing someone as a permanent city manager; and that this is one of three possible routes to take: Council can appoint an existing official as a temporary city manager, which is what this resolution does, or Council can appoint someone as a permanent city manager tonight, which Mr. Connelly said he would not recommend because there have been no analysis or study done of anyone for that position, or Council can appoint someone outside the city structure as the interim city manager, and if Council wants to take that third option, he suggests Council takes this action tonight, then engage in at least a mini - search for the interim position; so the permissive language simply means Council can appoint an interim, or a permanent, or take the action tonight; but that there must be someone with the authority of a City Manager to operate the city. Councilmember Grassel asked that the option on the Request for Council Action form gives as options, to approve or reject a resolution to designate an individual to perform the duties of City Manager; so then Council is not really given the option to reject a resolution? Attorney Connelly said Council doesn't have to use this route for the interim position to negotiate a contract with Mr. Jackson and have him as the interim city manager; but what has to be done tonight is for at least a week or two until we come up with a process to select an interim city manager if that is Council's desire, we have to have someone vested with the authority of the city manager, so Section 1 of the resolution must be passed at the very least. Councilmember Grafos asked for confirmation that tonight's action is to appoint Mr. Jackson as the temporary person until next week; and Attorney Connelly said that Council is designating Mr. Jackson to perform the duties of the City Manager until such time as Council enters into a contract, either with an interim or with a permanent city manager; and the second part of this resolution authorizes the Mayor to negotiate a contract; obviously that contract would have to come back to Council for approval before it would be effective. Councilmember Grafos asked what would occur if there was no agreement on a contract; and Attorney Connelly said Council would have to come up with a different process to find that interim city manager. Mayor Towey invited public comments; no comments were offered. Councilmember Gothmann said he feels Mr. Jackson is a people person and has a great deal of respect from the staff. Deputy Mayor Schimmels said even though Mr. Jackson has only been the Deputy for approximately two years, he feels Mr. Jackson is well qualified and has a very good resume. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous. Opposed.• None. Abstentions: None. Motion carried. la. Discussion of City Manager Vacancy — Mike Connelly City Attorney Connelly said that the discussion Council needs to engage in is what process to follow for the selection of a permanent city manager, and when does Council want to actually make decisions with respect to that; that there is no urgency, but it is something to deliberate on; that the alternatives are Council can appoint the acting city manager as permanent city manager, or could conduct a search in- house and conduct a national -wide search and advertise, get candidates and go through the selection process, and if that is the process, we would ask that Council ask the City Manager and staff to put together a specific process for Council approval before the process starts, to ensure the process would be fair; or Council could hire an outside executive search firm to conduct the search; or to ask one of the executive search firms to come discuss the process to give Council a clearer idea of what they could do or what council might need to conduct the search in- house; and Mr. Connelly said he feels council might benefit from gathering such information from someone who does this for a living. In response to question from Councilmember Dempsey, Mr. Connelly said if Council wanted to go the "mini- search route," that Council Meeting Minutes: 2 -02 -2010 Page 2 of 6 Approved by Council: DRAFT means Council would read the resumes; and if there is an in -house search, Council will be very involved as it would be Council's candidate; that staff can facilitate the process, and do mailings, and other functions, but that tasks will have to be assigned to Councilmembers to review the resumes, to dwindle them down to those to interview; and staff can work with Council if Council desires, to draft interview questions; but this is something that is Council's task to ultimately bring the candidates down to one person. Councilmember Dempsey asked what else would be needed if Council prefers to hire Mike Jackson as the new city manager, and City Attorney Connelly said nothing more need be done other than to make such appointment. Councilmember Grassel said she has already received a few resumes, and said if Council feels after an in -house search, that there are no strong candidates, could council then go with the executive search committee, and Attorney Connelly said that is an alternative; and said the only recommendation he has is that once the direction is determined, we need to take the time to identify a very specific, fair process, and then follow it because the selection of any executive needs to be done in a way that is perceived as fair, that is fair, and that reaches the largest audience to get the best number of candidates to council for consideration; and if that is the process Council desires, the process needs to be determined exactly, and staff would then bring that process back to Council for council approval prior to proceeding any further. Mr. Connelly said the idea of bringing someone in to talk to. Council before Council makes that final decision, might be helpful so Council would know exactly what they would be buying on the professional side, and get some good ideas of what Council could do on its own. Regarding doing the search in- house, City Attorney Connelly said he spoke with the City Manager and to Human Resources, and if that is Council's desire, staff will come up with a plan to present for council consideration. Councilmember Grafos said at this time, he would like to see just a local search and to have staff bring a proposal on how to start that search in -house on a local basis. Councilmember Dempsey asked about the definition of "local" and whether that means within Spokane Valley, or Spokane County; and City Attorney Connelly said he assume that means we would do the search in- house, but to look at as broad a spectrum as possible, and Councilmember Grafos concurred. Deputy Mayor Schimmels added that Council needs background on the process, including a purpose of exactly what it is Council seeks; and Councilmember Gothmann added that Council needs to determine what skills and attributes Council seeks and are important for a City. City Attorney Connelly said a motion will be placed on an up- coming agenda to start the process, and staff will start researching to determine what resources may be available, and part of the process that staff will define for Council, will be to identify what Council is looking for; and that would likely involve a Council meeting, a workshop, and public involvement prior to advertising for the position. Councilmember Gothmann said the pool of candidates could include Mr. Jackson if he is interested; and Mr. Connelly concurred. Councilmember Grassel asked if the process would include salary, and Mr. Connelly said prior to advertising and receiving resumes, there must be a clear idea of what we are offering an applicant, at least a salary range, and said staff can get some recommendations from some of the executive search firms as to what has been used by others. Council concurred with Mr. Connelly's suggestions. NON - ACTION ITEMS: 2 Ordinance Amending Uniform Development Code and Provide for Development Agreement — Christina Janssen/ Mike Connelly Assistant Planner Janssen went over the background of this proposed amendment to Spokane Valley Municipal Code Title 17 and 19, as noted in the February 2, 2009 Request for Council Action form, and said that this proposed ordinance is in follow -up to emergency ordinance 09 -015 which provided for the creation of developer agreements, something that is not currently provided for in our Code. After explaining the proposed changes, there was Council consensus to bring this for a first reading ordinance at an upcoming council meeting. Council Meeting Minutes: 2 -02 -2010 Page 3 of 6 Approved by Council: DRAFT 3. Planning Commission Rules of Procedure — Kathy McClung Community Development Director McClung explained that the Rules of Procedure were last updated in June of 2006; and the Procedures currently state that they should be reviewed every other year; that these changes are proposed to clarify language, to delete one section based on previous Council direction, and to move one subsection to a more appropriate section. There was Council consensus to move this forward at an upcoming council meeting, and to adopt these rules by Resolution. Councilmember Grassel said that the rules mention conflict of interest on the part of the Commissioners, and she asked if there is anything which states about being removed for lack of attendance. City Attorney Connelly said he will get Council copies of the appropriate state statutes dealing with the Planning Commissioners. 4. Animal Control Ordinance Amendment — Cary Driskell Deputy City Attorney Driskell said that this is a follow up on animal control services; that in discussing the Code with SCRAPS Director Nancy Hill, a discrepancy was noted between the County's regulations and ours; specifically regarding the definition of "kennel" as the County regulations state that an animal owner can have up to four animals without a kennel license, and our Code states that an animal owner can have up to five animals without a kennel license; and SCRAPS for like the Codes to be the same for ease in regulating; and Mr. Driskell added that kennels are not permitted in our residential areas. After discussion concerning contacting kennel owners, the desire to have public comment, and that this will involve a change to our Uniform Development Code, there was Council consensus to return this issue to the Planning Commission with eventual return to Council. 5. City Hall Property Negotiations Status — Mike Connelly To bring Council up -to -date on the City Hall Property Negotiations via his January 27, 2010 memorandum, City Attorney Connelly briefed Council on steps taken up to now; he referenced the May 5, 2008 Letter of Intent, which was also included as part of the council's packet material; and he went over the options listed in that noted January 27, 2010 memorandum; and concluded by explaining that staff awaits Council direction on whether to continue to negotiate with the property owner for the purchase of property for a future city hall, or to suspend negotiations pending a determination of future legislative changes to the SARP (Sprague /Appleway Revitalization Plan), as the Plan contemplates this area as the ultimate city center; he said he feels we should not act contrary to the Plan while we have the plan, or do other things until the Plan is actually changed. It was also mentioned that the SARP would be discussed at next week's Retreat. Councilmember Gothmann stated that until a decision is made on how to deal with SARP problems, it would be unfair to continue negotiations and therefore, negotiations should be suspended until such determination is made. Deputy Mayor Schimmels voiced his agreement and said a notice needs to be sent to U -City explaining where we are and that we need time. Councilmember Grassel agreed that suspension makes the most sense, and said that as we are in an economic downturn, it would be difficult to attract a developer. Attorney Connelly said that the consulting relationships were terminated last year, and other than staff involvement, there are no on -going costs; and said staff will check to confirm if all costs have been disbursed; and will check regarding work done by the architect firm. Councilmember Gothmann mentioned that there is a difference between the purchase of the property and building a building; and Attorney Connelly confirmed the two have always been separate. It was determined that a motion will be brought to council later to gain specific direction, and to invite members of the community to give input. 6. Law Enforcement Services — Rick VanLeuven Police Chief VanLeuven explained via his PowerPoint presentation, of the need for additional executive management for administrative and operational oversight, i.e., a precinct commander; that the need was identified in 2007 and recommended by the ICMA Law Enforcement Study in September 2009. Chief VanLeuven explained some of the duties and essential functions of the position, and said this individual would be appointed by and serve at the Police Chief s discretion; and that the annual cost to Spokane Council Meeting Minutes: 2 -02 -2010 Page 4 of 6 Approved by Council: DRAFT Valley would be $152,706. In response to questions concerning funding, Deputy City Manager Jackson said originally staff thought the position could be funded by moving resources within the existing budget, but that option is no longer available; and that tonight's presentation is to make Council aware of the decision, but staff continues to work to find a way to fund the position with existing resources. Discussion included mention of the critical need for this position; that a precinct commander needs to have command authority to make decisions that a sergeant doesn't have; that part of the problem in funding is due to the economy; and if it is council's determination to pursue this, Mr. Jackson said staff can examine what would be necessary to change the contract, adding that it would represent an increase in expenditures to the City. Mayor Towey and Councilmember Gothmann said they feel the position is needed and hope staff will look at revenues to come up with a way to support the position. Mr. Jackson said staff would like to investigate financial resources and come back in a few weeks; Councilmember Grafos said he would like to find a funding source and roll this into the negotiations at the Sheriffs Office. Mr. Jackson said staff will look at all options; and there was Council consensus to support that. 7. Advance Agenda — Mayor Towa Mayor Towey reminded everyone of next week's retreat at CenterPlace; and City Attorney Connelly mentioned that the SARP (Sprague /Appleway Revitalization Plan) will be included in the land use history agenda item. Councilmember Gothmann said he would like to consider putting an issue on an upcoming ballot to address the one -way versus two -way issue; and Mr. Connelly said staff will lay out all the options for Council. Discussion was held on upcoming joint meetings with other entities, and City Clerk Bainbridge mentioned she is working on setting those meeting dates. Point of Order: It was moved by Councilmember Grafos, seconded and unanimously agreed, to excuse Councilmember McCaslin from this evening's meeting. 8. Information Only: Department Reports and Hearing Examiner Annual Report these were for information only and were not reported or discussed. 9. Council Check in Councilmember Gothmann said that KXYL is doing a report on panhandling by having a member of their staff pose as a panhandler; and Councilmember Gothmann said that the only way to stop panhandlers is to stop giving them money; and said that 80% of the money given to them goes to drugs and/or alcohol. Councilmember Dempsey said she attended a meeting in Liberty Lake with that City's Mayor and representatives from the HUB, and noted that the HUB has indicated unless they receive substantial financial assistance soon, or at least a promise of receiving such assistance, that they could close their doors; and she said perhaps our city could partner with Liberty Lake to support this facility; that although the facility is outside our city limits, events at the facility impact tourism in the area. Councilmember Gothmann said that perhaps staff in our Parks and Recreation department could look into this and report back; and Deputy City Manager Jackson said that when the HUB was about to change ownerships, they approached the City for assistance; and said that Spokane County did an extensive pro forma on the facility when they were considering obtaining the building, and said staff can gather information and report back to Council at a later date. Other ideas mentioned were going with a joint election request, contacting the Sports Commission for assistance or ideas, or forming a special district; and City Attorney Connelly said there could be legal considerations and said staff will look into that as well. Mayor Towey mentioned the recent Fire District awards banquet with Chief Thompson receiving honors from his peers; and Councilmember Grassel mentioned that Peggy Doering recently received the Chamber's Citizen of the Year award. Council Meeting Minutes: 2 -02 -2010 Page 5 of 6 Approved by Council: DRAFT 10. City Manager Comments Deputy City Manager Jackson said that our lobbyist called a few days ago and reported there could be some transportation funds available, but they are limited to perhaps $300,000; that we are already planning to construct the Sprague /Sullivan intersection at approximately $1 million, but we need another $318,000, and he asked for Council consensus to ask the lobbyist if the opportunity arises, to put our name in for this possible grant opportunity. Council concurred. It was moved by Councilmember Dempsey, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 7:40 p.m. ATTEST: Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Thomas E. Towey, Mayor Council Meeting Minutes: 2 -02 -2010 Page 6 of 6 Approved by Council: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: February 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 : Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 10 -003, Amendments to False Alarm Code GOVERNING LEGISLATION: SVMC 7.20 Alarm Systems PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Adoption of false alarm code in 2004; adoption of new false alarm code in 2009, applicable January 1, 2010; administrative report to Council January 12, 2010; administrative report to Council January 12, 2010. BACKGROUND: At the request of the Police Department, the City Council adopted a new false security alarm code in September, 2009, effective January 1, 2010. Concurrently, the Council approved a contract with Public Safety Corp. /CryWolf (PSC), a private company specializing in helping jurisdictions reduce the number of false alarms. In the process of registering the many alarm users in the last month, PSC and our Police Department personnel found several items that were redundant, erroneous or unnecessary. The attached proposed code amendments are considered housekeeping items, and would remove or amend those provisions. These proposed changes are listed below in the order they appear in the draft ordinance. 7.20.050(D) page one, bottom — the word thirty is currently spelled out. The protocol in the City Code is to use the number, so it is being changed accordingly. 7.20.050(E) page one, bottom — neither the City nor PSC utilize a disclosure statement. This was a remnant of the provisions borrowed from the City of Spokane. Since the City does not use the disclosure statement, the entire subsection should be removed, and the rest of the section renumbered. 7.20.050(new E)(5) page two, top — with the removal of the requirement for a signed disclosure statement in the old subsection (E), this subsection had to be amended to similarly remove the reference to the statement. 7.20.050(new F) page two, middle - with the removal of the requirement for a signed disclosure statement in the old subsection (E), this subsection had to be amended to similarly remove the reference to the statement. 7.20.050(new H)(3) page two, middle — removed the word "his" as it was unnecessary for the sentence. 7.20.100(D) page three, middle — the reference to "employee of the city" was a remnant of the City of Spokane language not applicable to our city because we contract for police services, and they are thus not employees of the City. 7.20.110(D)(2) page four, top — the reference to SVMC 7.20.050 should be removed because it does not refer to system modification or inspection as asserted. 7.20.110(J)(11)((c) and (d) page four, middle — there are three numbers spelled out that should be numerically stated. 7.20.170 page five, bottom and top of six — the Police Department does not differentiate between burglary and robbery in terms of how they respond, so there is no basis for a different charge. As such, this section is being deleted in its entirety and left blank in the event the City wants to add a section in the future for whatever reason. The rest of SVMC 7.20 would remain the same. OPTIONS: (1) Proceed with amending SVMC 7.20 as outlined above; (2) recommend additional changes; (3) do nothing; RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: I move that we approve Ordinance 10 -003. BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None anticipated. STAFF CONTACT: Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney; Rick VanLeuven, Chief of Police ATTACHMENTS Proposed Ordinance 10 -003 DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 10 -003 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, AMENDING SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 7.20.050, 7.20.100, 7.20.110, AND REPEALING 7.20.170 RELATING TO SECURITY ALARMS, AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley previously adopted regulations relating to false alarms that became effective January 1, 2010, codified in Spokane Valley Municipal Code 7.30; and WHEREAS, in the course of implementing these Code changes, staff discovered several items that needed to be amended because they were either unnecessary or contradictory; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to amend the Code to correct these errors. NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington, ordains as follows: Section 1 . Purpose The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend the Spokane Valley Municipal Code sections related to alarms to remove unnecessary or erroneous provisions. Section 2. Amending Spokane Valley Municipal Code 7.20.050 SVMC 7.20.050 is amended as follows: Section 7.20.050 Registration Terms and Fees A. Alarm registration is valid for one year. B. Alarm registration is issued to a person or persons ( "alarm user ") having bona fide ownership or control of an alarm site (i.e., home owner, business owner, renter, leaseholder, etc.) and specifically for that alarm site or address. Alarm registration remains in the name(s) of the alarm user of record until a change of ownership or control of the alarm site occurs. C. Alarm registration is attached to the alarm user and the alarm site registration and is not transferable. A new alarm site registration must be issued whenever there is a change of ownership or control of an alarm site. D. The initial registration application shall be given to the alarm user at the time of alarm installation and shall be submitted to the alarm administrator or designee within 30fli rtt days. n..a;,,a,,..o i n_nnz Va100 eta,,,, Paee 1 of 6 DRAFT F E. Registration information is determined by the alarm administrator and shall include, but not be limited to, the following: 1. Name and address of the alarm user (i.e., the person financially responsible for operation of the alarm system being registered). 2. Home, business and cellular telephone number(s) of the alarm user. 3. Name, address and telephone number of the alarm business providing monitoring service to the system. 4. Alternate telephone number for verification (cell phone or other telephone designated by the alarm user). 5. Signature of the alarm user verifying that the alarm user ' e has read under-steed the —Git ••'- lied eles statement and -- agrees to pay the fees associated with false alarms. GF. On receipt of the application and fees, and cepy of the signed disci°__ ••° state the alarm administrator (or designee) shall issue a security alarm registration number to the alarm user. MG. The security alarm registration number assigned to an alarm user remains the same for as long as the alarm user continuously maintains registration for the alarm site. IH. Registration may be renewed under the following conditions: 1. The alarm site has no past -due fees. 2. The alarm site's registration is not suspended for excessive false alarms. 3. The alarm user either updates his- registration information or verifies that the current registration information is still correct. 4. The appropriate annual registration fee is paid. 3I. Renewal information and fees are submitted to the alarm administrator (or designee) on or before the initial registration anniversary date each year. JK. The rates for security alarm registration fees are set forth in the City's Master Fee Schedule, as set forth in SVMC 7.20.310. The established rates shall assure that the alarm administrator position and all other costs related to administration and enforcement of the security alarm ordinance are supported entirely by registration fees. Section 3. Amending Spokane Valley Municipal Code 7.20.100 SVMC 7.20.100 is amended as follows: Section 7.20.100 Alarm Dispatch Requests A. Alarm dispatch requests shall be made in the manner prescribed by the alarm administrator and approved by 911 and police dispatch. Ordinance 10 -003 False Alarm Page 2 of 6 DRAFT B. Alarm dispatch requests may include, but are not limited to, the following information: 1. Alarm site registration number. 2. Location of the alarm activation. 3. Type of alarm activation (burglary/property /intrusion/robbery/ panic/hold- up /duress or roll- over /airbag deployment). 4. Alarm business' incident number (or other official incident identifier). 5. Alarm business' assigned control number. C. Alarm dispatch requests made to the department (or its designee) shall be for police incidents only, and shall accurately indicate the type of alarm activation (burglary/property/intrusion, robbery/hold -up /panic /duress) that is the proximate cause for the alarm dispatch request. D. No alarm business shall initiate an alarm dispatch request if it knows, or reasonably should know, that doing so would cause a law enforcement office to respond to an alarm site containing a protective /reactive alarm system. E. No dispatch request and subsequent police response to a robbery alarm (as defined in SVMC 7.20.020) may be cancelled by the alarm user. In every case at least one officer shall respond to affirm that the alarm user is not under duress of any kind. Section 4. Amending Spokane Valley Municipal Code 7.20.110 SVMC 7.20.110 is amended as follows: Section 7.20.110 Duties of Alarm Installation Company and /or Monitoring Company A. All alarm installation and/or monitoring companies shall ensure that their customer information is updated with the alarm administrator or designee at least monthly. This information shall include: 1. Customer name and contact information (i.e., all phone numbers); 2. Alarm site address and billing address; 3. Monitoring company name and contact information; and 4. Installation date or date the alarm monitoring ended. B. All alarm installation and/or monitoring companies shall ensure that an on -site inspection of the operating systems for the alarm system shall occur at least once every three years. The records of these inspections shall be made available to the alarm administrator upon request. C. The alarm installation company shall provide written and oral instructions to each of its alarm users in the proper use and operation of their alarm systems. Such instructions Ordinance 10 -003 False Alarm Page 3 of 6 DRAFT will specifically include all instructions necessary to turn the alarm system on and off and to prevent false alarms. D. Effective January 1, 2010, and thereafter, alarm installation companies shall not program alarm systems so that they are capable of sending one -plus duress alarms. 1. Monitoring companies may continue to report one -plus duress alarms received from alarm systems programmed with one -plus duress alarms prior to January 1, 2010. 2. Effective January 1, 2010, and thereafter, when a takeover or conversion occurs, or if an alarm user requests an alarm system inspection or modification, , an alarm installation company must remove the one -plus duress alarm capability from such alarm systems. E. Effective January 1, 2010, and thereafter, alarm installation companies shall not install a device to activate a holdup alarm, which is a single action, non - recessed button. F. Effective April 1, 2010, the alarm installation companies shall, on new installations, use only alarm control panel(s) which meet SIA Control Panel Standard CP -01. G. An alarm company shall not use automatic voice dialers which call 911 or the police department. H. After completion of the installation of an alarm system, an alarm installation company employee shall review with the alarm user the customer false alarm prevention checklist established by department policy. I. The monitoring company shall make an alarm dispatch request for a police officer response to a burglar alarm signal, including panic, duress and hold -up signals. A residential alarm user is provided one false alarm response during the first sixty days following an alarm system installation without any charge. A monitoring company shall: 1. Report alarm activations or signals by using the telephone numbers designated by the alarm administrator; 2. Attempt to verify every burglar alarm signal prior to requesting a police dispatch by making at least two phone calls to the responsible party or parties. This procedure does not apply to duress or hold -up signals; 3. Communicate alarm dispatch requests to the Spokane Valley police in a manner and form determined by the alarm administrator; 4. Communicate cancellations to the Spokane Valley police in a manner and form determined by the alarm administrator; 5. Ensure that all alarm users of alarm systems equipped with duress, hold -up or panic alarm(s) are given adequate training as to the proper use of the duress, hold -up or panic alarm(s). Alarm system training should be provided to every alarm user and/or additional training provided in situations where the alarm user has established a high incident rate of false alarms resulting from unintentional or accidental activation; 6. Communicate any available information (north, south, front, back, floor, etc.) about the location on all alarm signals related to the alarm dispatch request; Ordinance 10 -003 False Alarm Page 4 of 6 DRAFT 7. Communicate type of alarm activation (silent or audible, interior or perimeter); 8. Provide an alarm user registration number when requesting an officer dispatch; 9. After an alarm dispatch request, promptly advise the Spokane Valley police if the monitoring company knows that the alarm user or the responder is on the way to the alarm site; 10. Attempt to contact the alarm user or responder within twenty -four hours via mail, fax, telephone or other electronic means when an alarm dispatch request is made; and 11. Effective January 1, 2010, monitoring companies must maintain for a period of at least one year from the date of the alarm dispatch request, records relating to alarm dispatch requests. a. Records must include the: L name, address and telephone number of the alarm user; ii. alarm system zone(s) activated; iii. time of alarm dispatch request; and iv. evidence of an attempt to verify. b. The alarm administrator may request copies of such records for individually named alarm users. c. If the request is made within 4-,40 days of an alarm dispatch request, the monitoring company shall furnish requested records within flifee business days of receiving the request. d. If the records are requested between sH60 days to one year after an alarm dispatch request, the monitoring company shall furnish the requested records within t'ri�30 days of receiving the request. K. An alarm installation company and/or monitoring company that purchases alarm system accounts from another person shall notify the alarm administrator of such purchase and provide details as may be reasonably requested by the alarm administrator. Section 5. Repealing_ Spokane Valley Municipal Code 7.20.170 SVMC 7.20.170 is repealed as follows: Section 7.20.170 ° lb Polle S eMees ci Pi!h pai!P Y left blank A. f fees f ef a p i are in the r' s ? 4aste r Tee S£ht a lei pufsua to MINK; 7 Ordinance 10 -003 False Alarm Page 5 of 6 DRAFT 1. Separate rates may be establislied fef eammer-ei.-I prepei:ties and residential p.ap ies r-espenses to - sc a ^t^ii„^ andte —false tbb ,'h .. / a ld i ,..e.-^ ^1^..,,,, 2. The establish F ates sh all - ss':+' c., - t the - fa ll rrco3t -8r peliee i:e spense to false seeerit� alar-ms is i:eeevefed by the City. B. C—est- reEavei-y fees ai:e assessed -based en the - response ::qiiesa •e 1 a'� 1 CG�i 1�� — 1Ta'�1T — Ii T CGTf requ ,-...s:. . ..t l b ..1.,.... F o ..la u bje t t the false ^1^.-.., . ^1t,. f e e a.°. �li l i�. ,, � ,,y � � � �Y + vi u�i �vuv�..> uiuia.a, ivn:r:airPc , �`� 1� � le to - 'ebb GZ�'�ala "e�es, evei'fif t he ala etiv "1tien - sl} ' efly have eeep apt ed as 'atrrglef3r. Section 6 Remainder of SVMC 7.20 Unchanged The remaining provisions of SVMC 7.20 are unchanged by this amendment. Section 7 . Severability If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance. Section 8 . Effective Date This Ordinance shall become effective five days after publication of the ordinance, or a summary thereof, in the official newspaper of the City. Adopted this day of 2010. City of Spokane Valley Thomas E. Towey, Mayor ATTEST: Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Approved as to Form: Office of the City Attorney Ordinance 10 -003 False Alarm Page 6 of 6 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: February 23rd, 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: Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 10 -004: amendments to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code as follows: Chapter 17.80.030- Update Table 17.80 -1 to include Developer Agreements as a Type IV application and minor modifications to Developer Agreements as a Type I application. Chapter 17.80.140- Include Developer Agreements in the language that outlines Type IV applications. Chapter 19.30.015 -Add language which provides for Developer Agreements in conjunction with Comprehensive Plan Amendments. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70B.170 -210 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Ordinance First Reading February 9, 2010 BACKGROUND: The Uniform Development Code was adopted in September of 2007 and was effective October 28 2007. Following the adoption of the code, a number of items were discovered which were incorrect, impractical, or omitted. On August 11, 2009 the Spokane Valley City Council passed Ordinance 09 -015, an emergency ordinance which provided for the creation of Developer Agreements, something that is not currently provided for in the Municipal Code. These agreements can only be considered in conjunction with Comprehensive Plan amendments and associated rezones and would provide both the developer and the City with the flexibility needed to carry out the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Some items that may be addressed through Developers Agreements include, but are not limited to, permitted uses, densities, building sizes, development conditions, design standards, impact fees, affordable housing and phasing. Minor modifications to these agreements may be approved by the Community Development Director based on criteria included in the regulations. ANALYSIS: Spokane Valley Municipal Code Section 17.80.150(6) provides approval criteria that amendments of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code must meet. Those criteria include: 1. The proposed amendment(s) are consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. 2. The proposed amendment(s) bear a substantial relation to the public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment. a. LUP -1.2 requires code provisions that "protect residential areas from impacts of adjacent non - residential uses and /or higher intensity uses." Developers Agreements provide the City with a mechanism that protects existing neighborhoods while also allowing development to occur. The Planning Commission finds that the code amendments are consistent with this provision. b. NP -2.2 calls for the review and revision of existing land use regulations to provide innovation and flexibility in the design of new residential developments. Developers Agreements provide flexibility on a case by case basis which allows both the developers and the City to create a variety of different housing options. The Planning Commission finds that the code amendments are consistent with this provision. c. IP- encourages the periodic review of programs, procedures, processes and other opportunities of reaching customer service goals. Developers Agreements are a way to offer greater flexibility to those who choose to develop in Spokane Valley. The Planning Commission finds that the code amendments are consistent with this provision. Staff Comment: The proposed amendments meet the above outlined goals, and are thus consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. OPTIONS: Approve ordinance with or without modifications, or direct staff further. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Approve ordinance 10 -004. BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None. STAFF CONTACT: Christina Janssen — Assistant Planner; Mike Connelly -City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: Draft Ordinance 10 -004 DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 10 -004 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ADOPTING A NEW SECTION OF THE UNIFORM DEVELOPMENT CODE, SPECIFICALLY SECTION 19.30.015, AND AMENDING EXISTING SECTION 17.80.030 AND 17.80.140 TO ESTABLISH A PROCEDURE FOR CONSIDERATION OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE COMPANION ZONE CHANGE AND REPEALING ORDINANCE 09 -015. WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley adopted the Uniform Development Code (UDC) pursuant to Ordinance 07 -015 on the 25 day of September, 2007; and WHEREAS, the UDC became effective on the 28 day of October, 2007; and WHEREAS, the adopted UDC does not specifically provide for the consideration of a development agreement in conjunction with a comprehensive plan amendment and companion zone change processed as part of the City of Spokane Valley's annual amendment to the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, such an agreement is authorized by RCW 36.70B.170 -210; and WHEREAS, the city council approved Interim Ordinance 09 -015 on the 11 day of August, 2009; and WHEREAS, the planning commission has reviewed the proposed ordinance and held a public hearing to allow comment from the public on the 14 ffi day of January, 2010, and subsequent to that hearing and deliberations, recommended approval of the same; and WHEREAS, the ordinance was provided to the Department of Commerce for their review pursuant to RCW 36.70A.106 on December 21, 2009. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL SPECIFICALLY ORDAINS AS SET FORTH BELOW: Section One: amending SVMC 17.80.030: Section 17.80.030 shall be amended as follows: 17.80.030 Assignment of development application classification. A. Assignment by Table. Land use and development applications shall be classified pursuant to the following table: Tahle 17.80 -1— Permit Tvne and Land Use Application Type L Land Use and Development Application R SVMC Cross - Accessory dwelling units 1 19.40.100 Type I A Administrative determinations by community development director, M Multiple public works director, or building official 1A AAA T.... ml..r+m en4 A r» --o"t Nap, 1 of R ()rr1innnrP i n -nna T)P.vP.lnnmPnt AOrennipmt Page 2 of 8 Administrative exception 19.140 Administrative interpretation 17.50.010 Boundary line adjustments and eliminations 20.80 Building permits not subject to SEPA 21.20.040 Floodplain development 21.30 Grading permits 24.50 Home occupation permit 19.40.140 Minor modifications of development agreements 19.30015(I) Record of survey to establish lots within a binding site plan 20.60.040 Right -of -way permits 22.130.060 Shoreline permit exemption (dock permit) 21.50 Site plan review 19.130 Temporary use permit 19.160 Time extensions for preliminary subdivision, short subdivision or binding site plan 20.30.060 Alterations — Preliminary and final subdivisions, short subdivisions, binding site plans 20.50 Binding site plan — Preliminary and final 20.50 Binding site plan — Change of conditions 20.50 SEPA threshold determination 21.20.060 Type II Shoreline substantial development permit 21.50 Short subdivision — Preliminary and final 20.30, 20.40 Preliminary short subdivision, binding site plan — Change of conditions 20.30 Wireless communication facilities 22.120 Conditional use permits 19.150 Planned residential developments 19.50 Plat vacation 20.70.020 Type III Preliminary subdivision Change of conditions 20.50 Subdivisions — Preliminary 20.30 Variance 19.170 Zoning map amendments (site- specific rezones) 19.30.030 [ Type Annual Comprehensive Plan amendments (text and/or map) 17.80.140 ()rr1innnrP i n -nna T)P.vP.lnnmPnt AOrennipmt Page 2 of 8 DRAFT IV Area -wide zoning map amendments Development Agreements associated with Comprehensive Plan Amendments Development code text amendments 17.80.140 17.80.140 17.80.150 Section Two: amending SVMC 17.80.140: 17.80.140 shall be amended as follows: 17.80.140 Type IV Applications — Comprehensive Plan Amendments, Development Agreements associated with a Comprehensive Plan Amendment 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 provide 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, 090, and 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 (60) 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: ai. Notice published in an appropriate regional or neighborhood newspaper or trade j ournal; 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 1 st of the previous calendar year and before November 1 st of in nnn r%.....,1,......_.,+ n,,..oe..,o„+ Paae I nfR 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. 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(2). 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 3i. If the Planning Commission is unable to take either of the actions specified in subsections (G)(1) or (2) above, the proposal will be sent to City Council with the notation that the Planning Commission makes no recommendation. H. Approval Criteria. 1. The City may approve Comprehensive Plan Amendments and Area -Wide Zone Map Amendments if it finds that: nrr1;nanra 10-00,1 TIPVPInnment AvrPPment Page 4 of 9 F-DISTRIM 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 RCW 36.70A 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 sixty (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(2). All annual amendments to the Comprehensive Plan shall be considered concurrently. By a majority vote of its membership, the City Council shall: 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 sixty (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 sixty (60) day comment period. No later than ten (10) days after adoption of the proposal, a copy of the final decision shall be forwarded to CTED. nrrlinnnra 1 fl_fl(ld Tlavalnnment AorP.P.ment Page 5 of 8 177:11 Section Three: amending SVMC 19.30: SVMC Chapter 19.30 shall be amended by adding a new section 19.30.015 as follows: 19.30 Changes & Amendments 19.30.010 Comprehensive Plan Text & Map Amendments Pursuant to RCW 36.70.130(2)(a) proposed updates to the Comprehensive Plan will be processed only once a year except for the adoption of original sub -area plans, amendments to the Shoreline Master program, the amendment of the Capital Facilities Chapter concurrent with the adoption of the City budget, in the event of an emergency or to resolve an appeal of the Comprehensive Plan filed with the Growth Management Hearing Board. Comprehensive Plan text and map amendments are classified as Type IV development applications and shall be processed pursuant to SVMC Chapter 17.80.140. 19.30.015 Development Agreements associated with a Comprehensive Plan Amendment A Pursuant to RCW 36.70B.170 - 210 the city may enter into a development agreement with a person having ownership or control of real property within its jurisdiction as part of a comprehensive plan amendment and associated rezone. A development agreement and subsequent rezone shall be consistent with applicable development regulations set forth in the UDC, SVMC Chapters 17 -24. B Development Agreements associated with a Comprehensive Plan Amendment are classified as Tape IV development applications and shall be processed in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and the regulations of RCW 36.70B.170 - 210. C Development agreements associated with a comprehensive plan amendment and subsequent rezone may be used at the city council's discretion. Development agreements may be used to place restrictions on a proposed amendment to minimize the impacts of future development. D. Development agreement contents 1 For the purpose of this section development standards may include but are not limited to the following: a Project elements such as permitted uses residential densities and nonresidential densities and intensities or building_ sizes: b The amount and payment of impact fees imposed or agreed to in accordance with any applicable provisions of state law, any reimbursement provision, other financial contributions by the property owner, inspection fees or dedications-, c Mitigation measures development conditions and other requirements under 43.21C RCW; d Design standards such as maximum heights, setbacks, drainage and water quality requirements landscaping and other development features: e. Affordable housing; Ordinance 10 -004 Develonment Agreement Paee 6 of 8 DRAFT f. Parks and open space preservation; g. Phasing; h. Review procedures and standards for implementing decisions; L A build -out or vesting period for applicable standards; and J. Any other appropriate development requirement procedure. E The final decision authority for approval of the development agreement and development plan shall be the City Council set forth in SVMC Chapter 17.80.060 (Dl. F The decision of city council on a development agreement and plan in conjunction with a comprehensive plan amendment and subsequent zoning change is the final decision of the city and maybe appealed pursuant to RCW 36.70C. G A development agreement shall be recorded with the Spokane County Auditor at the applicant's expense. During the term of the development agreement, the agreement is binding on the parties and their successors. H The city will process and decide upon an application for an amendment as if it were an application for a new development agreement in a manner set forth above unless it is deemed a minor modification as set forth in (I ) below. I. Modifications of development plan 1 The director of communily development mgy gpprove minor modifications to the development plan pursuant to Chapter 17.80.030. 2 Criteria for approving minor modifications include but are not limited to the following: a Shall conform to the terms of the development agreement; b. Shall not reduce landscaping, buffering or open space areas c. Shall not reduce setback requirements d. Shall not result in an increase in height of any structure e. Shall not result in a change in ingress or a rg ess f Shall not increase any adverse impacts or undesirable effects g. Shall not significantly alter the project Section Four Repealing ordinance 09 -015. Ordinance 09 -015 shall be repealed upon the effective date of this ordinance. Section Five Severability. If any section, sentence clause or phase of this Ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, clause or phrase of this Ordinances. OrdinnnrP I n -nna T)avPlnnmPnt A areement Pace 7 of 8 Section Six: Effective date publication of the Ordinance, provided by law. Passed by the City Council this day of February, 2010. Thomas E. Towey, Mayor ATTEST: Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Approved as to Form: Office of the City Attorney Date of Publication: Effective Date: This ordinance shall be full force and effect five (5) days after the or a summary thereof, occurs in the official newspaper of the City as Ordinance 10 -004 Development Agreement Page 8 of 8 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: February 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: Proposed Resolution 10 -005: Withdrawal from the Regional Cable Advisory Board GOVERNING LEGISLATION: N/A PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: February 16, 2010 Administrative Report heard by Council. BACKGROUND: The Regional Cable Advisory Board ( "Board ") was created via a Memorandum of Understanding entered into by Spokane County, the City of Spokane, and the City of Spokane Valley on September 13, 2003. There are 11 board members, three of which are appointed by the City, six by the City of Spokane, and two by Spokane County. According to the Memorandum of Understanding, the purpose of the board is to: 1. Consider unresolved complaints and disagreements between franchisees and subscribers. 2. Advise on the regulation of rates in accordance with the provisions of any other applicable laws. 3. Advise regarding general policy relating to the cable services provided to subscribers and the use of access and leased access channels with a view to maximizing the diversity and usefulness of programs and services to subscribers. 4. Assist in the consideration of applications for new, transfer, and renewal franchises. 5. Perform other advisory functions as the executive or legislative branches of participating jurisdictions may request. The Board had a quorum only once in 2009. Since the formation of the City of Spokane Valley, there has been little interest and input from the public and the City has had difficulty keeping its three appointments filled. The Board's role is advisory in nature but the City has yet to be advised on any relevant matters. Moreover, the Board's ability to address unresolved subscriber complaints has gone unused by the public and has been superseded by a City of Spokane Valley process which is accessible via a phone number printed on every subscriber's monthly bill. In addition to the concerns above, Spokane County's staff liaison has indicated that she will be recommending to the Board of County Commissioners that the county withdraw from the Board. The Regional Cable Advisory Board is addressed in the adopted Comcast Cable Franchise Agreement as follows: "City reserves the right to maintain a Cable Advisory Board over the term of this Franchise Agreement for advisory purposes only. The Grantee agrees to cooperate with reasonable requests for information, through the designated City representative, to support the Cable Advisory Board." The agreement does not require participation in the Board. OPTIONS: The City can withdraw from the Regional Cable Advisory Board or remain as a party. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve Resolution 10 -005, withdrawing from the Regional Cable Advisory Board. BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Revenue neutral. STAFF CONTACT: Morgan Koudelka, Senior Administrative Analyst; Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: Draft Resolution for withdrawing from the Regional Cable Advisory Board Original Memorandum of Understanding DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. 10 -005 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, WITHDRAWING FROM THE REGIONAL CABLE ADVISORY BOARD, AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO. WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley is a party to the Regional Cable Advisory Board ( "Board ") as defined by the Memorandum of Understanding ( "Memorandum ") summarizing the terms and conditions upon which the parties agree to participate in the Board, dated and entered into on September 18, 2003; and WHEREAS, the Memorandum allows for the City of Spokane Valley to voluntarily withdraw from the Board by Resolution of the City Council and by providing notice of such Resolution to the Chair of the Board of County Commissioners and the mayor of the City of Spokane; and WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley's voluntary withdrawal from the Board is effective sixty (60) days from the date that written notice of the Resolution is given to the parties listed above, and if desired, notice may be withdrawn within thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of the sixty -day period; and WHEREAS, due to lack of public interest and input, the inability to keep its three Board appointments filled, lack of advisement by the Board on relevant matters, and the existence of its own process in place for addressing subscriber complaints, the City's participation in the Board is no longer necessary. NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington as follows: Section 1. Withdrawal from the Regional Cable Advisory Board. The City of Spokane Valley hereby withdraws from the Regional Cable Advisory Board pursuant to the provisions set forth above. Section 2. Written Notice. The City Manager of the City of Spokane Valley is authorized to provide written notice of this Resolution to the Chair of the Board of County Commissioners and the Mayor of the City of Spokane. Section 3. Effective Date. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect upon adoption. Approved this day of February, 2010. ATTEST: Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Thomas E. Towey, Mayor Approved as to form: Office of the City Attorney Resolution 10 -005 Withdraw from CAB Page 1 of 1 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: February 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: Paveback Financing GOVERNING LEGISLATION: None — City Decision PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: There has been discussion regarding the anticipated cost of full width pavement over newly installed county sewer lines in Spokane Valley streets. No formal council action, in recent years, has been taken on this subject. BACKGROUND: Since incorporation, the City has paid the cost of paving city streets from curb to curb, above Spokane County newly installed sewer lines. This provided a better street with fewer maintenance costs in future years. A decision regarding paying for full width paving above 2010 county sewer projects has been waiting review of which street standards to use, and a funding source for the City's share of these costs which are expected to be near $1.5 million in the current year. Assuming the Council wants to proceed with the City paying for full width street pavement above county sewer lines, Staff recommends up to $1.5 million in Civic Facilities dollars be transferred back to the General Fund which will provide adequate resources for this program. The Civic Facilities Fund currently has $5.8 million available. OPTIONS: 1.) Transfer $1.5 million from the Civic Facilities Fund to pay for curb to curb pavement above newly installed County sewer lines during 2010; 2.) Do nothing, but recognize a patch above the trench for newly installed sewer lines will not have the life of full width pavement. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to authorize full width pavement above County sewer lines during the 2010 construction season. BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: This action will result in $1.5 million less in the Civic Facilities Fund for future projects, but will reduce street maintenance costs in future years on these streets. STAFF CONTACT: Finance & Admin. Services Director, Ken Thompson CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: February 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: Paveback Interlocal Agreement for 2010 Sewer Paveback Program GOVERNING LEGISLATION: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Adopted 2010 -2015 Six Year TIP which includes the 2010 STEP paveback program; Informational RCA in Council's Winter Retreat Packet; Admin Report to Council February 16, 2010. BACKGROUND: As has been done in previous years city staff has been working with Spokane County staff on estimates for the city's portion of paving the roads in the 2010 sewer project areas. Spokane County's 2010 Septic Tank Elimination Program includes four projects within the city of Spokane Valley: Corbin Project This basin includes the area north of Sprague Avenue and south of the Appleway Ave. between Greenacres Road to the west and Hodges Road to the east. Cronk Project This basin includes the area north of Cataldo Avenue and south of the Mission Ave. between Barker Road to the west and Hodges Road to the east. South Green Acres Project This basin includes the area north of 1 -90 Avenue and south of the Spokane River between Flora Road to the west and Barker Road to the east. West Farms Project This basin includes the area north of Wellesley Avenue and south of Sanson Ave. between McDonald Road to the west and Calvin Road to the east. Paveback costs which determine the city's cost to provide full -width paving and drainage improvements for the four sewer basins are summarized below: City of Spokane Valley Share zuiu estimated Road Improvement 2010 Projects Corbin Costs Estimated -... Improvement Costs $675,000 Cronk $295,000 South Green Acres (Ph 3 & 4) $405,000 West Farms $300,000 Road Design Costs 140,000 Total Estimated Cost $1,815,000 Below are a few comments on the above estimates: 1. A Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) application has been submitted to Spokane County to assist with the road paveback for the Corbin sewer project. A recommendation has been made to the Board of County Commissioners to provide CDBG grant funds in the amount of $331,000 for this project. This will help reduce the above costs for the paveback program this year. 2. The South Green Acres and West Farms sewer basins include several gravel roads. The city pays 100% of the cost to pave existing gravel roads. This added approximately $285,000 to the paveback cost estimates. 3. The estimates are based on the road sections used on all previous sewer projects (Local Access Streets: 2" Asphalt over 4" of Base Rock). 4. These are preliminary estimates. Staff will be reviewing them in more detail with Spokane County as designs of each sewer basins are completed. 5. As has been done with past projects stormwater improvements will also be included in the sewer projects to address existing drainage /flooding concerns. These additional costs are not included in the above estimates. The planning level cost estimate for stormwater improvements is $350,000 and will be paid for from the Stormwater Utility Fund. OPTIONS: 1) Motion to approve the MOU with Spokane County for the 2010 STEP projects, 2) provide additional direction to staff. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to approve the 2010 STEP Memorandum of Understanding with Spokane County, and authorize the City Manager or designee to sign the Agreement. BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Funds to pay for the 2010 STEP Paveback Program will come from the Civic Building Fund reserves. The Stormwater Fund #402 has sufficient funds in the 2010 budget for stormwater improvements associated with the 2010 STEP projects. STAFF CONTACT: Neil Kersten, Public Works Director Steve M. Worley, Senior Capital Projects Engineer ATTACHMENTS: MOU with Spokane County for the 2010 STEP DRAFT Memorandum of Understanding Between the City of Spokane Valley and Spokane County Pavement Replacement Cost Sharing and Drainage Improvement Costs For the 2010 Sewer Construction Program WHEREAS the City of Spokane Valley (the CITY) and Spokane County (the COUNTY) desire to work collaboratively to construct portions of the COUNTY's 2010 Sewer Construction Program together with CITY paving and drainage improvement projects; and WHEREAS the CITY desires that the roads impacted by the construction of sewers in the 2010 Sewer Construction Program be reconstructed to the full preconstruction width for an improved roadway surface; and WHEREAS the CITY also desires that pavement replacement work be extended in some areas beyond the limits of sewer construction; and WHEREAS the CITY also desires that certain drainage improvements be constructed in areas that will be impacted by the COUNTY's 2010 Sewer Construction Program; and WHEREAS the costs of such full width repaving, additional length of road reconstruction, and miscellaneous drainage improvements are not funded by the COUNTY's Sewer Construction Program, and said costs will need to be paid by the CITY; and WHEREAS the 2010 Sewer Construction Program includes the West Farms, South Green Acres Phase 3, South Green Acres Phase 4, Corbin, and Cronk Sewer Projects within the limits of the CITY, as identified in the COUNTY's adopted Six -Year Sewer Capital Improvement Program 2010 -2015. NOW THEREFORE, the CITY and the COUNTY do hereby agree as follows: 1. Prior to the bid of each project, the COUNTY shall provide the CITY with a set of project plans, together with a cost estimate indicating the extent of pavement removal and replacement to be paid for by the COUNTY as a part of the sewer project. The CITY shall review the plans and estimate, and shall advise the COUNTY regarding the extent to which the CITY desires to add pavement removal and replacement, as well as the specific drainage improvements that the CITY would like to make in conjunction with the project. 2. The CITY has requested that the COUNTY, through the Division of Engineering and Roads, prepare road designs for the paving of certain segments of gravel roadways located within the 2010 Sewer Construction Program. The CITY intends to include the associated work in the construction contracts for the sewer projects. The scope of work and design cost estimates for these roadways is presented in Attachment A to this Memorandum of Understanding 2010 Sewer Construction Program Page 2 of 3 Memorandum of Understanding. The CITY will coordinate this design work directly with the Road Design Engineer in the Division of Engineering and Roads. The Division of Engineering and Roads shall invoice the CITY on a monthly basis for this road design work. 3. The COUNTY shall include the additional road and drainage work outlined in Paragraphs 1 and 2 above in the bid documents for the applicable sewer project area. 4. After the bids for a project are opened, the COUNTY shall prepare the bid tabulation and provide a copy to the CITY, typically within 24 hours, together with an estimate of the CITY's share of the project cost based upon the unit prices submitted by the lowest responsive bidder. The calculation of the CITY's share will include a representative credit for the COUNTY's avoided cost of crack sealing and surface sealing that would be associated with partial road width removal and replacement. If the CITY then decides to proceed with the desired improvements, the CITY shall provide a written notice to the COUNTY within two days of the receipt of the bid tabulation. 5. The CITY and COUNTY agree that the minimum pavement section for local access roads in the 2010 Sewer Construction Program shall consist of two (2) inches of hot mix asphalt overlying four (4) inches of crushed rock, which has been the historical practice for the Septic Tank Elimination Program, and which is an exemption from the new road paving standards adopted for the CITY. 6. The CITY's total estimated share of the construction and design costs are presented in Table 1 below. The estimates in Table 1 are based on a minimum pavement section for local access roads consisting of two (2) inches of hot mix asphalt overlying four (4) inches of crushed rock. 7. The CITY and the COUNTY recognize that the estimated costs shown in Table 1 are for planning purposes, and that the actual costs billed to the CITY will be based upon final quantities and actual contract prices. The CITY's maximum cost for the 2010 projects shall not exceed $2,165,000 without written authorization by the CITY. The COUNTY shall not proceed with any work that would increase the CITY's cost to an amount greater than the total amount authorized. 8. If the CITY subsequently elects to make additions to the scope of any project, the CITY shall request such additional work in writing. A corresponding adjustment shall then be made to the CITY's share of the cost based upon the resulting increase in pay quantities and the associated contract bid prices. For work items requested by the CITY that are not covered by the contract bid prices, the COUNTY shall prepare a change order for the CITY's review and acceptance prior to work items being constructed. 9. As paving operations are undertaken for each project, the COUNTY will send progress invoices (no more than one per month) to the CITY for the CITY's portion of the cost of roadway and drainage improvements. When all paving and drainage work is Memorandum of Understanding 2010 Sewer Construction Program Page 3 of 3 completed on a project, the COUNTY will send a final invoice to the CITY for the remainder of the CITY's portion of the project costs. For each project that is not completed by the close of the 2010 construction season, the COUNTY will send a progress invoice to the CITY prior to December 31, 2010. TABLE 1 City of Spokane Valley Share 2010 Estimated Road and Drainage Improvement Costs SPOKANE COUNTY: By: Date: N. Bruce Rawls, County Utilities Director CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY: By: Date: City Manager Estimated Road Improvement Costs Estimated Drainage Improvement Costs Total Costs $1,815,000 $ 350,000 SPOKANE COUNTY: By: Date: N. Bruce Rawls, County Utilities Director CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY: By: Date: City Manager DRAFT Attachment A Scope of Work - Design of Paved Roads to Replace Existing Gravel Roads For City of Spokane Valley The City of Spokane Valley (the City) intends to pave certain gravel roads in conjunction with Spokane County's 2010 Septic Tank Elimination Program (STEP). Spokane County's Division of Engineering and Roads (the County) will provide engineering design services on the roads detailed below as directed by the City of Spokane Valley staff. All designs will be reviewed and approved by the City. The City will reimburse the County for all labor, equipment, and material costs incurred in the performance of the design services. Costs billed the City for labor shall be based upon direct hourly labor costs, equipment hourly costs, and material costs plus 29% overhead. The County shall prepare invoices monthly for costs incurred during the previous month. The City shall pay the invoiced amounts within 30 days of receipt. The County shall not exceed the Design Cost Estimate for any project without first securing the City's acceptance of an increase in the Design Cost Estimate. City of Spokane Valley will provide a separate Notice to Proceed and detailed requirements on each road to the County prior to the start of design work, including a typical roadway section. The scopes of work presented below do not include review of existing or final alignment for conformance with current design standards or a review of the adequacy of drainage facilities. South Greenacres Project (north half) Scope: Indiana Ave. - West End to Flora, 1,200 L.F. 1. Design for paving existing gravel road. 2. Provide plan and profile sheets, typical sections, and quantities. 3. No drainage report will be prepared, will use existing ditches. 4. Existing drainage facilities are assumed to be adequate and will not be reviewed. 5. Width of finished driving surface will be same as existing. 6. No turn - around or cul -de -sac will be included in the design. 7. City to review 50 %, 90% & 100% plans. Design Cost Estimate: $5,000.00 South Greenacres Project (south half) Scope: Mission Ave. - Corbin to Barker, 3,800 L.F.; 1. Design centerline profile for future City project to widen Mission Ave. 2. Work will include additional survey work for area not surveyed for the sewer project. 3. Typical section to be provided by the City. Attachment A Scope of Work for Design of Paved Roads for 2010 STEP Page 2 of 2 4. Provide road plan and profile sheets. 5. Provide abbreviated design report summarizing design parameters. 6. No drainage analysis /report, R/W review /plans or earthwork quantities will be provided. 7. Will include initial meeting with City to review design parameters. 8. City to review 50 %, 90% and 100% plans. Boone Ave. - Arc to Greenacres, 3,150 L.F.; 1. Provide plan and profile sheets, typical sections, and quantities. 2. No drainage report will be prepared, will use existing ditches. 3. Existing drainage facilities are assumed to be adequate and will not be reviewed. 4. City to review 50 %, 90% & 100% plans. Design Cost Estimate: $30,500.00 West Farms Project Scope: Sanson Ave. - McDonald Road to Evergreen Road, 2,670'; McDonald Road - Sanson Ave. to south 630'; Keller Road - Sanson Ave. to south 1,300'; Mayhew Road - Wellesley Road to Sanson Ave., 2,200'; Total length of existing gravel road - 6,800 L.F. 1. Provide plan and profile sheets, typical sections, and quantities. 2. No drainage report will be prepared, will use existing ditches. 3. Existing drainage facilities are assumed to be adequate and will not be reviewed. 4. City to review 50 %, 90% & 100% plans. Design Cost Estimate: $27,000.00 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: February 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: City Hall negotiations GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A; RCW 43.21C; SVMC 19.30.010, 020; SVMC 19.110.020; Ordinance 09 -020 and 09 -021; and the adopted Spokane Valley Sprague /Appleway Corridor Subarea Plan PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Council Meeting Discussion February 2, 2010 BACKGROUND: Previously provided. OPTIONS: Continue negotiations with property owner; suspend negotiations with property owner, or take other action deemed appropriate. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to suspend negotiations with the property owner for the purchase of property for City Hall, and request that staff notify the property owner of this Council action. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: N/A STAFF CONTACT: Mike Connelly, City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: February 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: Law Enforcement Memorandum of Understanding, Precinct Commander Position GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Law Enforcement Contract PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Presentation given to Council on February 2, 2010. On February 16, 2010, Council authorized staff to draft a Memorandum of Understanding for Council consideration regarding adding the Precinct Commander position. BACKGROUND: Chief VanLeuven has requested to add the permanent position of Precinct Commander to the Valley Precinct. The individual for the lieutenant command position of Spokane Valley Precinct Commander will go through a selection process that involves the participation of the Chief of Police and the Spokane Valley City Manager. City staff has reviewed various options to shift resources within the Spokane Valley Police Department to fund the position. It appears, however, that direct funding of the position is the best viable option. If Council desires to fund the Precinct Commander position, funds are currently available in the Public Safety 2010 Budget. OPTIONS: 1) Authorize the City Manager to finalize and execute the Memorandum of Understanding which adds an additional full -time equivalent position of lieutenant, who will be designated as the Spokane Valley Precinct Commander. 2) Do not approve the Memorandum of Understanding. 3) Amend the Memorandum of Understanding. 4) Provide other direction to staff. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to authorize the City Manager to finalize and execute the Memorandum of Understanding which adds an additional full -time equivalent position of lieutenant, who will be designated as the Spokane Valley Precinct Commander. BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: salary benefits and overhead costs of $152,706, plus a law enforcement support cost of $15,000, are available in the 2010 Public Safety budget. If larger settlements and adjustments or unforeseen expenses occur, it may be necessary to amend the budget in 2010. STAFF CONTACT: Mike Jackson ATTACHMENTS Draft Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Addition of Precinct Commander Position to the Interlocal Agreement for Law Enforcement Services DRAFT MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING REGARDING ADDITION OF PRECINCT COMMANDER POSITION TO THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES This Memorandum of Understanding (hereinafter "MOU ") is entered into by and between the City of Spokane Valley (hereinafter "the City "), Spokane County (hereinafter "the County "), and the Spokane County Sheriff's Department (hereinafter "the Sheriff'), sometimes referred to jointly as "Parties." lalMaf`►��Y.� �� WHEREAS, the Parties entered into the Interlocal Agreement for Law Enforcement Services in the City of Spokane Valley (hereinafter "the Interlocal Agreement ") on March 17, 2003, adopted by the Board of Commissioners for Spokane County under Resolution 3 -0238, whereby the County and Sheriff would provide law enforcement services as set forth therein for the City; and WHEREAS, the Parties desire to amend the Interlocal Agreement by adding an additional full -time equivalent position of lieutenant, who will be designated as the Spokane Valley Precinct Commander. This staffing change brings the authorized full -time equivalent personnel under the Interlocal Agreement to 103.767. THEREFORE, the following understanding is agreed upon: 1. Parties The Parties to this Agreement are the City of Spokane Valley, the Spokane County Sheriff, and Spokane County. 2. Purpose The purpose of this MOU is to amend Section 3.2 and Section 4 of the Interlocal Agreement by adding an additional full -time equivalent position of lieutenant, who will be designated as the Spokane Valley Precinct Commander. Terms of the Memorandum of Understanding a. Section 3.2 Base Level Services — The first bullet point, entitled "Command/Liaison/Supervision" would be amended as follows: "Command, liaison, and supervision shall consist of a Chief Officer who shall act in the same fashion as a regular City Police Chief, three (3) Lieutenants, one of which will be designated as Spokane Valley Precinct Commander, nine (9) Sergeants and six (6) Corporals to provide patrol/traffic supervision and assist the Chief as needed." b. Section 4: Police Chief — At the end of Section 4, add the following language: "The individual for the lieutenant command position of Spokane Valley Precinct Commander will go through a selection process that involves the participation of the Chief of Police and the Spokane Valley City Manager." 4. Other Provisions of Interlocal Agreement Remain Unchanged All remaining provisions of the Interlocal Agreement are unaffected by this MOU and continue in full force and effect. Memorandum of Understanding, Precinct Commander Addition Page 1 of 2 DRAFT 5. Effective Date This MOU shall be in effect the day following the date the last signature is affixed hereto. City of Spokane Valley Mike Jackson, Acting City Manager Spokane County Sheriff Ozzie Knezovich, Spokane County Sheriff Date: ATTEST: Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County, Washington Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk Office of the City Attorney Mark Richard, Chair Bonnie Mager, Vice -Chair Todd Mielke, Commissioner ATTEST: Clerk of the Board Daniela Erickson APPROVED AS TO FORM: Spokane County Prosecuting Attorney Memorandum of Understanding, Precinct Commander Addition Page 2 of 2 r� Return to: Daniela Erickson Clerk of the Board 1116 Nest Broadway Spokane, Washington 99260 4867747 111 ' ' e. i of 5 I IIII III I II I it i I 43 28 2401 12:33P I 1 I rniurtY rnx+tccinu:ac rra 3t1 m rs U Spokane Valley Contract No. CO3 -14 Approved tlAdra G, X03 LNTERLOCAL AGREEMENT FOR LAW ENFORCENIE4NT SERVICES 0 238 iN THE CITY OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY THIS AGRENNW NIT, made and entered into among Spokane County, having offices for the transaction of business at 1116 Nest Broadway Avenue, Spokane, Washington 99260, hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY," Spokane County Sheriff, having office for the transaction of business at 1100 West Mallon, Spokane, Washington 99260, hereinafter referred to as "ST=IERTFF," and City of Spokane Valley, a municipal corporation of the State of Washington, having offices for the transaction of business at. die Redwood Plaza, 1.1707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 106, Spokane Valley, Washington 99206 hereinafter referred to as "CITY," jointly hereinafter sometimes referred to as the "PARTIES." W.iTNESSETH: 11'HERE?AS, pursuant to RCW 35.02, the City of Spokane Valley established midnight, Match 31, 2003 as its official date of incorporation and upon that date commenced operations as a city; and WT[EREAS, pursuant to RCW 35.02, as of the date of incorporation, local governmental authority and jurisdiction with respect to the newly incorporated area transferred from Spokane County to the City of Spokane Valley; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of RCW 36.32.120(6), the .Board of County Commissioners has the care of County property and the management of County funds and business; and WHEREAS, chapter 39.34 RCW (I.nterlocal Cooperation Act), authorizes counties and cities to contract with each other to perform certain functions which each may legally perform; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of chapter 36.28 RCW, the Sheriff of Spokane County is the Chief Law Enforcement Officer and conservator of the peace in Spokane County and Page .1 of 16 CO3 -1.4 .;t —. Illlllllllll illf 1 4u: 2of II Ill l llll 111111 lllll llll OM tot III II �8120 12 MUM AMNINTnuttT RIG ah M G42he N Wa shall have, among other responsibilities, the duty to arrest and commit to prison all persons who break the peace, or attempt to break it; and 1VHRREAS, pursuant to the provisions of RCW 35.02.220, law enforcement services shall be provided at no cost to the City of Spokane Valley for a period not to exceed 60 days from the official date of incorporation or until the City of Spokane Valley is receiving or could have begun receiving sales tax distributions under RCW 52.14.030(1), whichever is the shortest time period. The Parties acknowledge that City of Spokane Valley shall have the legal responsibility to pay for law enforcement services as of 12:01 A.M. June 1, 2003; and WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley desires to utilize the services of the Spokane County Sheriff's Office ( "SHERIFF"), for the purpose of law enforcement services, pursuant to section 14.1 of this agreement. NOW THEREFORE for and in consideration of the mutual pronuses set forth hereinafter and as provided for in the above - referenced recitals, the PARTIES do hereby agree as follows: SECTION NO. I.: PURPOSE The purpose of this Agreement is for COUNITY to provide CITY and its residents, City Police and law enforcement services through SBERIFF within the geographic area of CITY. The geographic area, for the purposes of this Agreement, is that set forth in Washington State Boundary Review Board for Spokane County, File No. 555 -01 or as hereafter unended. It is the intent of the PARTIES to provide law enforcement services, management and supervision consistent with the City's CounciVATanager form of government (Chapter 35A.13 RCW) and within the statutory responsibilities of a Sheriff in the State of Washington. SECTION NO. 2: DURATION AND TER.NMATION The initial term of this Agreement shall commence as of 12:01 A.M. on June 1, 2003, and run through 12:00 P.M. December 31, 2004. Thereafter, this Agreement shall automatically renew for one -year time frames, unless the termination process outlined herein is invoked. 2.1 Process for Termination. Neither party may terminate this Agreement before 11:59 P.M., December 31, 2004. if either party desires to terminate the Agreement at that date, they shall provide written notice no later than December 31, 2003, with termination to be effective at 11:59 P.M. December 31, 2004. In the event the Agreement automatically renews beyond 2004, either party may terminate the Agreement by giving written notice, no later than December 31" of the year prior to the year in which the services are to temlinate. Temnation in any subsequent year shall be effective on Page 2 or 16 ' I 4867747 11 II I II III I�� I I it, 1 111111 e: 3 o 16 0 I I I IIII IIIII 3�28J240tt 12.33 nrniuty M. I lectnuroe A0 0 m cnnPoRA Ta lib December 31" at 11:59 P.M. For example, if the Agreement is to terminate December 31, 2006, then notice hereunder must be given no later than December 31, 2005. When notice of termination is given, the PARTIES agree to jointly prepare a Transition Plan. if the PARTIES cannot mutually agree to the ternis of the Transition Plan, either Party, pursuant to Section 15.3 of this Agreement, can request mediation. 2.2 Transition Plan. The Transition Plan shall identify and address, among other items (i) personnel issues; (ii) conveyance of capital equipment; (iii) workload; (iv) ongoing case assignments. Each Party shall bear its own cost in developing the transition plan. 2.3 Implementation of.['lan. COUNTY and CITY agree to use all best efforts to effect a mutual implementation of the Transition Plan to provide an orderly, effective transition of service. 2.4 Termination of the Agreement. At the termination of this Agreement, CiTY shall have the option to purchase, subject to concurrence by mutual agreement of the PARTi.ES, COUNTY - owned vehicles and equipment, including but not necessarily limited to patrol cars, MDC's, use of force devices, staff vehicles, and motorcycles. The value of such vehicles shall be based upon their existing leasehold or depreciated value. CITY shall retain any CITY -owned equipment, provided at its discretion to SHERIFF. SECTION NO. 3: SERVICES SHERIFF will provide (i) regional; (ii) Base level; and (iii) optional law enforcement services, consistent with the staffing chart attached hereto as Attachment "A" and incorporated herein by reference, and an organizational Attachment "A -1" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 3.1 Regional Services. Regional services will include only Sheriff and Administrative staff, sex offender registration, Regional Drug Task Force, Explosive Disposal Unit, Joint Terrorism Task Force, Civil Process, Secret Witness Program, Extra Duty Employment Contract, Limited Dignitary Protection, Reservist and Explorer Unit. 3.2 .Base Level Services. • Command /Liaison/Supervision. Command, liaison, and supervision shall consist of a Chief Officer who shall act in the same fashion as a regular City Police Chief, two (2) Lieutenants, nine (9) Sergeants and six (6) Corporals to provide patrol/traffrc supervision and assist the Chief as needed. • Patrol/Traflic/Enforcemenl Services. Patrolfi'raffic services will include first response for the enforcement of state law and CiTY adopted municipal criminal and traffic codes. Page 3 or 16 III p 8 4 of 16 I IIIi I ( f4 28i20Q3 12;33P IIIII IiII IIII III IIII 11111 Ill III I III III IIII miiu(V (nsttcctnuruc VQ info st VIA rf1 1t3 Patrol services shall include reactive patrol to respond to residents' and business' calls for service, proactive patrol to prevent and deter criminal activity. • Detective Division. Detective Division services will include investigation of property crimes, sexual assault crimes and major crimes. Investigative services consist of general criminal investigations by seven (7) Detectives assigned to the detachment, investigation Division, and as required, the services of officers assigned to special units. These investigators are supported by crime scene analysis, crime lab, polygraph, identifications and evidence/property control. The equivalent of seventeen (17) FTE's will be assigned to provide investigative services frorn the Downtown Tnvesdgadve Division. • Investigative Support Unit. Investigative support services shall include investigation of drug, vice, gambling, licensing, and undercover operations. V • Beth Response Unit. Meth Response Unit services shall include the prevention and education of methamphetamine crimes. • Special Weapons and Tactics (` ,SNNrA T ") and Tactical ( "TAC ") Operations. • Forensics Unit. Forensic services will include fingerprint identification, photo database, evidence recovery and post - mortem documentation. • Dispatch19 -1 -1 and Crime Check. SHERIFF, as Director of Dispatch/9 -1 -1, agrees to dispatch protocols as negotiated with CITY Chief of Police. • Hostage Negotiations. • Criminal Intelligence Unit ( "C.I.U. ") • Domestic Violence Unit. • Major Accident Reconstruction Response • Canine Tracking and Bomb Dog. • Fleet Services. Fleet services will be located in the Valley Precinct. • Support Services. Support services will include the Office of Professional Standards, training rind polygraph, Public Infomtation Officer, crime analysis, data reporting, clerical support, computer -tided dispatch, and records management system. The unit prices include the costs of two (2) clerical positions located in the Valley Precinct and 1.5 of three (3) clerical positions in the downtown detective unit. • Law Enforcement Support Unit. COUNTY utilizes the T_aw Enforcement Support Unit ( "LESU ") to provide records management, property room and related administrative support services. CITY and COUNTY agree that LESU will continue providing records management, property room and related administrative support services. CITY agrees that if it desires any change in procedures, protocol or other provisions of LESU, it will meet and confer with SHEPUFF to determine a mutually acceptable alternative. 3.3 Optional Services. • Community Services. Community services will include crime prevention, neighborhood watch and SCOPE partnership. Page 4 of 16 4 I 1 I 03)28!20aJ 12-,V `l I 1 I Wi mnury PW-I eel nuae ers sn m • DARE. • School Resource Deputies. • K -9. These dogs are used for drug investigations. • Unique Identity. 3.4 Clarification of Services. CITY and COUNTY may jointly develop and approve, as clarifications and further amendments to this Agreement, statements of duties, roles and responsibilities of contract service personnel and clarification of individual and shared authority. SECHON NO. 4: POLICE C11][E>t SHERIFF shall designate one or more SHERIFF deputies of the rank of Captain or higher as candidates for the position of CITY Police Chief ( "Police Chie(" ). The Police Chief shall be appointed frorn said list of qualified candidates by the CYrY Manager in accordance with RCW 35A.13.020. The Police Chief is to act in the same fashion and perform the same general duties of a City Police Chief under the Council/Manager form of government. The duties of the Police Chief shall include: 1. Working with the CITY Manager or his/her designee to establish goals and objectives for CiTY police services which reflect specific needs within CiTY; 2. Coordinating police activities within CITY, including hours of operation and CITY specific protocols and procedures, attending staff meetings and providing reports as requested by the City Manager and such other duties common to a City Police Chief including enforcement of CiTY codes and ordinances. 3. Reviewing the performance of deputies assigned to Cl f Y. Reporting to CITY Manager or his/her designee and SHERIFF any recommendations for performance improvement; 4. Coordinating duties of deputies assigned to CITY as specific needs arise, as requested by CITY Manager or his/her designee within the context of established policies and procedures. Reporting to SHERIFF any changes in duty of CITY assigned deputies; 5. Overseeing implementation within CITY of all SHERIFF policies and procedures. Maintaining a copy of SHERIFF procedures on file at City hull for CITY'S reference. SHERIFF shall be notified of any public disclosure requests to view or obtain a copy of the policies and procedures on file. Notifying CITY Manager or his/her designee of any change in SHERIFF procedures or policies; 6. Identifying areas of supplemental training for deputies assigned to CrfY. Making Recommendations to SHERIFF for supplemental training. Making recommendations to the C11 Y Manager or his/her designee for training not provided by SHERIFF; and 7. Providing supervision and direction to the Lieutenants and Sergeants assigned to CI'Y as well as other assigned personnel, and acting as liaison with SHERIFF command. Page 5 of 16 II 4867747 III I 1 03 2812003 � 12.33P 6 lYdSnCttWN IN in Al Cnntanp P.n. ti! SECTION NO. 5: COST OF SERVICES Cost for services shall be based on a twelve (12) month period. Effective no later than January I, 2007, if COUNTY elects to provide fulltime law enforcement services to other Spokane County cities at no, or significantly reduced charges, then the contract charges, herein contained, will be renegotiated accordingly for CITY. 5.1 Regional Services. Regional service costs include the cost of services that are required by state law or supported by a dedicated revenue source, and are excluded from cost allocation at the discretion of COUNTY. For the purpose of this Agreement, such services and their associated adminiswative costs shall be considered non- chargeable to CITY. 5.2 Base Level and Optional Services. Rase level and optional service direct and, and special pays, if indirect costs shall include, but not necessarily be limited to, salary, benefits any, for personnel providing the service, along with any associated costs for clothing allowance, overtime, supplies, services, telephone, motor pool, lease cars, systems services, insurance, equipment and applicable administrative costs. These costs are further described in Attachments "A ", "B" and "C" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Base level and optional operation service costs shall reflect the deduction of revenues such as school resource grants. 5.3 Calculation of 1,FSU Costs. The annual costs shall be C1fY'S share of the LESU bud based upon the percentage of services provided and the cost allocation developed by LESU as further described in Attachment "C," attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 5.4 Development of Position Costs. SHERIFFI COUNTY shall develop position costs for each position and support service based on service costs developed as outlined in Attachment "B ". 5.5 Calculation of CITY'S Agreement Amount. Position costs shall be the basis for calculating CITY'S contract amount. CI'T'Y shall be charged for services on the basis of full - time equivalence ( "1 =1'E ") in its detachment and non - detachment Detectives as set forth in Attachments "A" and "A -1 ". 5.6 CITY'S Contract Amount. CITY'S estimated contract amount is further described in Attaclunent "A." 5.7 Service Level Adjustments. Service level increases requested by CITY will be reflected as adjustments to the current year contract agreement amount. Effective 2004 or after, any Pnge 6 of 16 I�G�II��I�I�IN�IIIWUAINIIW�IUN ��';,� ?6 inn service level reductions directed by CITY shall become effective within a mutually agreeable timetable and reflected in the billing of the month and year executed. 5.8 Overtime. CITY hereby agrees to pay for overtime expenses. It is CITY'S and SHERIFF'S intent to provide overtime as mutually agreed, unless an emergency exists necessitating immediate response by the Sheriff or deputies, for special events, limited dignitary protection and unusual occurrences. Overtime, when requested in these categories, will be billable at the actual overtime rate of the deputy(s) and/or support staff that is working. Responses to events listed below are treated as if the event were occurring in any other jurisdiction, with the responsibility falling on that jurisdiction. a. N CITY requests and utilizes SHERIFF'S deputies and/or support staff on overtime for special events within the City of Spokane Valley, the actual overtime expenditure will be billed to CITY following the event. This billing will occur with the standard monthly billing, in accordance with subparagraph 5.13 below ( "Billing Procedure "). Examples include, but are not Limited to, park, patrol, parades, and community events. b. If CITY experiences a disaster or unusual occurrence that is confined within its boundaries and overtime is requested by the Police Chief to stabilize the situation, the actual overtime expenditures will be billed with a credit provided if reimbursement funds are approved. Examples of this include, but are not limited to, a plane crash, riot, union strike, or other civil emergencies. c. In the case of a County, State, or National declared disaster for which overtime is required to manage the event, the overtime expense will be billed to the appropriate agency (e.g.,1- 70NIA). If reimbursement for overtime is not granted, then CI'T'Y will be responsible for the direct overtime expense, less any mutUad aid provided. Examples of this include, but are not limited to, flooding, storms, and earthquakes. d. In the event a dignitary requiring federal, state, or local protection visits CITY, CITY will determine if additional response is needed. The CITY Manager, in consultation with the CITY Police Chief, will establish the level of service to be provided. 5.9 Reconciliation. Annual adjustments will be made in March of each year in such a way that if CITY has a positive balance at year -end of the previous calendar year, it will receive a credit, to be applied as mutually agreed. Tf C.FrY has a deficit, it will receive a debit in the subsequent billing. All computations will be based on actual, per position, overtime, salary, special pay benefits costs, and LESU costs. 5.10 Computation. The annual adjustment shall be calculated by totaling the actual costs of overtime, salary, special pay, and benefits attributable to CITY and reconciling that figure to Page 7 of 16 IIIII�IkIIIICnIINIII�IIIIIGIII��lllp�ll m�� °';m CITY'S budgeted amount. The annual adjustment process would occur as described in paragraph 5.9 ( "Reconciliation ") above. 5.11 Facility. The City desires to establish by June 1, 2003 a Valley Precinct, located at 1.2710 Last Sprague, Spokane Valley, Washington 99206. The M Y and COUNTY, in a separate Agreement, shall provide for the ownership, facility cost sharing and operation of the Valley Precinct. 512 Purchase of Additional Services. The description of services to be provided in 2003 is as indicated in Exhibit ".13." COUNTY will provide additional deputies, coinrnand, detectives and clerical support at the cost reflected in Attachment "C," appropriately adjusted pursuant to the above. Other services not reflected in Section No. 3 above may be provided at cost negotiated between CITY and COUNTY. 5.13 Billing Procedure. COUNTY will bill MY for the cost of services as outlined, monthly, during the first week of the month and shall be equal to 1/12` of the contract estimated amount. Payments by CITY will be due by the end of the current month. At the sole option of the COUNTY, a penalty may be assessed on any late payment by CITY which ma_y not exceed lost interest earnings had the payment been timely paid and invested in the Spokane County Treasurer's Investment Pool. SECTION N 6: REPORTING 6.1. Patrol Districts. CITY'S Police Chief will establish patrol districts within City of Spokane Valley in order to assure accurate collection of data related to criminal and traffic activity. The Patrol districts will coincide within CITY limits as closely as possible without compromising efficient use of reactive patrol deputies. A patrol district is a geographical area of a size and configuration designed to minimize response times to citizen's calls for services. Response time is typically measured from the time a call is received to the time the unit arrives on the scene. 6.2 Notification of Significant Criminal Activity or Civil Emergency. The Police Chief, or his/her designee, will immediately notify the CITY Manager or his/her designee of any significant criminal occurrence or civil emergency within CITY. 6.3 Quarterly Report. SHERIFF shall provide a mutually acceptable quarterly report to CITY that will contain information relating to (i) criminal and traffic activity occurring within CITY and (ii) law enforcement services that fall within the category of patrol /traffic described in Section No. 3 hereinabove, occurring within CITY. All public records prepared, owned, used or retained by SHERIFF in conjunction with providing law enforcement services under the Page 8 of 16 IIII'YI�W�IW�IVIII�NMItll�l�u� ��;�� r,�m Ira terms of this Agreement, or subsequent to the official date of CITY'S incorporation, shall be deemed CITY property and shall be made available to CITY upon request by CITY Manager. 6.4 Dedicated .Patrol Units. SHERIFF recognizes that' it is providing sworn police services dedicated to CITY. In so doing, the law enforcement services shall be dedicated to CITY and shall not be used elsewhere within Spokane County. Provided, however, in the event of an emergency or a call by a deputy for assistance, mutual aid may be rendered. SECTION NO. 7: DEPUTY ASSIGNNlr- -N'1', RF, DISCIPLINE, AND HIRING. SHERIFF will provide and administer: 7.1 Hiring. SHERIFF shall hire, assign, retain and discipline all employees according to the collective bargaining agreement, civil service rules, and state and federal laws. 7.2 Standards of performance Governed by SlJEJW71F. Control of personnel, standards of performance, discipline and all other aspects of performance shall be controlled by SHE"R1FF. Provided, however that only qualified, trained personnel meeting all of the requirements of applicable state laws or regulations shall be utilized in the performance of services under this Agreement. 7.3 Assignment of Deputies. SHERIFF shall use, whenever possible, deputies who volunteer for duty within CITY. Lt those instances where there are an insufficient number of deputies who volunteer for duty within CITY, then SHERIFF shall determine who shall be assigned for duty. COUNTY and CITY will work together to encourage deputy retention to provide continuity of service. 7.4 CITY Input on Personnel Matters. CITY shall retain the right to meet and confer with SHERIFF with respect to those personnel who are assigned to work within CITY. Issues of discipline or performance will be specifically handled according to departmental policies Lm the event CITY has requested the reassignment of personnel and S}TF_l -IFF does, reassign the personnel, the reassignment, in itself, shall not be considered disciplinary or in any way reflect upon the performance evaluation of the deputy. SECTION NO. h: OBSERVATION OF LABOR NEGOTIATIONS CITY may participate, along with other cities that contract with COUNTY, for law enforcement services to select no more than two (2) representatives to observe labor negotiations between, COUNTY and the Collective Bargaining Units representing the employees of SHERIFF, provided that such observers adhere to rules established by COUNTY and the bargaining units for the negotiations. page 9 or 16 INImIIIN�IW�INI '�IIIVGIhI1IIIINIIIIW ���;� °o� >�p SECTION NO. 9: ASSIGNRE NT If SHERIFF assigns or delegates duties of any portion of the services provided under the terms of this Agreement without first obtaining the prior written approval of CITY, CiTY may withdraw from all or any part of this Agreement, at CITY'S option, by providing thirty days written notice to SHERIFF. SHERTFF shall provide CITY at least sixty days written notice of its intention to assign or delegate duties under this Agreement, specifying which duties it intends to assign or delegate ,and the name and address of the party to whom it intends to assign or delegate. All terms and conditions of this Agreement shall apply to any approved or suffered subcontract or assignment related to this Agreement. SING I'.ION NO. 1.0: LIABILITY 10.1 COUNTY shall indemnify and hold harmless CiTi' and its officers, agents, and employees, or any of them from any and all claims, actions, suits, liability, loss, costs, expenses, and damages of any nature whatsoever, by any reason of or arising out of any negligent act or omission of COUNTY, its officers, agents and employees, or any of them relating to or arising out of performng services pursuant to this Agreement. In the event that any suit based upon such claim, action, loss, or damages is brought against CITY, COUNTY shall defend the same at its sole cost and expense; provided that CITY reserves the right to participate in said suit if any principle of govenmental or public law is involved; and if final judgment in said suit be rendered against CI'T'Y, and its officers, agents, and employees, or any of them, or jointly against C ITY and COUNTY and their respective officers, agents, and employees, COUNTY shall satisfy the same. 10.2 C.TTY shall indemnify and hold hani COUNTY and its officers, agents, and employees, or any of them from any and all claims, actions, suits, liability, loss, costs, expenses, and damages of any nature whatsoever, by any reason of or arising out of any negligent act or omission of CITY, its officers, agents and employees, or any of them relating to or arising out of performing services pursuant to this Agreement. In the event that any suit based upon such claim, action, loss, or damages is brought against COUNTY, CITY shall defend the same at its sole cost and expense; provided that COUNTY reserves the right to participate in said suit if any principle of governmental or public law is involved; and if Final judgment in said suit be rendered against COUNTY, and its officers, agents, and employees, or any of them, or jointly against COUNTY and CITY and their respective officers, agents, and employees, CITY shall satisfy the same. 1.0.3 In executing this Agreement, COUNTY does not assume Liability or responsibility for or in any way releases CITY from any liability or responsibility which arises in whole or in part from the existence or effect of CITY ordinances, polices, rules or regulations. If any cause, Page 10 of 16 4867747 P 8 i IIII ag28 20 1 11 3iP 1 IIIII III IIII IIIII III I III I IIII II III Illlli I>a2 MINTY mnevAurR ar.G an m 4AVSMn r.r lee claim, suite, action or administrative proceeding is commenced in which the enforceability and/or validity of any such CITY ordinance, to include its constitutionality, policy, rule or regulation is at issue, CITY shall defend the same at its sole expense and, if judgment is entered or damages are awarded against CiTY, COUNTY (to include 8BEEFF) or both, CITY shall satisfy the same, including all chargeable costs and reasonable attorney's fees. 10.4 The foregoing indemnity is specifically intended to constitute a waiver of each party's immunity under Washington's Industrial Insurance Act, Chapter 51 RCW, respecting the other party only, and only to the extent necessary to provide the indemnified party with a full and complete indemnity of claims made by the indem.nitor's employees. The PARTiF..S acknowledge that these provisions were specifically negotiated and agreed upon by them. 10.5 COUNTY and CITY agree to either self insure or purchase polices of insurance covering the matters contained in this Agreement with coverages of not less than $5,000,000 per occurrence with $5,000,000 aggregate limits including for COUNTY SHERIFF deputies professional liability and auto liability coverages. SLCTION NO. 11: RELATIONSW OF T11M PAWrfES The PARTIES intend that an independent contractor relationship will be created by this Agreement. No agent, employee, servant or representative of COUNTY or SHERIFF shall be deemed to be an employee, agent, servant or representative of CITY for any purpose. Likewise, no agent, employee, servant or representative of CiTY shall be deemed to be an employee, agent, servant or representative of COUNTY or SHERIFF for any purpose. SECTION NO. 12: STABILIZATION OF PERSOi KII- L COUNTY will coordinate transfers to minumize the time positions are vacant, as well as the impact of vacancies to CITY. Deputies, who have been with CITY for less than 24 months, will not be granted a lateral transfer to COUNTY except with concurrence of CiTY. Timing and replacement of CITY - assigned staff promoted to a position outside CITY will be made after input from CITY Manager. SECTION NO. 13: P11OPERTY AND EQUIPMENT The ownership of all property and equipment utilized in association with either SHERIFF or CITY meeting their responsibilities under the tenns of this Agreement, shall remain with the original owner, unless otherwise specifically and mutually agreed upon in writing by the PARTIES to this Agreement. Page l l or 16 4867747 IIIIiIIII IiI IIIIIIiIIIIi 0 , 128 � ao t2 X1 11111111 IIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIIIIII 1 MUN1Y t'.tITAIMONERS AGR SI1.00 sookane Co. TA CITY shall supply at its own cost and expense any special supplies, stationary, notices, forms where such must be issued in the name of CITY. COUNTY shall provide supplies and equipment routinely provided to its deputies. Any routine reprinting or replacement of stationery and forms used to deliver law enforcement services to CiTY shall be done in a manner to include the name "City of Spokane Valley". 1.3.1 Additional Technology. It is the desire of CITY to maintain a police force that is equipped with the latest technology. SHERIFF agrees to provide deputies who are trained and equipped with such technology as is customarily provided to its deputies. Such technology may include, but is not necessarily limited to, mobile data terminals (" MDTs "), AFIS, GIS GPS, CADMI'S, communications, computer access to criminal history data and other like data, as well as other current technology utilized within law enforcement. Any technology not currently in use or not customarily provided to patrol deputies, may be requested by CITY and COUNTY, and the PARTIES agree to meet and confer over the need for acquisition, training, or use of this new technology with the final decision regarding use of new technology resting solely with the SHERIFF. 13.2 Additional Training. CITY has indicated that it may desire to have the deputies assigned to duty within the limits of CITY, attend additional or supplemental training. Such training would be requested by CITY and approved by SHERIFF who will not unreasonably withhold approval. Such training shall be done at the sole cost and expense of CITY. 13.3 Community identity. Patrol vehicles that are assigned to CI"1'Y may display the color, identification and other logo of CITY at CITY'S sole expense. Additionally, the vehicles will indicate that they are SHERIIF"F vehicles. SHERIFF and CITY wi.11 determine the form of identification jointly. SHERIFF maintains a uniform directed by state law. It is a uniform that carries a great deal of pride. CiTY recognizes that the assigned personnel will retain the uniform of the Spokane County Sheriff's Office; however, SHERIFF agrees that assigned personnel may wear additional identification in the nature of a pin, patch, uniform items, or other like identification indicadne affiliation with CITY. The nature and design of any additional identification will be determined jointly by SHERIFF and CITY and provided to SHERIFF by CiTY at CITY'S sole expense. SECTION NO. 14: CITY'S RESPONSIBILIT[ES CiTY shall develop, with the assistance of the Police Chief and provide to SHERIFF, the general policies it desires to provide the citizens of CITY in relation to the provision of law enforcement services. SHERIFF will then snake operational decisions to implement the philosophy of CITY. In the implementation of the law enforcement services, SHERIFF and CITY shall meet and confer to assure that the implementation of services is consistent with the philosophy of CITY. CITY acknow ledges that there are certain policies relating to the provision of law enforcement services Page 12 of 16 0312812003 12:33P that are not within its control due to the need for uniform polices for SHERIFF employees COUNTY -wide, or the governance of certain issues by state or federal law. In support of SHERIFF providing the services described above, CITY shall perform as follows: 14.1 Municipal Police Authority. CITY shall retain all police powers inherent in the laws of the state of Washington and, by virtue of this Agreement, confer said municipal police authority on such SHERIFF deputies as might be engaged hereunder in enforcing CITY ordinances within CITY boundaries. 14.2 Municipal Code. CITY shall, to the extent reasonably possible taking into consideration local circumstances, adopt local law enforcement ordinances that are consistent with same - subject ordinances of COUNTY and state law. It is recognized that it is in the interest of all PARTIES that reasonable uniformity of common regulations will promote efficient provision of law enforcement services. Nothing in this language shall prevent CI'T'Y from adopting ordinances it determines to be necessary and in the best interest of the citizens of CITY. 14.3 Interaction with Police Chief. The Police Chief shall report to CITY Manager or his/her designee and to the existing command structure within SHER.LFF. In the event a CITY procedure, policy, goal or operation differs from the S.BERIFF'S, CITY Manager or his/her designee, SKER_1FF and COUNTY shall meet and mutually determine which policy will prevail. CiTY will assume responsibility and liability for any deviation from SHERIFF procedure, policy or operation provided such policy, procedure, goal or operation is the proximate cause of the harm or damage CITY Manager or his/her designee shall have the responsibility of providing general supervision to the assigned Police Chief relative to the furnishing of law enforcement services to CiTY as set forth in chapter 35A.13 RCW and the terms of this Agreement. • The Police Chief shall maintain communication between CITY Manager and SHERB.F command structures to ensure that changes in SHERIFF policies are agreeable to CITY and that changes in CITY policies are agreeable to SHERIFF. SECTION NO. CONTRACT ADNUN1STFUTION 1.5.1 .Daily Operations. The CITY Manager or his/her designee shall be responsible for communicating with the Police Chief the gcnei,d direction of policing and the general daily Page. 13 of 16 IIIIIIIIIII P 8 4 8 X2 :33P III 14 of I (IIIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIIII (IIIIIIIIIII III I MLMTY rr lq_glA1xR.Q dr.A Sb.rtift WAnA bn. YS operations of the policing within CITY. This designation shall not intrude upon the province of SHER1:FF staff in the actual delivery of police services, but shall be the method of communication through the respective CITY and SHERIFF command structure. 15.2 Dispute Resolution. In the event of a dispute in the adnunistration of this Agreement, the CITY N4anager or his/her designee shall discuss the dispute with the Police Chief in an attempt to resolve the dispute. Any dispute that cannot be resolved by the City Manager and the Police Chief shall be referred to SHERD r who will meet with the CITY Manager and in good faith attempt to dissolve the dispute. 1f the CITY Manager and SHERIFF cannot resolve the dispute, the dispute will be referred to COL NTY Chief Executive Officer who will meet with CITY Manager to resolve the dispute. 15.3 Mediation of Disputes. If, after following the dispute resolution procedure described herein, CITY Manager and COUNTY Chief Executive Officer are unable to resolve the dispute, the : PARTIES agree to participate in non - binding mediation before a third party whose selection will be mutually agreed upon. The cost of mediating the dispute will be borne equally by both PARTIES. SECTION NO. 16: VENUE STIPULATION This Agreement has been and shall be construed as having been made and delivered within the State of Washington and it is mutually understood and agreed by each party that this Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Washington both as to interpretation and performance. Any action at law, suit in equity or judicial proceeding for the enforcement of this Agreement, or any provision Hereto, shall be instituted only in courts of competent jurisdiction within Spokane County, Washington. SECTION NO. 17: S.EVERARII,,ITY It is understood and agreed among the PARTMS that if any parts, terms or provisions of this Agreement are held by the courts to be illegal, the validity of the remaining portions or provisions shall not be affected and the rights and obligations of the PARTIES shall not be affected in regard to the remainder of the Agreement. If it should appear that any part, term or provision of this Agreement is in conflict with any statutory provision of the State of Washington, then the part, term or provision thereof that may be in conflict shall be deemed inoperative and null and void insofar as it may be in conflict therewith and this Agreement shall be deemed to modify to conform to such statutory provision. Page 14 of 16 4867747 I III Pa e: 15 of 16 III IIIIIIIIII III 18 2003 1 2:33P IIIIIlIII III II III II �1 COUNTY COMISS1011IRS MR SO.00 Sookane Co. lid SECI'.ION NO. 18: NOTICES All notices or other commmunications given hereunder shall be deemed given on: (1) the day such notices or other communications are received when sent by personal delivery; or (ii) the third day following the day on which the same have been mailed by first class delivery, postage prepaid addressed to COUNrrY at the address set forth below for such Party, or at such other address as COUNTY shall from time -to -time designate by notice in writing to the other PART BS: COUNTY: Spokane County Chief Executive Officer or his/her authorized representative 1116 Nest Broadway Avenue Spokane, Washington 99260 SHI UFF: Spokane County Sheriff or his/her authorized represent:uive Spokane County Sheriff's Office 1100 Nest Mallon Spokane, Washington 99260 CITY: City of Spokane Valley City Manager or his /her authorized representative Redwood Plaza 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 106 Spokane Valley, Washington 99206 SECTION NO. 19: GE M TERMS 19.1 This Agreement contains terms and conditions agreed upon by the PARTIES. The PARTT.ES agree that there are no other understandings, oral or otherwise, regarding the subject matter of this Agreement. No changes or additions to this Agreement shall be valid or binding upon the PARTIES unless such change or addition is in writing, executed by the PARTIES. 19.2 This Agreement shall be binding upon the PARTIES hereto, their successors and assigns. 19.3 The records and documents with respect to all matters covered by this Agreement shall be subject to inspection, review or audit by COUNTY or CITY during the term of this Agreement and three (3) years after termination. SECTION NO. 20: COUNTERPARTS This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which, when so executed and delivered, shall be an original, but such counterparts shall together constitute but one and the same. Page 15 of '1 fi II I 4867747 III e: iS of 16 I II III II I IIIII Ifllll l IIII IIII III TII [B, 1 247Q 12.33P rnlQrry Mv.wrwrn era sn nn Y'1 SECTION NO. 21: I EADINC,S The section headings appearing in this Agreement have been inserted solely for the purpose of convenience and ready reference. In no way do they purport to, and shall not be deemed to define, limit or extend the scope or intent of the sections to which they pertain. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the PARTIES have caused this Agreement to be executed on date and year opposite their respective signatures. DATED: �3 .2 3 SPOKANE COU TY SHE &&ARK K. STi✓R_K DATED:t_ J/'/ ATTEST: VICKY M. DALTON' OF COM,LUs S E CpG� �p sFA BOARD OF COUNTY CONIM.ISSIONTERS OF SPOKANZ, C�t'IgCY, WASHINGTON CLERK OF THE BOARD �b B:/ li 11 I ��anicla Erickson, Deputy 4 o p a ry < ••• �1rt�,• Y 7 City Clerk Approved as to form only: ROSKFLLEY, Chair LCD' I.1 IS Vice -Chair I , ) 0f 1 C0.c L KATE McCASL N CITY OF S POKr ALLEY: By: Its: 6147 Mai m79 e6. ("Title) ct• g City . tt ney p: \Valley Cit}%praft Cm tmms' Shcri rNaw en f=cmmt 02250.finil.doc Pave 16 of 16 FOP OSED_.CITY-OF SPOKANE VALLEY_ STAFFING ; # Employees Unit Classification Cost 55.5 Patrol w /K -9 (Bomb,Drug,Track) 49.5 Deputies 4,813,613 6 DeUCorp. 653,712 6 Traffic 5 Deputy 486,224 Patrol[Traffic 1 Sgt. Traffic 116,291 — less revenuez - 100,000 —less revenue - 25,000 1 M.A.R.R. 1 DeUCorp. 108,952 10 Patrol Supervision 1 Inspector 134,423 1 Staff Assistant 50,061 2 Lieutenants 255,071 6 Sergeants 697,746 4 Community Services /Admin. 1 Sergeant 116,291 3 SRO Deputy 291.734 —less revenue' - 57,291 8 Property investigations 1 Sergeant 116,291 6 DeUCorp 653,712 1 Deputy 97,245 0.5 Investigations .5 Captain 64,211 9 Drug Investigations .5 Lieutenant 63,768 .5 SergeanUMeth 58,146 .5 SergeanUISU 58,146 3.5 DeUCorp. 381,332 .5 DeUCorp CIU 54,476 .5 DeUCorp JTTF 54,476 3 Drug Deputy 291,734 7.5 Major Crimes /Sex Investigations .5 Lieutenant 63,768 .5 Sgt -Major Crimes 58,146 .5 Sgt -Sex Crimes 58,146 3 DeUCorp -Major Crimes 326,856 3 DeUCorp -Sex Crimes 326,856 101.5 Proposed Staffing Level 10,269,134 L.E.S.U. 1,267,884 io1 ;TOTAL BASEpL'•E'VEL,� ;1:;1 01 8 1 ' - "Personnel Costs are based on 2003 salary figures Costs include 2003 COLA costs for all Unions and Associations 'Costs vAl increase each year based on COLA's, M10 Increase or Decrease, and Capital Expenditures I Improvements as approved by the Board of County Commissioners Footnotes Half of revenue received from a Juvenile Accountability Grant = $27,291; plus revenue from Central Valley School District for two SRD's = $15,000 each Half of revenue received from a "Cops Universal" grant for eight Traffic officers; grant provides $25,0001officedyear; grant expires 12/31/03 Revenue received from a "Cops Universal' grant for 1 Traffic Sergeant; grant provides 525,000 1officer /year, grant expires 5131106 valley proposed staff Attachment "A" 4/1812003 City of Spokane Valley Police Organizational Chart Chief Downtown Inspector .5 Capt. Precinct Investigations 2 Lts .5 LT. .5 LT. Patrol Drugs Major Crimes Sex Crimes 1 Sgt 6 Sgts 1 Sgt 1 Sgt .5 Sgt 5 Sgt .5 Sgt .5 Sgt Property! DV Patrol Traffic Admin / service Meth. Is Major Crimes Sex Crimes 6 Detectives Property / Dv 6 Corporals Patrol 1 Detective MARR 3.5 Detectives Drugs E M Detectives ajor Crimes 3 Detectives Sex Crimes 1 Deputies DV 49.5 Deputies K9's CCU 5 Deputies Traffic 3 Deputies SRDs .5 Detective JTTF Secretary II .5 Detective CIU 3 Clerical Assistants 2 Clerical Assistants 3 Deputies Drugs Not included in 101.5 FTG's 02/2012003 Attachment A -1 CONTRACT POSITION COSTS Salary figures are from 2003 Budget "COWCAP from Fiscal 2001 = 1,930,937 -minus Bldg. Deprec. - 17,775 -minus Equip. Deprec. - 365,583 -minus PSB Sq. Footage - 177,018 1,370,561 position costs Attachment "B" 4118/2003 DePLJt Detective/Cori). Sergeant Lieutenant Captain Inspector Salaries and Benefits 71,487 82,726 89,755 104,726 105,612 111,613 Overtime 1,489 1,725 1,882 0 0 0 Additional Pay 1,459 1,691 1,845 0 0 0 Sub - Total: Wages 74,435 86,142 93,481 104,726 105,612 111,613 Clothing / Vests 111 111 111 111 111 111 Ammunition 71 71 71 71 71 71 Radio MIO Supplies 119 119 119 119 119 119 Equipment (Gun, Radio, Computer) 169 169 169 169 169 169 Data Processing - CAD /RMS 760 760 760 760 760 760 Training 293 293 293 293 293 293 Vehicle 2,289 2,289 2,289 2,289 2,289 2,289 Sub - Total: Direct Costs 3,812 3,812 3,612 3,812 3,812 3,812 Forensic Unit Support 1,373 1,373 1,373 1,373 1,373 1,373 Radio Division 5,306 5,306 5,306 5,306 5,306 5,306 Garage Unit 915 915 915 915 915 915 Sub - Total: Support Units 7,594 7,594 7,594 7,594 7,594 7,594 Department Administration: Budget/Accounting / Admin Support 1,312 1,312 1,312 1,312 1,312 1,312 Office of Professional Standards 472 472 472 472 472 472 Training & Polygraph Unit 1,726 1,726 1,726 1,726 1,726 1,726 Public Information Officer 359 359 359 359 359 359 Crime Analysis Unit 505 505 505 505 505 505 Clerical Support 939 939 939 939 939 939 Sub - Total: Dept. Admin. 5,313 5,313 5,313 5,313 5,313 5,313 Sheriffs Office Total 91,154 102,861 110,200 121,445 122,331 128,332 County Overhead " 6,091 6,091 6,091 6,091 6,091 6,091 Grand Total 97,245 108,952 116,291 127,536 128,422 134,423 Salary figures are from 2003 Budget "COWCAP from Fiscal 2001 = 1,930,937 -minus Bldg. Deprec. - 17,775 -minus Equip. Deprec. - 365,583 -minus PSB Sq. Footage - 177,018 1,370,561 position costs Attachment "B" 4118/2003 LAW ENFORCEMENT SUPPORT UNITS Adjusted 2003 M10 Telephone Fuel Equiprnent/Technology for 2003 Property Room /Records Senior Administration & Sheriff 1,156,845 x 50% = 578,423 72,968 x50% = 36,484 178,600 x50 °/o = 89,300 176,690 x 50% = 88,345 743,811 x 50% = 371,906 103,427 103,427 :TOTAL:L E S.U:� .2 432;341= r ' ;267;884; Amounts are estimate costs based on 2003 Budget - Adjustment for actual costs will be settled during Reconciliation per the contract. '50% is based on 2001 Calls for Service lesu Attachment "C" 4/18/2003 F Co"/ Q S� 15f co r oe This Is t0 Certify t!t> 1t ttws and correct co y of t e orioln&J document an file In tlo my 3 0 238 : . Commissioner m inutes of. NO. a date y f 1� 4 'b ' •.... BY: • F CLERK OF THE BOARD BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHhNG TON TN THE MA'1 I`F:R2 OF EX EClJTtNIG AiN ) AGREEMENT AMONG SPOKANE ) COUNTY, SPOKANE COUNTY ) RESOLUTION SHERIFF AIND THE CrfY OF SPOKANE ) VALLEY REGARDING LAW ) ENFORCEMENT SERVICES AND ) OTHER MATTERS RELATED THERETO ) NNTI REAS, pursuant to RCW 35.02, the City of Spokane Valley established midnight, March 31, 2003, as its official date of incorporation and upon that date commenced operations as a city; and NNTIREAS, pursuant to chapter 35.02 RCW, as of the (late of incorporation, local governmental authority and jurisdiction with respect to the newly incorporate area transferred from Spokane County to the City of Spokane Valley; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of RCW 36.32..120(6), the Board of County Commissioners has the care of County property and the management of County funds and business; and WHEREAS, chapter 39.34 '.PCW (Interlocal Cooperation Act), authorizes counties and cities to contract with each other to perform certain functions which each may legally perform; and WIIEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of chapter 36.28 RC`W, the Sheriff of Spokane County is the Chief .L iw Enforcement Officer and conservator of the peace in Spokane County and shall have, among other responsibilities, the duty to arrest and connnit to prison all persons who break the peace, or attempt to break it; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of 'RCW 35.02.220, law enforcement services shall be provided at no cost to the City of Spokane Valley for a pe.dod not to exceed 60 days from the official date of incorporation or until the City of Spokane Valley is receiving or could have begun receiving sales tax distributions under RCW 82.14.030(1), whichever is the shortest time period. The Parties acknowledge that the City of Spokane Valley shall have the legal responsibility to pay for law enforcement services as of 12:01 A.M. June 1, 2003; and WHEREAS, the City of Spokane Valley desirrs to utilize the services of the Spokane County Sheriff's Oftice for the purpose of law enforcement services. Page 1 of 2 1 3 0238 NOW 'I EM OR:E, BE IT HEREBY KLSOLVFFD by the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County, that either the Chairman of the Board, or a majority of the Board, be and is hereby authorized to execute that document entitled "INTE121 -OCAL AGREEMENT FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES N THE CITY OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY" pursuant to which, under certain terms and conditions, the Spokane County Shetiff's Office will provide law enforcement services to the City of Spokane Valley. The projected cost for the reminder of 2003 is ELEVEN MILMN 1 HUNDRED '1'IIIRTY -SEVEN THOUSAND EIGHTEEN DOLLARS (511,537,018.00). PASSED AND ADOPTED this Z M- / day of 2003. o f co �1M� Cp� N �5M ATTEST: VICKY M. DALTON CLERK OF THE BOAR -D BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SPOKANE, COUNTY, WASHINGTON JOWRO:SKELLEY, Chair RRI.S, Vice - Chair Y: niela Erickson, Deputy M. KATE 'MCCASLITT HAV. -dicy r.• 1)y Rcsoluiions \alley- law eufoaeenicAlAcc Page 2 o1'2 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: February 23, 2010 City Manager Sign -off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation FILE NUMBER: CTA -08 -09 AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Administrative Report — Amendments to Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL: Chapter 17.80, Permit Processing Procedures — Amend Table 17.80 -2, Permit Type and Land Use Application to require pre - application conferences for commercial building permits. Chapter 22.70.020 (A), General provisions, Fencing — Remove language in order to restrict the height of fencing placed in the required front yard of all residential, commercial, mixed use and industrial lots. Chapter 22.70.020 (B), General provisions, Fencing — Consolidate language regulating fencing height in all zoning districts. Allow fence heights of up to eight feet in any zoning district. Chapter 22.70.020 (C) (1) General provisions, Fencing, Clearview Triangle — Refine the definition of an Uncontrolled Intersection. Replace "City traffic engineer" with "City's designated traffic engineer" to allow more flexibility when staffing clearview triangle issues. Reverse the illustrations to correctly match the preceding illustration. Chapter 22.70.020 Table 22.70 -1 Two Way Stop Controlled Intersection — Correct the title and correct the distance in feet. Chapter 22.70.020 (D) General provisions, Fencing, Exemption from Clearview requirements — Required trees to be living, added retaining walls under 30 inches or in existence prior to October 10 2004, added structures other than fences and signs, added the intersection of two private streets. Chapter 22.70.020 (E) General provisions, Fencing — Eliminated this section of language restricting fence height as it is now restricted in Section 22.70.020 (B). Chapter 22.70.020 (E) General provisions, Fencing — Changed from section F to section E. Barbed, razor or concertina wire is allowed in mixed -use, commercial and industrial zones absent a residential component or when not adjacent to a residential use or zone. The use is restricted to the upper one - quarter of the fence. Barbed, razor and concertina wire are not allowed in residential zones. Chapter 22.70.020 (F) General provisions, Fencing — Changed from section G to section F. Chapter 22.70.020 (G) General provisions, Fencing - Added provisions allowing the use of electric and barbed wire for confining animals in a residential district. GOVERNING LEGISLATION: SVMC 19.30.040 development regulation text amendments PREVIOUS ACTION TAKEN: None BACKGROUND: The Uniform Development Code was adopted in September, 2007 and was effective October 28 2007. Errors and omissions were discovered following the codes adoption while other issues were not clearly or fully addressed. These amendments will correct errors and omissions, resolve ambiguity and clarify standards. 1 of 2 Staff presented this series of proposed amendments to the Planning Commission at a study session on January 28th, 2010. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed amendments on February 11, 2010. Based upon staff's recommendation, the Planning Commission made a motion 5 to 0 to move the proposed amendment on to the City Council for review and a decision. APPROVAL CRITERIA: Section 17.80.150(6) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code provides approval criteria for text amendments to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code. The criterion stipulates that the proposed amendment(s) must be consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan and bear a substantial relation to the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment. OPTIONS: Proceed to first reading of the ordinance as proposed, or as modified; direct staff further. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Council consensus to proceed with first reading of the ordinance at the March 9, 2010 Council meeting. BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None. STAFF CONTACT: Martin Palaniuk, Planning Technician ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Spokane Valley Municipal Code text amendments 2. Planning Commission's Findings and Recommendations 3. Staff Report and exhibits to Planning Commission for 2 -11 -10 public hearing 4. City Council Administrative Report Presentation 2of2 122.70.020 General provisions – Fencing. A. No sight- obstructing fence more than 36 inches in height, nor any non- sight- 'obstructing fence (cyclone) more than 48 inches in height may be erected and /or !maintained within the required front yard of any lot. e - i_'cn ±t,2 B. Any fence or wall, erected or placed behind the minimum required front yard line may be erected or maintained to a maximum height of eight feet above the adjacent grade in ridden; any zoning district . Lots with double street frontage may have a !fence constructed on the property line around the yard not used as the main point of !access (the apparent backyard). C. Neither residential, commercial or industrial fencing, nor any sight obstruction including vegetation, which constitutes a hazard to the traveling public shall be permitted on any corner lot in any zone within the area designated as the "clearview triangle" as set forth below: 1. A clearview triangle is a measurement applied at the intersection of two !streets or the intersection of an alley or commercial driveway and a street to ensure !unobstructed vision of motorists and pedestrians. Within the clearview triangle, the jspace between three and one -half feet and seven feet above the street, or three feet !above the sidewalk, must be unobstructed and calculated as follows: !Figure 22.70 -1 Clearview Requirements VZGE ITO ?Iti\TIfMtCTE %TE%' U*TGLL feet m from e Figure Page 1 Figure 22.70 -2 Uncontrolled Intersection ,: • •• AFL'. - �Pf.' CffY RKM -OFWAY GOY MfT- QF-WAY cum RafFOFWAY PRQF@R u h�•': , ' t!M F ND CURB 6 PFER2VT, LEABLM N S MWAMO n MOPEMY LM PMM TM Frame OF 7}E PA'Y ENT SOFT, . i . OrT FOQHT --0F -WAY - MCPERTY LINE i M ♦, NQ F NO GJFE IS PRESENT, MEASURE N 5 TOWARMTFE POOPERTY LM MOM THE OF THE riOADW.AY b. Two -Way Stop Controlled Intersection. The right triangle having a 16 -foot side measured along the curb line of a local access street (or five feet from edge of ! pavement for a street with no curbs), alley or commercial driveway, and the distance :.shown on Table 22.70 -1 based on posted speed along the side along the curb line of 'the intersecting street (or five feet from edge of pavement for a street with no curbs) ;(see Figure 22.70 -3); or Page 2 of 6 Figure 22.70 -3 Two -Way Stop Controlled Intersection �. • 86 TABtE 7J00."I' :a. [ ! -� .. W.T16Li7A. �" �— 4 '• . 30 X5130 ..:� '. " "160 ' k mEer • � � Fi�ti -0FWAY .. r,-.. _ 1 rROFeRrr LM .,-. • 4 !s i NME? F NO CLFB 16 NT, kEAWRE N S TC7WAFDB THE PROPEHTY LINE FROA4 THE EDCF= OF THE PAYEMENT C" ROFT-0F —WAY MY F T -aFWAY ' +� �EiJlLE TABIFTl+13 - . .�'. _.- .•- �;- --•—+. _. iF�CfJSilit� " _ - ,,.: Jl11oU�197tFt� � - - • - `� � ' - C.IB I F ' l ' 1 / F• f ` j I ' •• ..� `'+. • \ ``. ",. �� _ - - tdrr Wr -cr—YU, i tg_.E' F to GLM b P'rb' T 6E19r`E h S• TdNfOX TF! llI 1 i WOUrr M Ff" 1HE EDGE OF 11-E NalPwil` CffrFKllt�i" -ifAY M" kc 01 *AT .___... _ Table 22.70 -1 — Yield C Two Wav Stop Control Intersection Posted Speed (in MPH) Distance (in Feet) 25 9110 30 X5130 35 '. " "160 c. In cases including, but not limited to, arterials with posted speeds in ; excess of 35 miles per hour, one -way streets, steep grades and horizontal or ; vertical curves, the City's designated traffic engineer will determine the appropriate £measurement; or d. Yield- Controlled Intersection. For intersections of local streets with 25 :mile per hour speed limits, the right triangle having a 35 -foot side measured along the ;curb line or edge of pavement of the yield - controlled street, and an 80 -foot side measured along the curb line or edge of pavement of the intersecting street. Triangles for yield - controlled intersections on collectors or arterials, or streets with speeds higher ;than 25 miles per hour, will be determined by the C 47 - City's designated traffic engineer €(see Figure 22.70 -4); or Page 3 of 6 e. All -Way Stop Controlled. The triangle determined by the Qty City's designated traffic engineer using AASHTO sight distance requirements for all -way stop controlled intersections; or Figure 22.70 -4 Yield- Controlled Intersection s>i r Try S= _ -M RkIff-CF-WAT PFOTERTY LIE ! -,-° CxM �-,- \ -OF -WAY CITY M117-0F -WAY OLM IIY PIUMI-Ce -WAT rFxD E " LM ! designated f. Signal- Controlled Intersection. The triangle determined by the :;, City's traffic engineer using AASHTO sight distance requirements for signalized intersections; or ' Noncommercial Driveway c^r,M g : " tee a=, .cre °�ic'ses The right g. y -�:.�- � g isosceles triangle having sides of 15 feet measured along the curb line of the street and the edge of the driveway (see Figure 22.70 -5). Page 4 of 6 W A I Figure 22.70 -5 Noncommercial Driveway N is Fr. OLM V. CR7F90ir M Fl[ W-OF -WAY Cn Mfr- OF--AAY D. Exemptions. Clearview triangle regulations of this chapter shall not apply to: 1. Public utility poles; 2. Livinq t - rees, so long as they are not planted in the form of a hedge and are trimmed to a height of at least seven feet above the street surface; 3. Properties where the natural ground contour penetrates the clearview triangle land 4. Traffic control devices installed by the City. i 5. New retaining walls under thirty (30) inches in height or retaining walls in existence prior to October 10 2004. 6. Structures other than fences and signs (as provided in Section 22.110.090 : Sign location and front setbacks). 7. The intersection of two private streets. C C i n r,rn sideq n rr.inl mix Lu i nd U s t rial ZGRiRg diS shall nn+ e)igeed G ht foot in height ET. Barbed razor, - 1 , 4 1-.9 or concertina r aze. wire may be used for security purposes it ; mixed use commercial and industrial zones in the absence of a residential component : or when not adjacent to a residence or residential zoning district. The use of barbed, ; razor, or concertina wire in these zones is restricted to pnl� upper one - quarter of ;the fence_ in industrial zoning dictriG'-o. Barbed razor, or concertina wire Page 5 of 6 (shall not be permitted in any residential zoninq district (except for confining animals, see ( _section 22.70.020 (H)) or in any mixed use or commercial zoning district adjacent to any public right -of -way. F . Electric fences may be used for the confinement of animals; provided, however, ,that: 1. The fence is marked with warning signs at least 24 square inches in area located every 150 feet; and 2. The electric fence is located not less than 24 inches from the property line; Viand i 3. Access to the fence is limited by conventional fencing or enclosure. 1 G. In any residential zoning district, electric and /or barbed wire fences may be used to , confine animals, provided however, that: 1. The lot or tract meets the requirements contained in section 19.40.150 Animal raising and keeping, and; j-IT-. 2. Electric fences meet the requirements in section 22.70.020 (F). H. A combination of sight- obscuring fences and landscaping shall be required between incompatible land uses as established in SVMC 22.70.030 I. Fencing shall not block the view of fire protection equipment from approach. (Ord. 107 -015 4, 2007). - -- - Table 17.80 -2 — Permit Type and Land Use Application Page 6 of 6 Pre- Counter- Fully complete Notice of Notice of Final Application application complete determination application public decision Type conference determination 17.80.100 17.80.110 hearing and notice 17.80.080 17.80.090 17.80.120 17.80.130 1 * * *O X X N/A N/A X *II * *O X X X N/A X III X X X X X X X Required O Optional N/A Not Applicable *Does not apply to SEPA threshold determinations. Refer to SVMC 21.20.070 for noticing requirements. * *Except for short subdivisions and binding site plans which require a pre - application meeting. ** *Except for commercial building permits. Page 6 of 6 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION February 11, 2010 The following findings have been prepared by Staff for the Planning Commission in the event there is concurrence with the recommended approval. Background: A. The Spokane Valley Municipal Code was adopted in September 2007 and became effective on October 28, 2007. B. City initiated request for a text amendment to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). C. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 11, 2010. The Planning Commission approved the following amendments to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code, Title 17; 1. Chapter 17.80, Table 17.80 -2 — Add note that will require a pre - application meeting for all commercial building permits. Title 22: 2. Chapter 22.70.020 (A) - State that fence height may not exceed 36 inches in height or 48 inches in height for a non - sight- obstructing fence in the required front yard within any zoning district. 3. Chapter 22.70.020 (B) — State that fence height shall not exceed eight feet in any zoning district. Eliminate current section E which addresses fence height (redundant). 4. Chapter 22.70.020 (C) — Correct definition and illustration errors, update table figures, clarify definitions and clarify term used for traffic engineer. 5. Chapter 22.70.020 (D) — Add exemptions to uses not subject to the Clearview Triangle provisions of the Chapter. 6. Chapter 22.70.020 (F) Rename section E. Clarify the use of barbed, razor and concertina wire. Clarify the use of barbed, razor and concertina wire in residential zones. 7. Chapter 22.70.020 (G) Add a section to allow the use of barbed wire in residential zones in order to keep animals. Findings: SVMC 17.80.150(F) states that the City may approve amendments to the UDC if it finds that: A. The proposed amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan; and 1. Policy LUP -1.2 is to protect residential areas from impacts of adjacent non - residential uses and /or higher intensity uses through the development and enforcement of the City's land use regulations and joint planning. 2. LUP -7.3 requires clear and safe pedestrian paths to enhance the pedestrian network. 3. LUP -14.1 requires the use of performance and community design standards to maintain neighborhood character... and to create attractive and desirable commercial and office developments. 4. Land Use Goal LUG -13 is to develop and maintain an efficient and timely development review process. Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission Page 1 of 2 B. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment. The proposed amendments to the zone meet the above outlined goals, and are thus consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Conclusions: The proposed amendments meet the applicable provisions of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Recommendations: The Spokane Valley Planning Commission therefore recommends approval to the City Council of proposed amendments to Title 19 and Appendices A (Definitions) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code. Approved this 11 day of February, 2010 ohn G. Carroll,'Ciairman ST Dean ha Griffith, Admini tive Assistant Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission Page 2 of 2 j COMMUNITY DEVELOPME,. i .DEP/ S crry 00^- %war.- - AM 4, paw.v jVafleye STAFF REPORT DATE: February 3, 2010 HEARING DATE AND LOCATION: February 11, 2010, beginning at 6:00 p.m., Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers, Valley Redwood Plaza Building, 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 101, Spokane Valley, Washington 99206. PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION: A City initiated text amendment to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) restricting fence height in required front yards, correcting errors to clearview triangle illustrations, adding exemptions, restricting the use of barbed, razor, and concertina wire, and requiring pre - application meetings for all commercial building permits. This proposal is considered a non - project action under RCW 43.21 C. PROPOSAL LOCATION: The proposal affects the entire City of Spokane Valley, Washington. APPLICANT: City of Spokane Valley APPROVAL CRITERIA: Title 17 (General Provisions) and Title 21 (Environmental Controls) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Division recommends that the Planning Commission approve the proposed text amendment to the SVMC. STAFF PLANNER: Martin Palaniuk, Planning Technician, Community Development Department ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1: Draft Regulation of Sections 17.80 and 22.70 Exhibit 2: SEPA Determination BACKGROUND INFORMATION A. APPLICATION PROCESSING Chapter 17.80 Permit Processing Procedures in the SVMC. The following summarizes key application procedures for the proposal. Application Submitted: N/A Determination of Completeness: N/A Issuance of an Optional Determination of Non - Significance January 22, 2010 DNS Date of Published Notice of Public Hearing: January 22, 2010 Date of Mailed Notice of Public Hearing: Janua 26, 2010 ( 1 Staff Report and Recommendation to the Planning Commission CTA -08 -09 II. SUMMARY OF TEXT AMENDMENT A. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO SEPA Findings: Pursuant to Title 21 (Environmental Controls) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC), the lead agency has determined that this proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). The Planning Division issued a Determination of Non - Significance (DNS) on January 22, 2010 for the proposal. This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. Conclusion(s): The procedural requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act and Title 21 of the SVMC have been fulfilled by the completion of the required SEPA Checklist, and the issuance of the City's threshold determination consisting of a Determination of Non - Significance (DNS). No appeals were received. B. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS COMPLIANCE WITH TITLE 17 (GENERAL PROVISIONS) OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE Findings: Section 17.80.150(F) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) provides approval criteria that must be considered when the City amends the SVMC. The criteria are listed below along with staff comments. 1. The proposed text amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan; Staff Response The City of Spokane Valley has adopted goals and policies consistent with the GMA and adopted CWPP. The proposed text amendment is consistent with the GMA, CWPPs, and the following City of Spokane Valley's Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies. 1. Land Use Policy LUP -1.2 is to protect residential areas from impacts of adjacent non - residential uses and /or higher intensity uses through the development and enforcement of the City's land use regulations and joint planning. Limiting the use of barbed, razor and concertina wire adjacent to residential uses protects them from impacts caused by these types of fences. 2. LUP -7.3 requires clear and safe pedestrian paths to enhance the pedestrian network. The use of clearview triangles and the restriction of sight - obstructing fences within clearview triangles enhance the pedestrian environment. 3. Land Use Goal LUG -13 is to develop and maintain an efficient and timely development review process. Pre - application meetings provide valuable Page 2 of 5 Staff Report and Recommendation to the Planning Commisslon CTA -08 -09 information at the beginning of the review process. This meeting can be used by the applicant to address all issues of concern prior to submitting a permit for review. Clarification of ambiguous code content simplifies the review process and improves timeliness. 4. LUP -14.1 requires the use of performance and community design standards to maintain neighborhood character... and to create attractive and desirable commercial and office developments. Restricting the height and type of fences within required front yards is an important aesthetic component for maintaining a residential appearance and creating attractive commercial and office development. 2. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment; Staff Response The amendment bears substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment. Clearview triangles are designed for public safety and the proper administration of the standard is paramount to providing clear and safe pathways for vehicle, pedestrian and bicycle safety. Barbed, razor and concertina wire are designed to deter unwanted entrance and can inflict substantial personal injury. Limiting their use in residential areas and confining their use to those areas where valuable commercial or industrial property needs protection is consistent with protecting public health, safety and welfare. Coneiusion(s): The proposed text amendment to the SVMC is consistent with the approval criteria contained in the SVMC. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Division after review and consideration of the proposed text amendment and applicable approval criteria recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of CTA -01 -10 IV. PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS: The Planning Commission is required to adopt findings of fact (Sections 17.80.140 & 17.80.150) when recommending changes to the SVMC. At the conclusion of the hearing for the text amendment to the SVMC, the Planning Commission, by separate motion, should adopt findings of fact. Section 17.80.150(F) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) provides approval criteria that must be considered when the City amends the SVMC. Staff has prepared the following findings for the Planning Commission in the event there is concurrence with the recommended approval. A. The Planning Commission finds the proposed privately initiated text amendment to be consistent with the applicable provisions of the Growth Management Act, Countywide Planning Policies (CWPP) and the City's Comprehensive Plan; GMA Policies 10— '; of ri Staff Report and Recommendation to the Planninq Commission CTA -08 -09 1. The Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) provides that each city shall adopt a comprehensive land use plan and development regulations that are consistent with and implement the comprehensive plan. Countywide Planninq Policies 2. The Countywide Planning Policies (CWPP) are based on principles developed through an intense and lengthy citizen participation process. One of the guiding principles coming out of that process was the importance of protecting neighborhood character. For most citizens, neighborhood character is one of the primary ingredients in their perceived quality of life. It is the intent of the countywide planning policies to maintain neighborhood character and prevent neighborhoods from suffering the negative effects of growth. City of Spokane Valley Goals and Policies 3. The City of Spokane Valley has adopted goals and policies consistent with the GMA and adopted CWPP. a. Land Use Policy LUP -1.2 is to protect residential areas from impacts of adjacent non - residential uses and /or higher intensity uses through the development and enforcement of the City's land use regulations and joint planning. b. LUP -7.3 requires clear and safe pedestrian paths to enhance the pedestrian network. c. LUP -14.1 requires the use of performance and community design standards to maintain neighborhood character... and to create attractive and desirable commercial and office developments. d. Land Use Goal LUG -13 is to develop and maintain an efficient and timely development review process. B. The Planning Commission finds the proposed privately initialed text amendment to bear a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment; 1. Restricting the height and type of fences within required front yards will maintain or improve the important aesthetic component for creating attractive commercial and office development. Businesses will be certain a neighbor cannot create a sight obstruction that may hinder or limit their access or advertising effectiveness. 2. The use of clearview triangles and the restriction of sight - obstructing fences within clearview triangles enhance the pedestrian environment. Unobstructed clearview triangles increase vehicular, pedestrian, bicycle and neighborhood safety. 3. The proposed text amendment will limit the use of barbed, razor and concertina wire adjacent to residential uses and public right -of -ways protecting them from the impacts caused by commercial and industrial development. 4. Clarification of ambiguous code content simplifies the review process and improves timeliness. 5. V. RECOMMENDED MOTION: The Planning Commission adopts the findings in the staff report and recommends approval of CTA- 08 -09, a text amendment to Sections 17.80 and 22.70.020 of the Spokane Valley Paoe 4 of 5 Staff Report and Recommendation to the Planning Commisslon CTA -08 -09 Municipal Code (SVMC), restricting fence height in required front yards, correcting errors to clearview triangle illustrations, adding exemptions, restricting the use of barbed, razor, and concertina wire, and requiring pre - application meetings for all commercial building permits. Pace 5 cf 5 f - � COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SpandQ a PLANNING DIVISION ,; 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.921.1000 Fax: 509.921.1008 cityhall@spokanevalley.org DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE File Number: CTA -08 -09 Description of proposal: Proposed text amendments amending the following sections of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code: Table 17.80 -2 - commercial building permit require pre- application meeting; 22.70.0201- Fencing height in front yard setbacks. 2) Correct Clear -view Triangle diagrams. 3) Table 22.70 -1 change distances in table. 4) Clarify traffic engineering authority. 5) Barbed, razor and concertina wire restrictions. 6) Allow barbed wire for confinement of animals. Location of proposal: N/A Lead Agency: City of Spokane Valley Community Development Department, Planning Division Determination: Pursuant to Title 21 (Environmental Controls) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code, the lead agency has determined that this proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). The threshold determination is available to the public upon request. DNS issued under WAC 197 -11- 340(2) Responsible Official: Staff Contact: Kathy McClung, Community Development Director Martin 7 Palaniuk, Planning Technician City of Spokane Valley Community Development City of Spokane Valley Community Development Department Department Valley Redwood Plaza, 11707 E. Sprague Avenue, Suite Valley Redwood Plaza, 11707 E. Sprague Avenue, Suite 106, Spokane Valley, WA 99206 106, Spokane Valley, WA 99206 PH: (509) 720 -5300 / FX: (509) 921 -1008 PH: 509) 720 -5031 / FX: pp9) 921 -100 kmcclung @spokanevalley.org mp iuk @spokaney lle erg - 0 4 Date issued: January 22, 2010 Signature: e- (// APPEAL An appeal of this determination must be submi ed to the Comanity Development Department within fourteen (14) calendar days after the date issued. The appeal must be written and make specific factual objections to the City's threshold determination. Appeals shall be in conformance with Section 17.90 (Appeals) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code. At the time of appeal submittal, required fees are due pursuant to the City's adopted Fee Schedule. Pursuant to WAC 197 -11 -680, appeals shall be limited to a review of a final threshold determination. AGENCY ROUTING: City of Spokane Valley Development Engineering Division City of Spokane Valley Building City of Spokane Valley Fire Department Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency City of Liberty Lake, Community Development City of Spokane, Planning Services Spokane County, Boundary Review Board Spokane County, Division of Utilities - Information Services Spokane County, Fire District No. 8 Spokane County, Fire District No. 9 Spokane County, Regional Health District Spokane Transit Authority (STA) Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC) Washington State Department of Ecology (Olympia) Washington State Department of Ecology (Spokane) Central Valley School District No. 356 East Valley School District No. 361 West Valley School District No. 363 pmolene ; COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION 11707E Sprague Ave Suite 106; Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.921.10001 Fax: 509.921.1008 ♦ cityhallna spokanevallev.ore LEAD AGENCY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW DATE: January 22, 2010 A. BACKGROUND 1. PROJECT NUMBER CTA -08 -09 2. DESCRIPTION Proposed text amendments amending the following sections of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code: Table 17.80 -2 - commercial building permit require pre - application meeting 22.70.020 1 - Fencing height in front yard setbacks. 2) Correct Clear -view Triangle diagrams. 3) Table 22.70 -1 change distances in table. 4) Clarify traffic engineering authority. 5) Barbed, razor and concertina wire restrictions. 6) Allow barbed wire for confinement of animals. 3. PROPERTY OwNER/APPLICANT: City of Spokane Valley, 11707 E. Sprague #106, Spokane Valley, WA 99206 4. LOCATION Not applicable, this is a non - project action. These regulations will apply to all applications regulated by the Spokane Valley Municipal Code regardless of the ro erties' hysicallocation. REVIEW OF SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONS OF SECTION 14 OF PART A (BACKGROUND) FOR CRITICAL AQUIFER RECHARGE AREA (CARA) / AQUIFER SENSITIVE AREA (ASA) The entire corporate limits lie within the Aquifer Sensitive Area (ASA). This is a non project proposal and will have no impact on the ASA. Staff notes stormwater issues are reviewed and addressed through the City's adopted 2001 Spokane County Road Standards. No concerns noted. City of Spokane Valley Determination of Non - Significance (DNS) Page 1 of 3 B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS Italics indicate potential mitigation measures, if any. Bold indicates unresolved issues or additional information that must be addressed by the applicant prior to final approval, as indicated. 1. EARTH N/A — No concerns noted. 2. AIR N/A - No concerns noted. 3. WATER N/A - No concerns noted. 4. PLANTS N/A - No concerns noted. 5. ANIMALS N/A - No concerns noted. 6. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES N/A - No concerns noted. 7A. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HAZARDS N/A - No concerns noted. 7B. NOISE N/A - No concerns noted. 8. SHORELINE AND LAND USES N /A- No concerns noted. 9. HOUSING N/A - No concerns noted. 10. AESTHETICS N/A - No concerns noted. 11. LIGHT AND GLARE N/A - No concerns noted. 12. RECREATION N/A - No concerns noted. 13. CULTURAL AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION N/A - No concerns noted. 14. TRANSPORTATION N/A - No concerns noted. City of Spokane Valley Determination of Non - Significance (DNS) Page 2 of 3 t ti 15. PUBLIC SERVICES N/A - No concerns noted. 16. UTILITIES N/A - No concerns noted. REVIEW OF SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NON - PROJECT ACTIONS 1. AIR The SEPA Checklist states that there will be no emissions into the air. No concerns noted. 2. NOISE The SEPA Checklist states that the proposal will have no effect on noise. No concerns noted. 3. WATER The SEPA Checklist does not comment on increased discharge to water. No concerns noted. 4. PLANTS & ANIMALS The SEPA Checklist states that the proposal will have no impact on plants and animals. No concerns noted. 5. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES No effect on energy or natural resources is anticipated. No concerns noted. 6. ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVE AREAS No effect to these areas is anticipated. No concerns noted. 7. SHORELINE AND LAND USES No effect on shoreline and land uses. Development within shoreline areas would require conformance with existing shoreline regulations. No concerns noted. 8. TRANSPORTATION & PUBLIC SERVICES Checklist states that no impact is anticipated to transportation and public services. No concerns noted. 9. Does the proposal conflict with local, state, or federal laws requirements for protection of the environment? The SEPA checklist states that there are no known conflicts. Code text amendments conform with RCW 58.17 and RCW 36.70B. No concerns noted. City of Spokane Valley Determination of Non - Significance (DNS) Page 3 of 3 City of Spokane Valley SEPA Checklist TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT City of Spokane Valley SEPA Checklist WAC 197 -11 -960 Environmental checklist. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Purpose of checklist: The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. Instructions for applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply." Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. Use of checklist for non - project proposals: Complete this checklist for non - project proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NON - PROJECT ACTIONS (part D). For non - project actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable City of Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) Title 17 and Title 22 batch code amendments, CTA -08 -09 2. Name of applicant: City of Spokane Valley, Planning Division 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: Martin Palaniuk, 11707 E. Sprague Ave., 720 -5031 4. Date checklist prepared: 1/6/10 5. Agency requesting checklist: City of Spokane Valley Effective October 28, 2007 Page 1 of 10 P: \Community Development \Un!for !form n z Development ode SEP Environmental asN 00 1 d Checklist ff 10 -09 ( iear iew triangle - building pre- 2pps) \1. City of Spokane Valley SEPA Checklist TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Planning Commission hearings commence in February; City Council in March; adoption in April. 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? No If yes, explain. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. None Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? None If yes, explain. 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. City Council approval of ordinance adopting changes. 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.) Amend areas of SVMC Title 17 and 22 of the City of Spokane Valley Municipal Code related to site view triangles, fencing requirements, and pre - application meeting requirements. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist, This is a non project action. No project site. 13. 13. Does the proposed action lie within the Aquifer Sensitive Area (ASA)? NIA, The General Sewer Service Area? N/A The Priority Sewer Service Area? N/A (See: Spokane County's ASA Overlay zone Atlas for boundaries). This is a non project action. No project site. 14. The following questions supplement Part A a. Critical Aquifer Recharge Area (CARA) /Aquifer Sensitive Area (ASA). Describe any systems, other than those designed for the disposal of sanitary waste, installed for the purpose of discharging fluids below the ground surface (includes systems such as those for the disposal of Stormwater or drainage from floor drains). Describe the type of system, the amount of material to be disposed of through the system and the types of material likely to be disposed of (including materials which may enter the system inadvertently through spills or as a result of firefighting activities). N/A 2. Will any chemicals (especially organic solvents or petroleum fuels) be stored in aboveground or underground storage tanks? If so, what types and quantities of material will be stored? N/A Effective October 28, 2007 Page 2 of 10 P: \Community Development \Uniform Development Code \1 Updates\2009 Amend ments \CTA -O8 -09 (Clearvlew triangle - building pre- apps) \1. SEPA\Appendix 21 -A SEPA Environmental Checklist eff 10- 28- 07.doc City of Spokane Valley SEPA Checklist TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT 3. What protective measures will be taken to insure that leaks or spills of any chemicals stored or used on site will not be allowed to percolate to groundwater? This includes measures to keep chemicals out of disposal systems. N/A 4. Will any chemicals be stored, handled or used on the site in a location where a spill or leak will drain to surface or groundwater or to a Stormwater disposal system discharging to surface or groundwater? N/A b. Stormwater 1. What are the depths on the site to groundwater and to bedrock (if known)? N/A 2. Will stormwater be discharged into the ground? If so, describe any potential impacts. N/A B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS 1) Earth a. General description of the site (check one): ❑ flat, ❑ rolling, ❑ hilly, ❑ steep slopes, ❑ mountainous, other N/A b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? NIA c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, specify them and note any prime farmland. NIA d, Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? N/A If so, describe. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Also indicate source of fill. NIA f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? N/A If so, generally describe. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? N/A h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: N/A 2) Air a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. NIA Effective October 28, 2007 Page 3 of 10 PACommunity Development \Uniform Development Code \1 Updates\2009 Amendments \CTA -08 -09 (Clearview triangle - building pre - apps) \1. SEPA\Appendix 21 -A SEPA Environmental Checklist eff 10- 28- 07.doc City of Spokane Valley SEPA Checklist TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? NIA If so, generally describe. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: NIA 3) Water a. Surface: 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year -round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. NIA 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. NIA 3) Estimate the amount of fill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface water or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. WA Indicate the source of fill material. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? NIA Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? NIA If so, note location on the site plan, 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? NIA If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume of discharge. b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? NIA Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the system, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. NIA c. Water runoff (including stormwater): Effective October 28, 2007 Page 4 of 10 P: \Community Development \Uniform Development Code \1 Updates\2009 Amendments \CTA -08 -09 (Clearview triangle - building pre- apps) \1. SEPA\Appendix 21 -A SEPA Environmental Checklist eff 10- 28- 07.doc City of Spokane Valley SEPA Checklist TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? N/A Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? N/A If so, generally describe. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: NIA 4) Plants a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: No project site. ❑ deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other ❑ evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other ❑ shrubs ❑ grass ❑ pasture ❑ crop or grain wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other ❑ water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other F- other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? NIA c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. N/A d, Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: N/A 5) Animals a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: No project site. ❑ birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: ❑ mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: ❑ fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: b. List any threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. NIA c. Is the site part of a migration route? N/A If so, explain. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: NIA Effective October 28, 2007 Page 5 of 10 PACommunity Development \Uniform Development Code \1 Updates\2009 Amendments \CTA -08 -09 (Clearview triangle - building pre - apps) \1. SEPA\Appendix 21 -A SEPA Environmental Checklist eff 10- 28- 07.doc City of Spokane Valley SEPA Checklist TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT 6). Energy and natural resources a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. N/A b, Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. N/A c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? NIA List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: 7) Environmental health a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of fire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? N/A If so, describe 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. N/A 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: NIA b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? N/A 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short -term or a long -term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. N/A 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: NIA 8). Land and shoreline use a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties? N/A b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. N/A c. Describe any structures on the site. N/A d. Will any structures be demolished? N/A If so, what? e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? N/A f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? N/A Effective October 28, 2007 Page 6 of 10 P: \Community Development \Uniform Development Code \1 Updates\2009 Amendments \CTA -OB -09 (Clearview triangle - building pre- apps) \1. SEPA\Appendix 21 -A SEPA Environmental Checklist eff 10- 28- 07.doc City of Spokane Valley SEPA Checklist TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? NIA h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? NIA If so, specify. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? NIA j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? NIA k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: NIA I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: NIA 9) Housing a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income housing. NIA b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate whether high, middle, or low - income housing. NIA c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: NIA 10). Aesthetics a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? NIA b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? NIA c, Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: NIA 11). Light and glare a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? NIA What time of day would it mainly occur? b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? NIA c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? N/A d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: N/A Effective October 28, 2007 Page 7 of 10 PAComrnunity Development \Uniform Development Code \1 Updates\2009 Amendments \CTA -08 -09 (Clearview triangle - building pre- apps) \1. SEPA\Appendix 21 -A SEPA Environmental Checklist eff 10- 28- 07.doc City of Spokane Valley SEPA Checklist TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT 12) Recreation a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? N/A b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? N/A If so, describe. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: NIA 13). Historic and cultural preservation a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? N/A If so, generally describe. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. N/A c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: N/A 14). Transportation a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed access to the existing street system. N/A Show on site plans, if any. b. Is site currently served by public transit? N/A If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? NIA How many would the project eliminate? NIA d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? N/A If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? NIA If so, generally describe. f. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? N/A If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: NIA 15) Public services a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: fire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? NIA If so, generally describe. Effective October 28, 2007 Page 8 of 10 PACommunity Development \Uniform Development Code \1 Updates\2009 Amendments \CTA -08 -09 (Clearview triangle - building pre- 2pps) \1, SEPA\Appendix 21 -A SEPA Environmental Checklist eff 10- 28- 07.doc City of Spokane Valley SEPA Checklist TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT b. Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. NIA 16) Utilities a. Check utilities currently available at the site: ❑ electricity, ❑ natural gas, ❑water, ❑ refuse service, ❑ telephone, ❑ sanitary sewer, ❑ septic system, ❑ other - describe NIA. b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. N/A C. SIGNATURE The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature: Date Submitted: D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NON - PROJECT ACTIONS ( do not use this sheet for project actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? N/A a. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: N/A 2. How would the proposal be likely to affect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? NIA a. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: NIA 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? N/A a, Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: NIA Effective October 28, 2007 Page 9 of 10 PACommunity Development \Uniform Development Code\1 Updates\2009 Amendments \CTA -08 -09 (Clearview triangle - building pre- apps) \1. SEPA\Appendix 21 -A SEPA Environmental Checklist eff 10- 28- 07.doc City of Spokane Valley SEPA Checklist TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? N/A a. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: N/A 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? NIA a. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are NIA 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? N/A a. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: N/A 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. NIA E. SQGNA` URE I, the undersigned, swear under penalty of perjury that the above responses are made truthfully and to the best of my knowledge. I also understand that, should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part, the agency may withdraw any Determination of Nonsignificance that it might issue in reliance upon this check list. Date: Please print or type: Proponent: Martin J. Palaniuk Signature: Address: 11707 E Sprague Ave, Ste 106, Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Phone: (509) 720 -5031 Effective October 28, 2007 Page 10 of 10 R \Community Development \Uniform Development Code \1 Updates\2009 Amendments \CTA -08 -09 (Clearview triangle - building pre - apps) \1. SEPA\Appendix 21 -A SEPA Environmental Checklist eff 10- 28- 07.doc CIT' /HAIIOSPOCAVFr Department of Commujulty Development �sVal Planning Division City Council Administrative Report February 23, 2010 Text Amendment to the SVMC CTA -08 -09 CITY HpUtwSP ^KANFV /\.. Department of Community Development Spokane .,;WOUalle Planning Division Proposed Amendments Chapter 17.80 — Pre - application meeting required for all commercial building permits added to Table 17.80 -2 • Chapter 22.70.020 (A) — Restrict height of fences in the front yard for all zoning districts not just residential. e Chapter 22.70.020 (C) (1) —Amend the title and distances in Table 22.70.1. • Chapter 22.70.020 (C) (1) —Refine the description for curves, clarify the term "City traffic engineer ". CITYHAlIP5P0RANEb We Department of CommutI �ty Development a lley Planning Division Proposed Amendments Continued s Chapter 22.70.020 (C) (1) — Reverse the illustrations so they snatch the titles and context of the code. • Chapter 22.70.020 (C) (1) —Add three more exemptions to the exemptions section. e Chapter 22.70. 020 (E) — Eliminate this section because it is now addressed in a previous section. • Chapter 22.70. 020 (F) — Change to section E and clarify the allowable use of barbed, razor and concertina wire within all zones. • Chapter 22.70. 020 (G) — Added a section to allow the use of barbed wire in residential zones for keeping animals. Spk C � 11 ; 0 0 _ CITYH,A"P'P0"AN" Department of Community Development u Planning Division Pre - application Meeting for Commercial Table 17.80 -2 — Permit Type and Land Use Application Counter- Fully Notice of Notice of Final complete complete application public decision determination determinatio 17.80.110 hearing and notice Pre - application 17.80.090 n 17.80.120 17.80.130 Application Type conference 17.80.100 17.80.080 O X X N/A N/A X *II * *O X X X N/A X III X X X X X X X Required O Optional N/A Not Applicable *Does not apply to SEPA threshold determinations. Refer to SVMC 21.20.070 for noticing requirements. * *Except for short subdivisions and binding site plans which require a pre - application meeting. :"*Except for commercial building permits. `. "'°"A "' O "' Department of Community Development lle Planning Division Fencing 22.70.020 (A) General provisions — Fencing No sight - obstructing fence more than 36 inches in height, nor any non -sight obstructing fence (cyclone) more than 48 inches in height may be erected and /or maintained within the required front yard of �M Cif s• �+1�1� �i� �_�T�i i�J i l�l' C ITYHAIU�SPQKA • w' `1f'/. Department of Community Development Spokane �sVal Planning Division Fencing 22°70°020 (A) General provisions — Fencing Any fence or wall, erected or placed behind the minimum required front yard line may be erected or maintained to a maximum height of eight feet above the adjacent grade in- -e- s- ide-n� .1 any zoning district. Lots with double street frontage may have a fence constructed on the property line around the yard not used as the main point of access (the apparent backyard). t- :�c� -�e— i d-��s . �1 `.. `.'r'"A"`°'SPp[A "F`- Department of Commujuilty Development all . _ W M ft Planning Division Clearvi*ew Triangle D In- Cr'HA1A,:1SPCKA1'FV Department of Community Development Planning Division Fencing 22.70.020 (C) General provisions — Fencing a. Uncontrolled Intersection. The right isosceles triangle having sides of 50 feet measure along the curb line of each intersecting local access street (or five feet from edge of pavement for a street with no curbs), A � (see Figure 22.70 -2); or Fencing Table 22.70 -1 -flsdr Two Way stop controlled Intersection Posted Speed (in MPH) Distance (in Feet) 25 - 7 7-0- 110 30 130 35 M 160 CI'rYHAlIru SP VFb . r.. Department of Community Development Spokane ,; o oSValley Planning Divi Fencing 22.70.020 (C) (c) General provisions — Fencing, Two -way Stop Controlled Intersection c. In cases including, but not limited to, arterials with posted speeds in e xcess of 35 miles per hour, one -way stree steep grades and sharp horizontal or vertical curves, the City City's designated traffic engineer will determine the appropriate measurement; or Note: The term "City's designated traffic engineer" replaces the term "City traffic engineer" throughout the section. `�.. carrNtincsroz ipv Department of Comm u��tty Development Planning Division Fencing 22.70.020 (C) General provisions — Fencing Figure 22.70 -4 Yield - Controlled Intersection and Figure 22.70 -5 Noncommercial Driveway are flip- flopped so they match the correct text. Or HAlIrOSPO<AVEV S' pokan'e` Department of Community Development �'walle Planning Division. Fencing 22.70.020 (D) General provisions — Fencing Exemptions. Clearview triangle regulations of this chapter shall not apply to: 1. Public utility poles; 2. Living trees, so long as they are not planted in the form of a hedge and are trimmed to a height of at least seven feet above the street surface; 3. Properties where the natural ground contour penetrates the clearview triangle; and 4. Traffic control devices installed by the City. 5. New retaining walls under thirty (30) inches in height or retaining wails in existence prior to October 10th, 2004. 6. Structures other than fences and signs (as provided in Section 22.110.090 Sign location and front setbacks }. 7. The intersection of two private streets. C:ITIHAlIQ"'JCAW' Department of Community Development w Planning Division Fencing 220700020 (C) General provisions — Fencing E. Barbed, razor -Mre or concertina - r-azoT-wire may be used for security purposes in mixed use, commercial, and industrial zones in the absence of a residential component, or when not adjacent to a residence or residential zoning district. The use of barbed, razor, or concertina wire in these zones is restricted to - en - the upper one - quarter of the fence. -i-n- i-n-d- r,4I-z-9i -n-g- -d-i -s�- c- . Barbed mi -re, razor, or concertina - or- r- aw-,rwire shall not be permitted in any residential zoning district (except for confining animals, see section 22.70.020 (H)) or in any mixed use or commercial zoning district adjacent to any public right -of -way. C;I"HTI Department of Community Development Planning Division 22.70,020 (C) General Fencing provisions — Fencing G. In any residential zoning district, electric and /or barbed wire fences maw used to confine animals, provided however, that: 1. The lot or tract meets the requirements contained in section 19.40.150 Animal raising and keeping, and;_ 2. Electric fences meet the requirements in section 22.70.020 (F). Department of Community Development alle . . Planning Division Questions? CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: February 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: Administrative Report regarding proposed amendments to Title 19 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC): GOVERNING LEGISLATION: SVMC 19.30.040 development regulation text amendments PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: None BACKGROUND: The privately initiated text amendment is proposing to amend Sections 19.70.010 and 19.120 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) to conditionally allow secondhand stores and consignment sales in the Light Industrial (1 -1) zone. Staff consulted with the applicant following the application submittal to clarify a few items with the proposed `conditions' associated with the code amendment. At the Study Session, a Commissioner asked if staff had addressed through the proposed amendment the possibility of multiple tenants allowed in one (1) space. After consultation with the requestor of the proposed amendment, staff added condition number 3 to provide clarification that it is proposed for a single tenant. As modified, the privately initiated text amendment is proposing for "secondhand stores and consignment sales" to be allowed in the light industrial (1 -1) zone with the following conditions; 1. The subject parcel must have frontage on an arterial; and 2. Minimum building size of 15,000 gross square feet (gsf); and 3. Limited to a single tenant. Staff presented the proposed amendment to the Planning Commission at a study session on January 28, 2010. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the amendment on February 11, 2010. Based upon staff's recommendation, the Planning Commission made a motion 5 to 0 to move the proposed amendment on to the City Council for review and a decision. OPTIONS: Proceed as proposed, or as modified; or direct staff further. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Council Consensus to bring this forward for an ordinance first reading at the March 9, 2010 Council meeting. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None. STAFF CONTACT: Karen Kendall —Assistant Planner ATTACHMENTS: (1) Amended Text (2) Planning Commissions Findings and Recommendations (3) Staff report and exhibits to Planning Commission for 2 -11 -10 public hearing Proposed Text Amendment CTA -01 -10 Section 19.70.010.13 9. The followin shall apply to a ll secondhand stores, consignment sales; a The subject parcel must have frontage on an arterial; and b Minimum building size of 15,000 gross square feet (qsf); and c. Limited to a single tenant. Chapter 19.120 PERMITTED AND ACCESSORY USES Sections: 19.120.010 General. P Permitted Use R Regional Siting S Conditions Apply A Accessory Only T Temporary Permit C Conditional Use Permit Revised 2 -2 -10 w oN Q v x u w o7 o >� _ c a> c a�N c N m = a� ;. a) o m c u c m U p m a m O c > o a� r N M IL LL U O K p F? 'C c °' O N U = °' .0 E E E E in ` v Z c c x U >+ O s E E E a� E LW —1 = y C O O L) Q. 2 L- o `_' U Z U O U U O U M IL �— _ N � U LL a a U 4533 Secondhand store, P P P P P P S SVMC consignment sales 19.70.010(B)(9) P Permitted Use R Regional Siting S Conditions Apply A Accessory Only T Temporary Permit C Conditional Use Permit Revised 2 -2 -10 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION February 11, 2010 The following findings have been prepared by Staff for the Planning Commission in the event there is concurrence with the recommended approval. Background: A. The Spokane Valley Municipal Code was adopted in September 2007 and became effective on October 28, 2007. B. Privately initiated request for a text amendment to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). C. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 11, 2010. The Planning Commission approved the following amendments to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code, Title 19; 1. Chapter 19.70.010.13.9 — Add language pertaining to the allowance of secondhand stores and consignment sales in the Light Industrial (1 -1) zone; and 2. Chapter 19.120 — Conditionally allow secondhand stores and consignment sales in the Light Industrial (1 -1) zone to the schedule of permitted uses (appendix 19 -A). Findings: SVMC 17.80.150(F) states that the City may approve amendments to the UDC if it finds that: A. The proposed amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan; and 1. Policy LUP -10.2: Encourages a diverse array of industries to locate in Spokane Valley. 2. Goal LUG -12: Designate and protect a variety of strategically located light industry areas. 3. Goal TG -8: Adapt street and roadway design and facilities to manage traffic demand, address the need for freight movement, resolve traffic conflicts, and compliment land use and urban features. 4. Goal EDG -2: Encourage redevelopment of commercial /industrial properties within the City. B. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment. The proposed amendments to the zone meet the above outlined goals, and are thus consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Conclusions: The proposed amendments meet the applicable provisions of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission Page 1 of 2 Recommendations: The Spokane Valley Planning Commission therefore recommends approval to the City Council of proposed amendments to Title 19 and Appendices A (Definitions) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code. 4h of February, 2010 Carroll, Chairman ATTEST ki Q Dea na Griffith, Adminisobve Assistant Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission Page 2 of 2 me LOT Y 6 a I IS I e_�_ I 4 ;0 0 VAey COMMUNI DEVELOPMEKf cPARTMENT. . PLANNING DIVISION STAFF REPORT AND REOOMMENDATION TO TOE PLANNING COMMISSION' CTA -01 -10 STAFF REPORT DATE February 3, 2010 HEARING DATE AND LOCATION February 11, 2010, beginning at 6:00 p.m., Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers, Valley Redwood Plaza Building, 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 101, Spokane Valley, Washington 99206. PROPOSAL DESCRIPTION A privately initiated text amendment proposing to amend Sections 19.70.010 and 19.120 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) to conditionally allow secondhand stores and consignment sales in the Light Industrial (1 -1) zone. This proposal is considered a non - project action under RCW 43.21 C. PROPOSAL LOCATION The proposal affects the entire City of Spokane Valley, Washington. APPLICANT Dwight J. Hume, 9101 N Mt. View Lane, Spokane, WA 99218 APPROVAL CRITERIA Title 17 (General Provisions) and Title 21 (Environmental Controls) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). SUMMARY OF RE COMMENDATION: The Planning Division recommends that the Planning Commission approve the proposed text amendment to the SVMC. STAFF PLANNER Karen Kendall, Assistant Planner, Community Development Department ATTACHMENTS: January 5, 2010 Exhibit 1: Draft Regulation of Sections 19.70.010.13 and 19.120 Exhibit 2: Application Materials Exhibit 3: SEPA Determination I. 13ACKGROUND INFORMATION A. APPLICATION PROCESSING Chapter 17.80 Permit Processing Procedures in the SVMC. The following summarizes key application procedures for the proposal. Application Submitted: January 5, 2010 Determination of Completeness: January 8, 2010 Issuance of an Optional Determination of Non - Significance (DNS): January 29, 2010 Date of Published Notice of Public Hearing: January 19, 2010 Date of Mailed Notice of Public Hearing: January 19, 2010 i Staff Repot and Recommendation to the Planet y Commission CTA -01 10 II. SUMMARY OF TEXT AMENDMENT A. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO SEPA Findings: Pursuant to Title 21 (Environmental Controls) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC), the lead agency has determined that this proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21 C.030(2)(c). The Planning Division issued a Determination of Non - Significance (DNS) on January 29, 2010 for the proposal. This decision was made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. Conclusion(s): The procedural requirements of the State Environmental Policy Act and Title 21 of the SVMC have been fulfilled by the applicant's submittal of the required SEPA Checklist, and the issuance of the City's threshold determination consisting of a Determination of Non - Significance (DNS). No appeals were received. E. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS SPECIFIC TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS COMPLIANCE WITH TITLE 17 (GENERAL PROVISIONS) OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE Findings: Section 17.80.150(F) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) provides approval criteria that must be considered when the City amends the SVMC. The criteria are listed below along with staff comments. 1. The proposed privately initiated text amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan; Staff Response The City of Spokane Valley has adopted goals and policies consistent with the GMA and adopted CWPP. The proposed text amendment is consistent with the GMA, CWPPs, and the City of Spokane Valley's Comprehensive Plan. The proposed text amendment is consistent with the City's adopted Comprehensive Plan. a. Policy LUP -10.2: Encourages a diverse array of industries to locate in Spokane Valley. b. Goal LUG -12: Designate and protect a variety of strategically located light industry areas. c. Goal TG -8: Adapt street and roadway design and facilities to manage traffic demand, address the need for freight movement, resolve traffic conflicts, and compliment land use and urban features. d. Goal EDG -2: Encourage redevelopment of commercial /industrial properties within the City. Page 2 of 4 Staff Report and Recommendation to the rldlil III IS Commission CTA -01 -10 2. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment; Staff Response The amendment bears substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare and protection of the environment. The proposed amendment will expand the uses within the Light Industrial (1 -1) zone and provide for adaptive reuse of existing structures. The public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment are furthered by ensuring the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) implements local and regional policy. Conclusion(s): The proposed privately initiated text amendment to the SVMC is consistent with the approval criteria contained in the SVMC. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Division after review and consideration of the proposed privately initiated text amendment and applicable approval criteria recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of CTA -01 -10 IV. PLANNING COMMISSION FINDINGS: The Planning Commission is required to adopt findings of fact (Sections 17.80.140 & 17.80.150) when recommending changes to the SVMC. At the conclusion of the hearing for the text amendment to the SVMC, the Planning Commission, by separate motion, should adopt findings of fact. Section 17.80.150(F) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) provides approval criteria that must be considered when the City amends the SVMC. Staff has prepared the following findings for the Planning Commission in the event there is concurrence with the recommended approval. B. The Planning Commission finds the proposed privately initiated text amendment to be consistent with the applicable provisions of the Growth Management Act, Countywide Planning Policies (CWPP) and the City's Comprehensive Plan; GMA Policies 1. The Washington State Growth Management Act (GMA) provides that each city shall adopt a comprehensive land use plan and development regulations that are consistent with and implement the comprehensive plan. Countywide Planning Policies 2. The Countywide Planning Policies (CWPP) are based on principles developed through an intense and lengthy citizen participation process. One of the guiding principles coming out of that process was the importance of protecting neighborhood character. For most citizens, neighborhood character is one of the primary ingredients in their perceived quality of life. It is the intent of the countywide planning policies to maintain neighborhood character and prevent neighborhoods from suffering the negative effects of growth. Page 3 of 4 i Staff Report and Recommendation to the Plan y Commission CTA -01 -10 City of Spokane Valley Goals and Policies 3. The City of Spokane Valley has adopted goals and policies consistent with the GMA and adopted CWPP. a. LUP -10.2 Encourages a diverse array of industries to locate in Spokane Valley. b. LUG -12 Designate and protect a variety of strategically located light industry areas. c. TG -8 adapt street and roadway design and facilities to manage traffic demand, address the need for freight movement, resolve traffic conflicts, and compliment land use and urban features. d. EDG -2 Encourage redevelopment of commercial /industrial properties within the City. C. The Planning Commission finds the proposed privately initiated text amendment to bear a substantial relation to public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment; 1. The proposed amendment will expand the uses within the Light Industrial (1 -1) zone and provide for adaptive reuse of existing structures. 2. The public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment is furthered by ensuring the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) is reflective of regional policy and implements internal plans. V. RECOMMENDED MOTION: The Planning Commission adopts the findings in the staff report and recommends approval of CTA- 01 -10, a text amendment to Sections 19.70.010.13 and 19.120 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC), to conditionally allow secondhand stores and consignment sales in the Light Industrial (1 -1) zone. Page 4 of 4 progosed Text Amendment CTA -01 -10 Section 19.70.010.8 9 The following shall apply to all . econdhand stores, consi gnment sa les; a The subject parcel must have frontage on an arteria and b Minimum building size of 15 gross square feet (gsf); and c. Limited to a single tenant Chapter 19.120 PERMITTED AND ACCESSORY USES Sections: 19.120.010 General. P Permitted Use R Regional Siting S Conditions Apply A ccessory y T Temporary Permit C Conditional Use Permit Revised 2 -2 -10 O N N K N o• ' _ T7 CAD �t r i� O °73 =& + 'a i N O C9 O O O d E O tU '� E Q r i LL Le.. O O U = .`E m E E N Q. m 2 z U E O �U 'L a .9 o 0 o W o i Cu N N OGU O N � d O U U U U C = 4533 Secondhand store, P P P P P P S SVMC 19.70.010(B)(9) consignment sales A Onl P Permitted Use R Regional Siting S Conditions Apply A ccessory y T Temporary Permit C Conditional Use Permit Revised 2 -2 -10 306j n ne Valley CITY OF SPOKAN , 'ALLEY Community Deve►ol! .nt Department Current Planning Division 11707 East Sprague Avenue, Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Tel: (509) 921 -1000 Fax: (509) 921 -1008 planning spokanevalley.or4 ci N (� ' , )r Staff Use Only) DATE SUBMITTED: ! RECEIVED BY: IS FILE No. /NAME: CIA ^ 0 I ° ID A000 0 O, 91 C CURRENT PLANNING FEE: SvD r ✓� 5Ef A ENGINEERING FEE: CODE AMENDMENT APPLICATION T1 X PART I — APPLICATION TYPE (Check One) Zoning Cade Amendment ® Other (List Code): PART II — APPLICA T ION INFORMATION APPLICANT: DWIGHT J HUME MAILING ADDRESS: 9101 N MT. VIEW LANE CITY: Spokane STATE WA ZIP: 99218 PH ONE: (FlOME) (LIVORK) (CELL) 4 35 -31 08 SECTION (S) OF CODE TO BE AMENDED (G IVE CODE CITATIONS) SVMC 19.120.010 4533 SECONDHAND STORES CONSIGNMENT STORES SLIM IARY OF REQUESTED CODE ANIENDMIENT (S): See Attached REASON (S) FOR REQUESTED CODE A MENDMENTS: SEE ATTACHED ® Subdivision Code Amendment Rev 04/08 PA,, i II — CODE AMENDMENT REQUE., f Please either type or write the requested code amendment (s) below. For all code amendment proposals please underline proposed new language and strike, GU proposed revisions or deletions. Please use additional sheets of paper if necessary.) Amended language in bold. SVMC 19.120.010 Appendix LI 4533 Secondhand Store Consignment Store LG�99 No consignment stores permitted • Store must have frontage on and visibility from an arterial • Minimum gross square footage is 15000 gsf. Rev 04108 Text Amendment Request Supplement Summaa of Requested Code Amendment This request would allow larger secondhand stores to be located within the Light Industrial zone whereas they are not currently permitted. The use would have an "S" and the conditions would limit the possible location, size and type of secondhand store to ones that front along arterials; have a minimum of 15,000 gsf and does not allow "consignment" stores. Reasons for Requested Code Amendment: 1) Larger secondhand stores process larger volumes of merchandise and typically export unusable inventory to other recycler's whereas, smaller stores discard unusable merchandise and donations without exporting to a recycler. 2) These larger volumes require both larger warehouse space for processing, more loading docks for shipping and receiving and more floor space for retail sales. 3) The cost of real estate in commercial zoned property is often 4 or 5 times more expensive and the retail price of goods must remain competitive with the smaller thrift store operators who do not need to lease or buy such large facility's. The exclusion of consignment stores is intended since such stores do not need the shipping and handling areas of a thrift store and can compete competitively from a commercial location. j2a,,cj ff emnll � 0 -� A PART III APPLICANT SIGNATURE � APF—MADE (print name) SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE ABOVE RESPONS S TRUTHFULLY AND TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. l.� (Sign re) (Date) NOTARY (For Part 1111 above) STATE OF WASHINGTON COUNTY OF SPOKANE ) SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 7 _ day of c ' ( 20M J NOTARY SEAL O` SIGNATURE Notary P and fo the State of Washington � q�4 .� "shy cl � y o_ 0 SV Residing at: My appointment expires: \� 1 Rev 04108 D j HUME Land Use Planning Services 9101 N. MT. VIEW LANE Spokane, WA 99218 509 - 435 -3108 (V) 509 - 467 -0229 (r) 12 -31 -09 Greg McCormick, Planning Manager Community Development Department E. 11707 Sprague Avenue Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Ref: Text Amendment Request SVMC Chapter 19.120.010 Secondhand Stores Dear Greg: am hereby submitting a requested amendment to the Zone Code to allow some secondhand stores within the Light Industrial zone. I choose the word "some" purposely, because I believe that there is a difference between secondhand stores and certainly between secondhand stores and consignment stores. Accordingly, I offer this amendment as one in which conditions apply to only allow those secondhand stores that are, by their nature of particular size and function to have many characteristics and needs of other light industrial uses. And it is because of this need for more space and more loading dock capabilities for shipping and handling, that the cost of commercial space renders this scale of operation non - competitive with its smaller counterparts in the market place. Will this amendment increase the availability of commercial retail space within the city? The simple and quick answer is no for the following reasons: a) It is a limited use of secondhand stores and above 15000 gsf; b) The use must be on and exposed to an arterial c) No other derivatives of this use classification are allowed Will this amendment set a precedent for other future retail amendments in this zone? The simple and quick answer to this is no because the proposed amendment attends to an intensity of use that truly has more characteristics and needs of other light industrial use in terms of size and shipping and receiving and processing requirements. That cannot be said of other retail commercial uses and should they exist, they must be amended and approved on their own merits and public scrutiny and if they too have merit, what difference does this make? am available for any questions of staff as this is being considered for adoption. As you know, my client can meet these requirements and restrictions and has an urgent need to "set up shop" as soon as possible since the tenant's profits benefit so many other organizations and a facility such as this can improve their production levels for that purpose. Thank you for your assistance and coordination of this request. V ully subm' ed, 4Hu Land Use Planning Services Enclosure: Amendment Application, SEPA Checklist Application Fee 1 Karen Kendall From: Dwight Hume [dhume @spokane- landuse.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 8:12 AM To: Karen Kendall Subject: RE: CTA -01 -10 (Text Amendment to Section 19.120 of SVMC) Yes Dwight J Hume Land Use Planning Services 9101 N. Mt. View Lane Spokane, WA 99218 -2140 509- 435 -3108 (V) From: Karen Kendall [ mailto , ,kkendall @spokanevalley.org] Sent: Tuesday, January 12, 2010 7:23 AM To: Dwight Hume Subject: RE: CTA -01 -10 (Text Amendment to Section 19.120 of SVMC) Dwigkt, Thank you foryourresponse. o clarify Item 1 in my email below; y ou are A removing t criteria stating "No consignment stores permitEc f fC>✓NDALL fitssistawt PLav v�r, CowivuuwLtt� Develtnw�e��t Depatvwewt Cite O f spolaavtie vaUeu 11707 eost Sprague Avevl ue, suLte 106 spo126iv,e VOUeU, w4 992�� so9.T2o.so2� direct 608921.1002 fax wv✓w.sAOl2a weva Lieu .ora Cov,tewts of this lv Lga L awd awL repLu arc &Rijtot to pk' U'o d scLosure. From: Dwight Hume [mailto :dhume @spokane landuse.com] Sent: Monday, January 11, 2010 12:02 PM To: Karen Kendall Subject: RE: CTA -01 -10 (Text Amendment to Section 19.120 of SVMC) Thank you Karen, I'm in agreement with the comments stated below. It is OK to use the full label of Secondhand stores and consignment sales and delete the phrase "visibility to and from an arterial ". Dwight J Hume Land Use Planning Services 9101 N. Mt. View Lane Spokane, WA 99218 -2140 509 - 435 -3108 (V) From: Karen Kendall [ mailto :kkendall @spokanevalley.org] Sent: Friday, January 08, 2010 11:21 AM To: Dwight Hume Subject: CTA -01 -10 (Text Amendment to Section 19.120 of SVMC) Dwight, Thankyou for a little more than the 5 minutes you had to spare to speakwith me today. I am following up with our discussion. ror clarification purposes, please send me confirmation of your acknowledgement and /or agreement to the following. 1 . We discussed the possibility of removing one proposed criteria from the text amendment, which is; "No coneignment5tore5ermitted" As we talked, keeping this criteria would require additional changes to the Municipal Code not proposed in your text amendment. Staff feels the two remaining criteria would limit the number of secondhand and consignment stores and would not potentially open the doors for increased retail type uses. 2. We also discussed the second criteria 1 �5tore mu5tkave fronta on and vi5iDi/it5 from an arterial" We discussed the possibility of removing "...and visibility from..." for the reason ] mentioned of being too subject to clearly administer. I looked in the City's definitions and found keeping the proposed criteria, minus what's mentioned above, that "frontage" is defined clearly to meet the intent. 3• Lastly, I forgot to mention on the phone, but just wanted clarification. The Schedule of Permitted Uses (19.120) states; "Secondhand store, consignment sales." i just avant to make sure the title of the use is not being changed. I'll Iook forward to yourdiscussion and responses to the above items. Lastly, I've listed below all the planning Commission and City Council dates for the proposed amendment. 1. planning Commission (PC) Stud 5e5sion = January 28, 2010 2. PC public Hearing - ) 1 1, 201 O 3. Administrative Report to City Council (CC) = rc6ruary 23, 2010 4. 15t Reading of Ordinance with CC = March 9, 2010 2 " Reading of Ord inance with CC = March 23, 2010 KAR -'t5N KENT FALL AssLstawtPLnv�.wer, CcmmvvatU DeveLopv ev�tDepprtw4.ewt cLtuu of spdea v e vaLLeU 11 East Sprague Avevaue, suite 106 spolenm vaLL8U, wA992or 509.720.502CI direct 509921.1008 faX vAAw.suol2nv�eynU14 ora aowtewts of tv, s evs.aiL awd a s wl repLt are ubject to PVWc, dtsclosvre. ( (/ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT °bane PLANNING DIVISION 4 ;0ouney . 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.720.5310 Fax: 509.921.1008 planning @spokanevalley.org DE'TERMINATION OF NONSIGI0IIFICANCE File Number: CTA -01 -10 Description of proposal: A privately initiated text amendment proposing to amend Sections 19.70.010 and 19.120 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) to conditionally allow secondhand stores and consignment sales in the Light Industrial (L -1) zone. Proponent: Dwight J. Hume, 9101 N. Mt. View Lane, Spokane, WA 99218 Location of proposal: N/A Lead Agency: City of Spokane Valley Community Development Department, Planning Division Determination: Pursuant to Title 21 (Environmental Controls) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code, the lead agency has determined that this proposal does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the environment. An Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required under RCW 43.21C.030(2)(c). The threshold determination is available to the public upon request. DNS issued under WAC 197 -11- 340(2) Responsible Official: Kathy McClung, Community Development Director City of Spokane Valley Community Development Department Valley Redwood Plaza, 11707 E. Sprague Avenue, Suite 106, Spokane Valley, WA 99206 PH: (509) 720 -5300 / FX: (509) 921 -1008 kmcclung@,spokanevalley.org Staff Contact: Karen Kendall, Assistant Planner City of Spokane Valley Community Development Department Valley Redwood Plaza, 11707 E. Sprague Avenue, Suite 106, Spokane Valley, WA 99206 PH: (509) 720 -5026 / FX: (509) 921 -1008 kkendall @spokanevalley.org Date issued: January 29 2010 Signature: MA('l't' U APPEAL: An appeal of this determination must be submitted to the Community Development Department within fourteen (14) calendar days after the date issued. The appeal must be written and make specific factual objections to the City's threshold determination. Appeals shall be in conformance with Section 17.90 (Appeals) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code. At the time of appeal submittal, required fees are due pursuant to the City's adopted Fee Schedule. Pursuant to WAC 197 -11 -680, appeals shall be limited to a review of a final threshold determination. AGENCY RoUMG of CTA -01 -10 DNS: 1. City of Liberty Lake, Community Development 2. City of Spokane, Planning Services 3. Spokane County, Boundary Review Board 4. Spokane County, Building and Planning 5. Spokane County, Division of Utilities - information Services 6. Spokane County, Clean Air Agency 7. Spokane County, Fire District No. 1 8. Spokane County, Fire District No. 8 9. Spokane County, Regional Health District 10. Spokane Transit Authority (STA) 11. Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC) 12. Washington State Department of Ecology (Olympia) 13. Washington State Department of Ecology (Spokane) January 29, 2010 Determination of Non - Significance (DNS) page 2 of 2 CTA 01 -10 colaff ;0 0 % 11 ey COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT PLANNING DIVISION 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106; Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.720.5310 0 Fax: 509.921.1008 ♦ planninena snokanevallev.ore LEAD AGENCY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST REVIEW I DATE: January 29, 2010 A. BACKGROUND 1. PROJECT NnmER: CTA -01 -10 2. DESCRIPTION: A privately initiated text amendment proposing to amend Sections 19.70.010 and 19.120 of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) to conditionally allow secondhand stores and consignment sales in the Light Industrial (L -1) zone. 3. PROPERTY Dwight J. Hume, 9101 N. Mt. View Lane, Spokane, WA 99218 OwNER/APPLICANT: 4. LOCATION: Not applicable, this is a non - project action City of Spokane Valley Determination of Non - Significance (DNS) File No. CTA -01 -10 Page 1 of 3 �r REVIEW OF SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONS OF SECTION 14 OF PART A (BACKGROUND) FOR CRITICAL AQUIFER RECHARGE AREA (CARA) / AQUIFER SENSITIVE AREA (ASA) The entire corporate limits lie within the Aquifer Sensitive Area (ASA). This is a non project proposal and will have no impact on the ASA. Staff notes stormwater issues are reviewed and addressed through the City's adopted 2007 Stormwater Manual. No concerns noted. B. ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS Italics indicate potential mitigation measures, if any. Bold indicates unresolved issues or additional information that must be addressed by the applicant prior to final approval, as indicated. 1. EARTH N /A —No concerns noted. 2. AIR N/A - No concerns noted. 3. WATER N/A - No concerns noted. 4. PLANTS N/A - No concerns noted. 5. ANIMALS N/A - No concerns noted. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES N/A - No concerns noted. 7A. ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HAZARDS N/A - No concerns noted. 7B. NOISE N/A - No concerns noted. 8. SHORELINE AND LAND USE, N /A No concerns noted. 9. HOUSING N/A - No concerns noted. 10. AESTHETICS N/A - No concerns noted. 11. LIGHT AND GLARE N/A - No concerns noted. 12. RECREATION N/A - No concerns noted. 13. CULTURAL AND HISTORIC l City of Spokane Valley Determination of Non - Significance (DNS) File No. CTA -01 -10 . NIA - No concerns noted. 14 . TRANSPORTATION N/A - No concerns noted. 15. PUBLIC SERVICES N/A - No concerns noted. 16. UTILITIES N/A - No concems noted. REVIEW OF SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NON - PROJECT ACTIONS �•r 1. AIR The SEPA Checklist states that there will be no emissions into the air. No concerns noted. 2. Noise The SEPA Checklist states that the proposal would not result in more noise on site from lifestyle activities and traffic. No concerns noted. 3. WATER The SEPA Checklist does not comment on increased discharge to water. No concerns noted. 4. PLANTS & ANmALS The SEPA Checklist states that the effects on plants and animals in unknown. No concerns noted. 5. ENERGY AND NATURAL RESOURCES The SEPA Checklist states that the proposal when implemented would be subject to concurrency and critical area requirements for development and services. No concerns noted. 6. ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVE AREAS The SEPA Checklist states that if these elements were on a developable site, then development would• adhere to applicable standards protecting critical areas. No concerns noted. 7. SHORELINE AND LAND USES Development within shoreline areas would require conformance with existing shoreline regulations. No concerns noted. 8. TRANSPORTATION & PUBLIC SERVICES The SEPA checklist states that transportation impacts on a developable site would be reviewed at a project specific SEPA review. No concerns noted. 9. Does the proposal conflict with local, state, or federal laws requirements for protection of the environment? The SEPA checklist states that there are no known conflicts. No concerns noted. City of Spokane Valley Determination of Non - Significance (DNS) File No. CTA -01 -10 Page 3 of 3 l City of Spokane Valley SEPA Checklist TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT City of Spokane Valley SEPA Checklist WAC 197 -11 -960 Environmental checklist. ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Purpose of checklist. JA 2010 SPOKANE VALL EY COMMUNITY DEVELOPpASNT The State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA), chapter 43.21C RCW, requires all governmental agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposal before making decisions. An environmental impact statement (EIS) must be prepared for all proposals with probable significant adverse impacts on the quality of the environment. The purpose of this checklist is to provide information to help you and the agency identify impacts from your proposal (and to reduce or avoid impacts from the proposal, if it can be done) and to help the agency decide whether an EIS is required. Instructions for applicants: This environmental checklist asks you to describe some basic information about your proposal. Governmental agencies use this checklist to determine whether the environmental impacts of your proposal are significant, requiring preparation of an EIS. Answer the questions briefly, with the most precise information known, or give the best description you can. You must answer each question accurately and carefully, to the best of your knowledge. In most cases, you should be able to answer the questions from your own observations or project plans without the need to hire experts. If you really do not know the answer, or if a question does not apply to your proposal, write "do not know" or "does not apply." Complete answers to the questions now may avoid unnecessary delays later. Some questions ask about governmental regulations, such as zoning, shoreline, and landmark designations. Answer these questions if you can. If you have problems, the governmental agencies can assist you. The checklist questions apply to all parts of your proposal, even if you plan to do them over a period of time or on different parcels of land. Attach any additional information that will help describe your proposal or its environmental effects. The agency to which you submit this checklist may ask you to explain your answers or provide additional information reasonably related to determining if there may be significant adverse impact. Use of checklist for non project proposals: Complete this checklist for non - project proposals, even though questions may be answered "does not apply." IN ADDITION, complete the SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NON- PROJECT ACTIONS (pant D). For non - project actions, the references in the checklist to the words "project," "applicant," and "property or site" should be read as "proposal," "proposer," and "affected geographic area," respectively. Note to user this is an electronic form and each gray box can be filled out on yo computer. A. BACKGROUND 1. Name of proposed project, if applicable Text amendment to SMC Chapter 19 2. Name of applicant: Dwight J Hume 3. Address and phone number of applicant and contact person: 9101 N. Mt. View Lane Spokane WA 99218 435 -3108 4. Date checklist prepared: December 30, 2009 Effective October 28, 2007 Page 1 of 15 http: / /www.spokanevalley.org/ uploads / Community_ De velopmenUDocuments /FormsICurrent_Planning /Appendix 21 -A SEPA Environmental Checklist eff 10- 28- 07.doc u.Ly of Spokane Valley SEPA Checklist TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT 5. Agency requesting checklist: Community Development Department— Current Planning 6. Proposed timing or schedule (including phasing, if applicable): Immediate upon approval by Council 7. Do you have any plans for future additions, expansion, or further activity related to or connected with this proposal? NA If yes, explain. 8. List any environmental information you know about that has been prepared, or will be prepared, directly related to this proposal. NA non project text amendment 9. Do you know whether applications are pending for governmental approvals of other proposals directly affecting the property covered by your proposal? Yes If yes, explain. Major secondhand store seeks location in LI zone 10. List any government approvals or permits that will be needed for your proposal, if known. NA 11. Give brief, complete description of your proposal, including the proposed uses and the size of the project and site. There are several questions later in this checklist that ask you to describe certain aspects of your proposal. You do not need to repeat those answers on this page. (Lead agencies may modify this form to include additional specific information on project description.)Non project text amendment to allow secondhand stores of 15000 cdsf or larger in LI zone. 12. Location of the proposal. Give sufficient information for a person to understand the precise location of your proposed project, including a street address, if any, and section, township, and range, if known. If a proposal would occur over a range of area, provide the range or boundaries of the site(s). Provide a legal description, site plan, vicinity map, and topographic map, if reasonably available. While you should submit any plans required by the agency, you are not required to duplicate maps or detailed plans submitted with any permit applications related to this checklist. NA 13. Does the proposed action lie within the Aquifer Sensitive Area (ASA)? The General Sewer Service Area? The Priority Sewer Service Area? (See: Spokane County's ASA Overlay zone Atlas for boundaries). NA non - project amendment Effective October 28, 2007 Page 2 of 15 http: / /www.spokanevalley.org /uploads/ Community _Development /Documents/ Forms /Current_Planning /Appendix 21 -A SEPA Environmental Checklist eff 10- 28- 07.doc i Lay of Spokane Valley SEPA Checklil _ TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT 14. The following questions supplement Part A. a. Critical Aquifer Recharge Area (CARA) / Aquifer Sensitive Area (ASA). Describe any systems, other than those designed for the disposal of sanitary waste, installed for the purpose of discharging fluids below the ground surface (includes systems such as those for the disposal of Stormwater or drainage from floor drains). Describe the type of system, the amount of material to be disposed of through the system and the types of material likely to be disposed of (including materials which may enter the system inadvertently through spills or as a result of firefighting activities). NA Will any chemicals (especially organic solvents or petroleum fuels) be stored in aboveground or underground storage tanks? If so, what types and quantities of material will be stored? NA 3. What protective measures will be taken to insure that leaks or spills of any chemicals stored or used on site will not be allowed to percolate to groundwater? This includes measures to keep chemicals out of disposal systems. NA 4. Will any chemicals be stored, handled or used on the site in a location where a spill or leak will drain to surface or groundwater or to a Stormwater disposal system discharging to surface or groundwater? NA b. Stormwater 1. What are the depths on the site to groundwater and to bedrock (if known)? NA Will stormwater be discharged into the ground? If so, describe any potential impacts. NA Effective October 28, 2007 Page 3 of 15 http: / /www.spokanevalley.org /uploads /Community_oeve]opment/ Documents / Forms /Current_Planning /Appendix 21 -A SEPA Environmental Checklist eff 10- 28- 07.doc II l U„Cy of Spokane Valley SEPA Checklist TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT - Evaluation for Agency Use Only TAL ELEMENTS B. ENVIRONMEN 1) Earth (NA non - project text amendment) a. General description of the site (check one): ❑ flat, ❑ rolling, ❑ hilly, 5 ❑ steep slopes, ❑ mountainous, other ' b. What is the steepest slope on the site (approximate percent slope)? V-QA �' 6A 6t c. What general types of soils are found on the site (for example, clay, sand, gravel, peat, muck)? If you know the classification of agricultural soils, Ysy specify them and note any prime farmland. r,/ ZI��� d. Are there surface indications or history of unstable soils in the immediate vicinity? If so, describe. e. Describe the purpose, type, and approximate quantities of any filling or grading proposed. Also indicate source of fill. f. Could erosion occur as a result of clearing, construction, or use? If so, generally describe. g. About what percent of the site will be covered with impervious surfaces after project construction (for example, asphalt or buildings)? h. Proposed measures to reduce or control erosion, or other impacts to the earth, if any: 2) Air Effective October 28, 2007 Page 4 of 15 http. / /www.spokanevalley,org /uploads/ Community_ Development / Documents /Forms /Current_Planning /Appendix 21 -A SEPA Environmental Checklist eff 10- 28- 07.doc �_.y of Spokane Valley SEPA CheckliL... TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT a. What types of emissions to the air would result from the proposal (i.e., dust, automobile, odors, industrial wood smoke) during construction and when the project is completed? If any, generally describe and give approximate quantities if known. b. Are there any off -site sources of emissions or odor that may affect your proposal? If so, generally describe. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control emissions or other impacts to air, if any: 3) Water NA n®n- pro�ee 't'� text amendment a. Surface: -�( K 1) Is there any surface water body on or in the immediate vicinity of the site (including year -round and seasonal streams, saltwater, lakes, ponds, ` wetlands)? If yes, describe type and provide names. If appropriate, state what stream or river it flows into. 2) Will the project require any work over, in, or adjacent to (within 200 feet) the described waters? If yes, please describe and attach available plans. 3) Estimate the amount of ill and dredge material that would be placed in or removed from surface wafter or wetlands and indicate the area of the site that would be affected. Indicate the source of fill material. 4) Will the proposal require surface water withdrawals or diversions? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. 5) Does the proposal lie within a 100 -year floodplain? If so, note location on the site plan. 6) Does the proposal involve any discharges of waste materials to surface waters? If so, describe the type of waste and anticipated volume Effective October 28, 2007 Page 5 of 15 http: / /www.spokanevalley.org /uploads /Community_DevelopmenU Documents /Forms /Current_Planning /Appendix 21 -A SEPA Environmental Checklist eff 10- 28- 07.doc I I u'Ly of Spokane Valley SEPA Checklist TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT of discharge. b. Ground: 1) Will ground water be withdrawn, or will water be discharged to ground water? Give general description, purpose, and approximate quantities if known. 2) Describe waste material that will be discharged into the ground from septic tanks or other sources, if any (for example: Domestic sewage; industrial, containing the following chemicals; agricultural; etc.). Describe the general size of the systern, the number of such systems, the number of houses to be served (if applicable), or the number of animals or humans the system(s) are expected to serve. c. Water runoff (including stormwater): 1) Describe the source of runoff (including storm water) and method of collection and disposal, if any (include quantities, if known). Where will this water flow? Will this water flow into other waters? If so, describe. 2) Could waste materials enter ground or surface waters? If so, generally describe. d. Proposed measures to reduce or control surface, ground, and runoff water impacts, if any: 4 Plants NA non - project text amendment P1 PIZ: 'v 1 2b A 1:�% a. Check or circle types of vegetation found on the site: FI deciduous tree: alder, maple, aspen, other Effective October 28, 2007 Page 6 of 15 w http: / / ww.spokanevalley.org /uploads /Community_Developme ument /Form /Current_Planning /Appendix 21 -A SEPA Environmental Check list Glty of Spokane Valley SEPA Checklis, TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT ❑ evergreen tree: fir, cedar, pine, other ❑ shrubs ❑ grass pasture El crop or grain El wet soil plants: cattail, buttercup, bullrush, skunk cabbage, other El water plants: water lily, eelgrass, milfoil, other El other types of vegetation b. What kind and amount of vegetation will be removed or altered? c. List threatened or endangered species known to be on or near the site. d. Proposed landscaping, use of native plants, or other measures to preserve or enhance vegetation on the site, if any: 5) Animals NA non - project text amendment a. Circle any birds and animals which have been observed on or near the site or are known to be on or near the site: ❑ birds: hawk, heron, eagle, songbirds, other: ❑ mammals: deer, bear, elk, beaver, other: ❑ fish: bass, salmon, trout, herring, shellfish, other: b. List any threatened or endangered species knovJn to be on or near the site. c. Is the site part of a migration route? if so, explain. d. Proposed measures to preserve or enhance wildlife, if any: 6). Energy and natural resources NA non - project text amendment a. What kinds of energy (electric, natural gas, oil, wood stove, solar) will be Effective October 28, 2007 Page 7 of n http: /fwww.spokanLvalley.org /uploads /Community_DevelopmenU Documents / Forms /Current_Planning /Appendix 21 -A SEPA Environment al t Checklist eff 10- 28- 07.doc U. y of Spokane Valley SEPA Checklist TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT used to meet the completed project's energy needs? Describe whether it will be used for heating, manufacturing, etc. b. Would your project affect the potential use of solar energy by adjacent properties? If so, generally describe. c. What kinds of energy conservation features are included in the plans of this proposal? List other proposed measures to reduce or control energy impacts, if any: 7) Environmental health NA non - project text amendment a. Are there any environmental health hazards, including exposure to toxic chemicals, risk of ire and explosion, spill, or hazardous waste, that could occur as a result of this proposal? If so, describe 1) Describe special emergency services that might be required. 2) Proposed measures to reduce or control environmental health hazards, if any: b. Noise 1) What types of noise exist in the area which may affect your project (for example: traffic, equipment, operation, other)? 2) What types and levels of noise would be created by or associated with the project on a short -term or a long -term basis (for example: traffic, construction, operation, other)? Indicate what hours noise would come from the site. 3) Proposed measures to reduce or control noise impacts, if any: Ipto/lo S). Land and shoreline use NA � l a. What is the current use of the site and adjacent properties ? I b. Has the site been used for agriculture? If so, describe. Effective October 28, 2007 Page 8 of 15 http: //w w✓.spokanevalley.org /uploads /Community _Development/ Documents /Forms /Current_Planning /Appendix 21 -A SEPA Environmental Checklist eff 10- 28- 07.doc L,, of Spokane Valley SEPA CheckliL_ TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT c. Describe any structures on the site. d. Will any structures be demolished? If so, what? e. What is the current zoning classification of the site? f. What is the current comprehensive plan designation of the site? g. If applicable, what is the current shoreline master program designation of the site? h. Has any part of the site been classified as an "environmentally sensitive" area? If so, specify. i. Approximately how many people would reside or work in the completed project? j. Approximately how many people would the completed project displace? k. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce displacement impacts, if any: I. Proposed measures to ensure the proposal is compatible with existing and projected land uses and plans, if any: 9) Housing NA non - project text amendment a. Approximately how many units would be provided, if any? Indicate whether high, middle, or low- income housing. , I Ptp/ P b. Approximately how many units, if any, would be eliminated? Indicate Page 9 of 15 Effective October 28, 2007 lopment /Documents! Forms /current_PlanninglAppendix 21 -A SEPA Environmental http: l /www.spokanevalley.orgluploads/ Community _De Checklist eff 10- 28- 07.doc (,'y of Spokane Valley SEPA Checklist TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT whether high, middle, or low- income housing. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control housing impacts, if any: 10). Aesthetics NA non - project text amendment a. What is the tallest height of any proposed structure(s), not including antennas; what is the principal exterior building material(s) proposed? b. What views in the immediate vicinity would be altered or obstructed? c. Proposed measures to reduce or control aesthetic impacts, if any: 11). light and glare NA non - project text amendment a. What type of light or glare will the proposal produce? What time of day would it mainly occur ? tl2��iD b. Could light or glare from the finished project be a safety hazard or interfere with views? c. What existing off -site sources of light or glare may affect your proposal? d. Proposed measures to reduce or control light and glare impacts, if any: 12) Recreation NA non - project text amendment a. What designated and informal recreational opportunities are in the immediate vicinity? b. Would the proposed project displace any existing recreational uses? If so, describe. Effective October 28, 2007 http: / /www. spokanevalley.org /uploads /Community_ Development / Documents /Forms /C u rrent_Plan n i ng /Append i; Checklist eff 10- 28- 07.doc Guy of Spokane Valley SEPA Checklit, TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts on recreation, including recreation opportunities to be provided by the project or applicant, if any: 13). Historic and cultural preservation NA q k a. Are there any places or objects listed on, or proposed for, national, state, or �Z local preservation registers known to be on or next to the site? If so, generally describe. b. Generally describe any landmarks or evidence of historic, archaeological, scientific, or cultural importance known to be on or next to the site. c. Proposed measures to reduce or control impacts, if any: 14). Transportation NA a. Identify public streets and highways serving the site, and describe proposed��`� access to the existing street system. Show on site plans, if any. ��'�� ��0 - t' b. Is site currently served by public transit? If not, what is the approximate distance to the nearest transit stop? c. How many parking spaces would the completed project have? How many would the project eliminate? d. Will the proposal require any new roads or streets, or improvements to existing roads or streets, not including driveways? If so, generally describe (indicate whether public or private). e. Will the project use (or occur in the immediate vicinity of) water, rail, or air transportation? If so, generally describe. How many vehicular trips per day would be generated by the completed project? If known, indicate when peak volumes would occur. Effective October 28, 2007 Page 11 of 15 http: / /www.spokanevalley.org /uploads /Community_Developmenti Documents /Fours /Current_PIanning /Appendix 21 -A SEPA Environmental Checklist eff 10- 28- 07.doc '�,,Ly of Spokane Valley SEPA Checklist: TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT g. Proposed measures to reduce or control transportation impacts, if any: 15) Public services NA a. Would the project result in an increased need for public services (for example: Tire protection, police protection, health care, schools, other)? If so, generally describe. b, Proposed measures to reduce or control direct impacts on public services, if any. 16) Utilities NA a. Check utilities currently available at the site: ❑ electricity, ❑ natural gas, ❑water, ❑ refuse service, ❑ telephone, ❑ sanitary sewer, ❑ septic system, ❑ other - describe b. Describe the utilities that are proposed for the project, the utility providing the service, and the general construction activities on the site or in the immediate vicinity which might be needed. C. SIGNA T URE qrN, 0_ l/'z_0/rcJ The above answers are true and complete to the best of my knowledge. I understand that the lead agency is relying on them to make its decision. Signature; Date Submitted: � ` .5 - `. D. SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET FOR NON - PROJECT ACTIONS (do not use this sheet for proiect actions) Because these questions are very general, it may be helpful to read them in conjunction with the list of the elements of the environment. When answering these questions, be aware of the extent the proposal, or the types of activities likely to result from the proposal, would affect the item at a greater intensity or at a faster rate than if the proposal were not implemented. Respond briefly and in general terms. Effective October 28, 2007 Page 12 of 15 http: / /www.spok2nevalley.org /uploads /Community_Development/ Documents / Forms /Current_Planning /Appendix 21 -A SEPA Environmental Checklist eff 10- 28 -07.doc I ' / l uny of Spokane Valley SEPA CheckIL- TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT 1. How would the proposal be likely to increase discharge to water; emissions to air; production, storage, or release of toxic or hazardous substances; or production of noise? This use would not involve manufatoring or assembly typical too the other allowed uses of the LI zone. a. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce such increases are: None 2. How would the proposal be likely to of Fect plants, animals, fish, or marine life? No a. Proposed measures to protect or conserve plants, animals, fish, or marine life are: None 3. How would the proposal be likely to deplete energy or natural resources? The use is less intense or demanding of resources than other allowed uses and activities of the LI zone. a. Proposed measures to protect or conserve energy and natural resources are: None 4. How would the proposal be likely to use or affect environmentally sensitive areas or areas designated (or eligible or under study) for governmental protection; such as parks, wilderness, wild and scenic rivers, threatened or endangered species habitat, historic or cultural sites, wetlands, floodplains, or prime farmlands? NA a. Proposed measures to protect such resources or to avoid or reduce impacts are: None Effective October 28, 2007 Page 13 of 15 http: /Iwww.spokanevalley.org/ uploads/ Community _Development /Documents /Forms /Current Planning /Appendix 21 -A SEPA Environmental Checklist eft 10- 28- 07.doc I (.� of Spokane Valley SEPA Checklist. TO BE COMPLETED BY APPLICANT 5. How would the proposal be likely to affect land and shoreline use, including whether it would allow or encourage land or shoreline uses incompatible with existing plans? The use is limited to major secondhand operators in 15K or larger buildings with frontage on an arterial and without the option of a consignment store. This will limit the use to similar light industrial activities of shipping and receiving and retail of incidental products. a. Proposed measures to avoid or reduce shoreline and land use impacts are Limit the use to users of 15K or larger use and only with frontage along arterials. 6. How would the proposal be likely to increase demands on transportation or public services and utilities? It shouldn't increase demand as it is within existing buildings of light industrial activity or proximity of the same. a. Proposed measures to reduce or respond to such demand(s) are: the limitations proposed under "S" of the amendment. 7. Identify, if possible, whether the proposal may conflict with local, state, or federal laws or requirements for the protection of the environment. Unknown. E. SIGNATURE I, the undersigned, swear under penalty of perjury that the above responses are made truthfully and to the best of my knowledge. I also understand that, should there be any willful misrepresentation or willful lack of full disclosure on my part, the agency may withdraw any Determination of Nonsignificance that it might issue in reliance upon this check list. Date: Signature: Please print or type: Proponent: J / Address: 9/ /)/ Al Phone: y35`- 2102 Person completing form (if different from proponent): N ame: --�- °�. -- Address: Effective October 28, 2007 Page 14 of 15 http: / /www.spokanevalley -org /uploads /Community_Development/ Documents /Forms /Current_Planning /Appendix 21 -A SEPA Environmental Checklist eff 10- 28- 07.doc FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SPOKANE VALLEY PLANNING COMMISSION February 11, 2010 The following findings have been prepared by Staff for the Planning Commission in the event there is concurrence with the recommended approval. Background: A. The Spokane Valley Municipal Code was adopted in September 2007 and became effective on October 28, 2007. B. Privately initiated request for a text amendment to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC). C. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 11, 2010. The Planning Commission approved the following amendments to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code, Title 19; 1. Chapter 19.70.010.13.9 — Add language pertaining to the allowance of secondhand stores and consignment sales in the Light Industrial (1 -1) zone; and 2. Chapter 19.120 — Conditionally allow secondhand stores and consignment sales in the Light Industrial (1 -1) zone to the schedule of permitted uses (appendix 19 -A). Findings: SVMC 17.80.150(F) states that the City may approve amendments to the UDC if it finds that: A. The proposed amendment is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Comprehensive Plan; and 1. Policy LUP -10.2: Encourages a diverse array of industries to locate in Spokane Valley. 2. Goal LUG -12: Designate and protect a variety of strategically located light industry areas. 3. Goal TG -8: Adapt street and roadway design and facilities to manage traffic demand, address the need for freight movement, resolve traffic conflicts, and compliment land use and urban features. 4. Goal EDG -2: Encourage redevelopment of commercial /industrial properties within the City. B. The proposed amendment bears a substantial relation to the public health, safety, welfare, and protection of the environment. The proposed amendments to the zone meet the above outlined goals, and are thus consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Conclusions: The proposed amendments meet the applicable provisions of the Spokane Valley Comprehensive Plan Findings and Recommendations of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission Yage 9 cr i Recommendations: The Spokane Valley Planning Commission therefore recommends approval to the City Council of proposed amendments to Title 99 and Appendices A (Definitions) of the Spokane Valley Municipal Code. of February, 2010 ohn G. Carroll, ATTEST Dea ; na Griffith, Adminislive Assistant Findings and Recommendatlons of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission rage A vi A (:fl" /HAU. t+.SPOtANFV Department of Community Development Planning Division City Council Administrative: Report February 23, 2010 Text Amendment to the SVMC CTA-KOjW4rjO Chapter 19.120 PERMITTED AND ACCESSORY USES Sections .1 klk 0 1 j'1L a3 I N w IG Iw , I P Permitted Use R Regional SitiRg S Conditions Apply 4533 Secondhand stores, P P P P P P $ 1 19.70.010( B)(94 consignment sales AAccessory Only TTemporary Permit C Conditional Use Permit 0 Adding in I -1 zone with conditions a� p v) a� x c, o ' = v U) N y '- _ - d r i E _ a=i Q d cc V p p U = Z C x t j a + O 1= a�i E - _ I = U) ¢ 0 v 0 z� c�L) �U a `_ N �v 4533 Secondhand stores, P P P P P P $ 1 19.70.010( B)(94 consignment sales AAccessory Only TTemporary Permit C Conditional Use Permit 0 Adding in I -1 zone with conditions ,, r �, "r'HAH�'PM.A"" Department of Community Development w Spokane Valley Planning Division Z1 AI I frt J ► �! .�• 1 0 4 4 F' ..e 4 Section 19.70.010.6 (Light Industrial) 9. The following shall apply to all secondhand stores, consignment sales; a. The subject property must have frontage on an arterial; and b. Minimum building size of 15,000 gross square feet (gsf); and c. Limited to a single tenant. �•.. `'T" "T "`� ° ` pvF `' Department of Commuitity Development. Planning Division Questions? CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: February 23, 2010 City Manager Sign -off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information X admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Update on draft Panhandling Code GOVERNING LEGISLATION: First Amendment of the Washington and U.S. Constitutions. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Numerous meetings by the Council and the temporary Panhandling Committee; Administrative report July 14, 2009; Administrative report August 11, 2009. BACKGROUND: The City Council recently requested information on panhandling. Staff presented an information update to the Council on August 11, 2009. Those materials are being provided again for background information. Additionally, a number of attachments from Councilmember Bill Gothmann are being provided regarding the Panhandling Committee, and the report and recommendation it generated. OPTIONS: NA RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: NA BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: NA STAFF CONTACT: Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney; Councilmember Bill Gothmann ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 — RCA from August 11, 2009; Attachment 2 - Memorandum of Cary Driskell, with attached opinion from Center for Justice; Attachment 3 — Report to Council from Panhandling Committee with related materials. CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Fleeting Date: August 11, 2009 City Manager Sign -off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Update on draft Panhandling Code GOVERNING LEGISLATION: First Amendment of the Washington and US Constitutions. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Numerous meetings by the Council and the temporary Panhandling Committee; Administrative report July 14, 2009. BACKGROUND: Staff provided Council with a proposed code restricting panhandling on July 14, 2009. Staff advised the Council that it had provided a copy of the draft to the Center for Justice to seek their input on whether the proposed code met Constitutional requirements. The City received a letter and opinion from Bonnie Beavers, an attorney for CFJ on July 16, 2009. The opinion letter analyzed our draft under existing and new Constitutional case decisions OPTIONS: Move proposed ordinance forward to a first reading; make changes to proposed ordinance; don't move proposed ordinance forward at this time, and instead focus on implementing education program. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Council concensus not to move forward with adoption of additional panhandling restrictions at this time, and instead implement the educational program previously discussed by the Council. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: NA STAFF CONTACT: Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 — Memorandum of Cary Driskell, with attached opinion from Center for Justice Attachment 2 — Draft proposed ordinance. 04 OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY S p one MICHAEL F. CONNELLY - CITY ATTORNEY CARY P. DRISKELL - DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY Valley 0 11707 East Sprague Avenue Suite 103 0 Spokane Valley WA 40;000 99206 509.688.0235 0 Fax: 509.688.0299 0 cityattorney@spokanevalley.org To: City Council From: Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney; Jeana Poloni, Legal Intern CC: Dave Mercier, City Manager; Mike Connelly, City Attorney Date: August 4, 2009 Re: Panhandling update This update is being provided to the Council to give current information about an opinion from the Center for Justice regarding the proposed ordinance, which incorporates discussion of a new case out of the 9` Circuit Court of Appeals, and to provide you with a recommendation for proceeding at this point in time. A copy of Ms. Beavers' opinion is attached to this memo for your reference. As the Council is aware, staff drafted a proposed ordinance that would regulate some forms of panhandling, and would have placed some time, place and manner restrictions on panhandling. The proposed ordinance was based very closely on the regulations adopted by the City of Spokane in 2008. As Spokane did, staff sent a copy of the draft regulations to the Center for Justice for their review and comment, as any challenge to the proposed regulations would most likely come from their office. The City received a letter and memorandum on July 16, 2009 from Bonnie Beavers of the Center for Justice. The memo provides a general analysis of the constitutional caselaw surrounding panhandling and first amendment regulations (pages 2 and 3), and asserts that the proposed ordinance is likely an illegal content -based restriction of speech. They reach this conclusion because not all speech in the public areas (sidewalks) is banned, only that which seeks contributions. Because it is content - based, it must be narrowly tailored to a compelling governmental interest, such as public safety. Case law, including the new Berger v. City of Seattle, 569 F.3d 1029 (9`" Cir. 2009) case, make clear that solicitation from a "captive audience" who may not want to give money, but feel compelled to because they cannot easily walk away, otherwise disengage, or avert their eyes, does not rise to the level of a compelling governmental interest. There would have to be something like an identifiable public safety concern, supported by statistical data, to implement such regulations. Ms. Beavers' memorandum does clearly recognize that cities have the ability to enforce provisions such as our prohibitions on obstructing traffic or on aggressive panhandling. There is an opportunity to be more active in enforcing the existing prohibitions on obstructing traffic, if the factual conduct in the individual case meets the criteria as a violation of law. Staff has a call in to the City of Spokane to determine how they intend to proceed in light of the Berger case, but had not heard back by the time this memo was due to Council. Based on these developments, staff recommends not proceeding with consideration of the proposed ordinance, and instead focus on implementing the educational program previously discussed until a more favorable legal environment is present. DRART CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON ORDINANCE NO. 09-*** LTING SOLICITATION ACTIVITIES IN PUBLIC PLACES, OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO WHEREAS, consistent with the findings of other Washington State cities, the City Council finds that it is important to the general welfare of the citizens and residents of the City to implement minimal restrictions on solicitations in public places that are applicable to all people within the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council further finds that any limitations on solicitation must be consistent with state and federal constitutional protections, including those relating to freedom of speech and expression; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that is in the best interest of its citizens to restrict solicitation activity under circumstances where people are likely to feel uncomfortable or unable to easily disengage the contact due to their physical location, which will help ensure that donations arising from such contacts are less likely to be coerced. NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington, ordains as follows: Section 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to regulate certain solicitation activities in public places within the City. Section 2. Adopting Spokane Valley Municipal Code Section 7.40.010. Spokane Valley Municipal Code Section 7.40.010 is adopted as follows: 7.40.010 Definitions. A. The following definitions apply in this chapter: 1. "Automated teller machine" means a machine, other than a telephone: a. that is capable of being operated by a customer of a financial institution; b. by which the customer may communicate to the financial institution a request to withdraw, deposit, transfer funds, make payment, or otherwise conduct financial business for the customer or for another person directly from the customer's account or from the customer's account under a line of credit previously authorized by the financial institution for the customer; and c. the use of which may or may not involve personnel of a financial institution. 2. "Public place" means an area generally open to the public and includes alleys, bridges, buildings, driveways, parking lots, parks, plazas, sidewalks, and streets open to the general public, including those that serve food or drink or provide entertainment, and the doors and entrances to buildings or dwellings and the grounds enclosing them. 3. "Public transportation facility" means a facility or designated location that is owned, operated, or maintained by a city, county, county transportation authority, public transportation benefit area, regional transit authority, or metropolitan municipal corporation within the state. - 4. "Public transportation stop" means an area officially marked and designated as a place to wait for a bus, a mass transit vehicle, or any other public transportation vehicle that is operated on a scheduled route with passengers paying fares on an individual basis. 5. "Public transportation vehicle" has the meaning given that term in RCW 46.04.355, as currently adopted or as it may be amended in the future. 6. "Roadway" shall have the meaning set forth in RCW 46.04.500. 7. "Self- service fuel pump" means a fuel pump: a. from which a vehicle may be manually filled with gasoline or other fuel directly by its owner or operator, with or without the aid of an employee or attendant of the premises at which the fuel pump is located; and b. that is accessible and available for use by members of the general public. 8. "Solicit' and all derivative forms of "solicit" means to ask, beg, or plead, whether orally, non - verbally or in a written or printed manner, for the purpose of immediately receiving contributions, alms, charity, or gifts of items of value for oneself or another person. Section 3. Adopting Spokane Valley Municipal Code Section 7.40.020 Spokane Valley Municipal Code Section 7.40.020 is adopted as follows: 7.40.020 Limitations on Solicitations. A. It is unlawful for any person to solicit another person within fifteen feet of: 1. an automated teller machine; 2. the entrance of a building, unless the solicitor has permission from the owner or occupant; 3. a self - service fuel pump; 4. a public transportation stop; 5. any parked vehicle as occupants of such vehicle enter or exit such vehicle when the occupants are the subject of the solicitation; or designated loading/unloading, for -hire vehicle, or taxi zones. B. For purposes of this section, measurement will be made in a straight line, without regard to intervening structures or objects, from the nearest point at which a solicitation is being conducted to whichever is applicable of the following: 1. The nearest entrance or exit of a facility in which an automated teller machine is enclosed or, if the machine is not enclosed in a facility, to the nearest part of the automated teller machine. 2. The nearest entrance or exit of a building. 3. The nearest part of a self- service fuel pump. 4. The nearest part of any sign or marking designating an area as a public transportation stop; or 5. Any door of a parked vehicle that is being used by an occupant of such vehicle to enter or exit such vehicle. C. It is unlawful for any person to stand in the roadway for the purpose of engaging in solicitation. No person may engage in solicitation activities that would obstruct traffic in violation of SVMC 8.25.030. DRAFT CODE LIMITING SOLICITATIONS TN PTIRT.TC PT.A(,RC . - 1) - D. This chapter shall not prohibit lawful solicitations, including those individuals and organizations that have obtained a special events permit, pursuant to SVMC 5.15. E. A violation of subsection A or C of this section is a simple misdemeanor. Section 4. Severability If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of any other section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance. Section 5. Effective Date This Ordinance shall become effective thirty days after publication of the Ordinance, or a summary thereof, in the official newspaper of the City. Adopted this day of 2009. City of Spokane Valley Mayor, Richard Munson ATTEST: City Clerk, Christine Bainbridge Approved as to ]Form: Office of the City Attorney DRAFT CODE LIMITING SOLICITATIONS IN PUBLIC PLACES -3- Panhandling Committee Final Report to Council Sept. 26, 2008 Introduction The Panhandling Committee was given the task of investigating panhandling, looking at research and what other cities are doing, and give a recommendation to Council. The Committee The Panhandling Committee consisted of- Bill Gothmann, Chair Connie Nelson Rose Dempsey, Councilmember Joe Schutz Maggie Crabtree Ian Robertson Cathy Neet We were ably assisted by Todd Babcock, Research Analyst of the City of Spokane. Council Member Odin Langford from Liberty Lake was able to attend one of our meetings, also. The Committee met seven times: June 12, June 26, July 15, July 29, August 5, and August 12. We heard from Spokane Valley Police, our Spokane Valley Attorney, Spokane Valley Partners, and the City of Spokane. We also researched what other cities are doing, and Department of Justice publications on panhandling. Panhandling in Spokane Valley 1. First of all, panhandling is a protected act of free speech. 2. The typical panhandler is unemployed, unmarried, has a substance abuse problem and is NOT homeless. 3. In general, homeless people do not panhandle and panhandlers are not homeless. 4. We heard that there is an 80/20 rule. That is, 80% of panhandlers do it to support drug and alcohol habits, and 20% have genuine needs. 5. Some have mental problems 6. Many have criminal records. However, there are no funds to ship them back to where warrants are outstanding. 7. Most choose to panhandle because it makes good economic sense to them 8. Panhandlers come to Spokane Valley via car or bus to panhandle because it is more lucrative than other locations. They return to their homes at night. During the day, they have flop areas where they rest and relax, resulting in mounds of trash and human waste. 9. The area around Walmart is one of the most lucrative for panhandlers. 10. Spokane Valley receives Daily Police Service calls from businesses such as: a. Toys R Us b. Ross c. The Strip mall at Wal -mart d. The Manager of the Chevron near the Mirabeau Hotel e. The Manager of Valley Mall 11. The Wal -mart location is such a valuable location that panhandlers work in shifts under an informal agreement with each other. Unfortunately, since the population of panhandlers is under the influence, the informal protocol is frequently violated, resulting in many fights and officer calls to the location. EXAMPLE OF A PANHANDLER: Charlie Charlie is a White male, a convicted felon with a long record having four outstanding warrants, one of which is an outstanding felony. He also has a felony Department of Corrections escape warrant. He is a life long alcoholic and lives at the Red Lion Inn in Spokane. Sometimes he lives with his wife in the West central Neighborhood. He has a solicitor's license from Spokane that enables him to sell things on the street. He calls his "enterprise" "Cardboard Expressions." He takes the STA to Spokane Valley to panhandle where3 he claims to earn $30 -45 per hour. To quote him, "All the pretty women in their 30's and 40's give me $20 bills." The Solution The solution to panhandling is three -fold: 1. Examine ordinances to give police the tools they need for enforcement 2. Be sure to provide links to social services for those with genuine needs 3. Provide a community education program to discourage citizens from giving to panhandlers and encourage them to give to causes that provide genuine help to those in need. Ordinances Present laws make it illegal to aggressively panhandle. Unfortunately, when such a case occurs, police are called and the victim usually does not press charges, and police are forced to release the offender. Present laws also prohibit interference with traffic. However, the offender usually ignores the ticket. Property owners also can prohibit panhandling on their own property. Police have arrested panhandlers claiming to be veterans when they were not. Committee Recommendations: The Committee recommends Council consider adding the following ordinances: 1. Prohibit panhandling within 100 feet of an ATM, a bus stop, a traffic signal, or a freeway entrance. 2. Prohibit panhandling on medians. 3. Prohibit motorists and passengers from giving while in a traffic lane. 4. Prohibit being drunk in public. There is an RCW, but we need an ordinance, also. Social Services There are presently many social services available in Spokane Valley: Spokane Valley Partners, Meals on Wheels, 2 Hands, and others. Committee Recommendations The Committee recommends there be a card and wooden nickel program. The card would be given to those in need to indicate where services are available. The wooden nickel would entitle the person with needs to a free meal and free clothing at a clothing bank. This would also put the person in contact with social services to meet their needs. Public Education A public education program is needed to inform the public about where they could give gifts that will make a real difference. This could use such media as posters, web site, radio, and newspapers. Cities such as Tacoma, Denver, Portland, Seattle, and others have panhandler prevention programs. We shouldn't try to reinvent the wheel. Anchorage has initiatives that consist of some ordinance changes, a web site, posters that businesses place in their windows, and a wooden nickel program. It was initially funded by a small municipal grant. Donated medial expertise created the posters and the web site. It continues to be run at a relatively low cost. Spokane Valley's program could consider such media as radio, TV, newspapers, and others. It would, however, require participation by a broad segment of our community. Committee Recommendations The Committee recommends we form a Panhandling Action Network (PAN) consisting of businesses, service clubs, service providers, faith community, and a media director. It would not be directed by the City, and would be funded by businesses and the City. They would plan and execute the public education Summary The Committee believes we need this three -prong effort to reduce panhandling: • Some additional ordinances • A community services link from services to those who need the services • A community education program. Respectfully Submitted, Bill Gothmann, Chair ,8.25.010 Anticipatory offenses. The following provisions of the Revised Code of Washington as presently constituted or hereinafter amended are adopted by reference: RCW: 9A.28.020 Criminal attempt. 19A.28.030 Criminal solicitation. 9A.28.040 Criminal conspiracy. ;(Ord. 46 § 11, 2003). 8.25.020 Aggressive begging (panhandling). A. Any person who engages in aggressive begging in any public place in the City as those terms are defined by this section is guilty of a misdemeanor. i B. As used in this section: 1. "Aggressive begging" means to beg with intent to intimidate another person into giving money or goods. 2. "Begging" means to ask for money or goods as a charity, whether by words, ;bodily gestures, signs or other means. 3. "Intimidate" means to coerce or frighten into submission or obedience. 4. "Public place," for purposes of this section, means any road, alley, lane, ,parking area, sidewalk or any place, private or otherwise, adopted to and fitted for ;vehicular or pedestrian travel that is in common use by the public with the consent, expressed or implied, of the owner or owners; and any public playground, school grounds, recreation grounds, parks, parkways, park drives, park paths and rights -of -way ;open to the use of the public. (Ord. 46 § 14, 2003). 8.25.030 Disorderly conduct. Any person who engages in disorderly conduct is guilty of a misdemeanor. A person engages in disorderly conduct when that person: A. Uses abusive language and thereby intentionally creates a risk of assault; B. Intentionally disrupts any lawful assembly or meeting of persons without authority; C. Intentionally obstructs vehicular or pedestrian traffic without lawful authority; D. Fights by agreement, except as part of an organized athletic event; or E. Enters or remains in any school building, classroom or upon any school ground, or jstreet, sidewalk or public way adjacent thereto, and intentionally causes disruption of Ithe activities of the school. -- - - - - -- Chapter 8.25 OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC PEACE ;Sections: X 8.25.010 Anticipatory offenses. 1 8.25.020 Aggressive begging (panhandling). 1 8.25.030 Disorderly conduct. 1 8.25.040 Public disturbance. 1 8.25.050 Public nuisances. ( 8.25.060 Noise disturbance. ,8.25.010 Anticipatory offenses. The following provisions of the Revised Code of Washington as presently constituted or hereinafter amended are adopted by reference: RCW: 9A.28.020 Criminal attempt. 19A.28.030 Criminal solicitation. 9A.28.040 Criminal conspiracy. ;(Ord. 46 § 11, 2003). 8.25.020 Aggressive begging (panhandling). A. Any person who engages in aggressive begging in any public place in the City as those terms are defined by this section is guilty of a misdemeanor. i B. As used in this section: 1. "Aggressive begging" means to beg with intent to intimidate another person into giving money or goods. 2. "Begging" means to ask for money or goods as a charity, whether by words, ;bodily gestures, signs or other means. 3. "Intimidate" means to coerce or frighten into submission or obedience. 4. "Public place," for purposes of this section, means any road, alley, lane, ,parking area, sidewalk or any place, private or otherwise, adopted to and fitted for ;vehicular or pedestrian travel that is in common use by the public with the consent, expressed or implied, of the owner or owners; and any public playground, school grounds, recreation grounds, parks, parkways, park drives, park paths and rights -of -way ;open to the use of the public. (Ord. 46 § 14, 2003). 8.25.030 Disorderly conduct. Any person who engages in disorderly conduct is guilty of a misdemeanor. A person engages in disorderly conduct when that person: A. Uses abusive language and thereby intentionally creates a risk of assault; B. Intentionally disrupts any lawful assembly or meeting of persons without authority; C. Intentionally obstructs vehicular or pedestrian traffic without lawful authority; D. Fights by agreement, except as part of an organized athletic event; or E. Enters or remains in any school building, classroom or upon any school ground, or jstreet, sidewalk or public way adjacent thereto, and intentionally causes disruption of Ithe activities of the school. F. As used in this section, "school" has its ordinary meaning and also includes universities, colleges, community colleges and institutions of higher learning. (Ord. 46 § 25, 2003). e?4, �( P.- ( T-,000395-3867 COMMVLAITY ED CLDINO 36 WEST MAIN, S-m 30o SPOKANE, WA 99201 W W Xy. CXr01v U STI OE.ORO Cary P. Driskell Deputy City Attorney City of Spokane Valley 11707 East Sprague Avenue Suite 103 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Dear Cary, '(-0crn i00% reJdedtAPx bbeavers gcWustice.org We appreciate your asking us to provide comments on Spokane Valley's proposed Ordinance Limiting Solicitation, SVMC § 7.40.020. This ordinance is substantially similar to Spokane Municipal Code 10.10.27, which we previously reviewed along with several others for the City of Spokane. The following comments on SVMC 7.40.020 were lifted from our comments to the City of Spokane with a few revisions tailored to your proposal and the benefit of the Ninth Circuit's "captive audience" analysis in its reversal of the Berger case issued last month. I've also attached a copy of our comments to the City of Spokane in the event they might be helpful. If you have any questions, feel free to give us a call. All the best, A-x- e,-- Bonne Beavers Staff Attorney Center for Justice CO#MITTED TO MRATMO TIte RXF£R11 OF JDITICE FOR THOSE OF LIMITED R.ESOUItCE6 OR INFLUEN01' THAOUOII COMPASSION AND AN AWARXNF.SS OF THIS SACREDNESS OI' TJLTE 6ART1i. CENTER FOR JUSTICE COMMENTS RE: SVMC 7.40.020 Limitations on Solicitation Date: 7.16.09 This section prohibits solicitation within 15 feet of an automated teller machine, the entrance of a building, unless the solicitor has permission from the owner or occupant, a self- service fuel pump, a public transportation stop, and any parked vehicle as occupants of such vehicle enter or exit when the occupants are the subject of solicitation or designated loading/unloading, for -hire vehicle of taxi zones. Solicitation under the code is limited to requests for immediate contributions. SVMC 7.40.010(A)(8). We believe the regulation may be subject to challenge as a content -based restriction on protected speech. As you know, begging or panhandling, i.e. solicitation for the purpose of immediately receiving contributions, is a constitutionally protected activity under the First Amendment. Roulette v. City of Seattle, 850 F. Supp. 1442, 1451 (1994) (citing Schaumburg v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 444 U.S. 620 (1980)); U.S. v. Kokinda, 497 U.S. 720 (1990); Spokane v. Marr, 129 Wn. App. 890, 894) (Div. 3 2005) (citations' omitted). Where such activity occurs in traditional public fora, such as sidewalks, streets or public parks, "the government's ability to permissibly restrict expressive conduct is very limited." Long Beach Area Peace Network v. City of Long Beach, 522 F.3d 1010, 1021 (9th Cit. 2008) (quoting United States v. Grace, 461 U.S. 171, 177 (1983)). See also Hague v. CIO, 307 U.S. 496, 515 (1939) (these fora have been immemorially held in trust for the public for "assembly, conununicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions "), Because government restrictions on the use of these public spaces "risk placing speech on topics of public importance within the purview of only the wealthy or those who enjoy the support of local authorities," (Long Beach, 522 F.3d at 1021 citing Grossman v. City of Portland, 33 F.3d 1200, 1205 n. 8 (9th Cir.1994); City of .Richmond, 743 F.2d at 1356, "First Amendment protections are strongest and regulation is most suspect" within those areas. Id. (quoting Grossman v. City of Portland, 33 F.3d 1200, 1204 (9th Cit. CFJ Comments 2 of 7 1994). See also A. C.L. U. of Nevada v. City of Las Vegas, 466 F.3d 784, 791 (9th Cir. 2006) (warning of trend toward privatization of public property and transforming public fora into "heavily- regulated domains "). Although regulation of speech in traditional public fora is disfavored, it may nevertheless be regulated according to prescribed principles. To pass constitutional muster, such regulations must satisfy four criteria. They must be 1) justified without reference to the content of the regulated speech; 2) narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest; 3) leave open ample channels for communication of the information, and 4) provide adequate standards to guide government discretion, particularly in licensing decisions. Forsythe County v. Nationalist Movement, 505 U.S. 123, 130 (1992); Clark v. Cnstyfor Creative Non - Violence, 468 U.S. 288, 293 (1984). We believe this ordinance is content -based because it only prohibits speech that includes a request for immediate contributions. A law is content -based rather than content - neutral if "the main purpose in enacting it was to suppress or exalt speech of certain content, or if it differentiates based on the content of speech on its face." ACLU of Nevada v. City o f Las Vegas (ACLU Il), 466 F. Supp, 784, 793 (9th Cir. 2006). Even if a law is content- based, it may yet pass constitutional muster if it is necessary to serve a compelling state interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that end. Perry Educ. Ass'n v. Perry Local Educ. Assn„ 460 U.S. 37,. 45 (1983); Loper v. New York Police Dept., 999 F.2d 699, 703 (2 n, Cir. 1993). Under federal jurisprudence, a regulation is narrowly tailored if it "promotes a substantial government interest that would be achieved less effectively absent the regulation." Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781, 799 (198 9) (citations omitted). Further, it may not burden substantially more speech than necessary to achieve the scheme's important goals. United States v. Baugh, 187 F.3d 1037, 1043 (9th Cir. 1999). As drafted, this ordinance is arguably content based and hence subject to strict scrutiny. City of Los Angeles v. Alameda Books, Inc., 535 U.S. 425, 434 (2002). SVMC 7.40.020 prohibits only speech CF] Comments 3 oF7 which asks for immediate contributions. Speech that does not include such a request does not fall within the reach of this ordinance. Thus one could approach someone exiting a vehicle and ask for signatures for political calls to action or to pass out leaflets and not run afoul of this ordinance, even where doing so might make that person uncomfortable or unable to easily disengage. As such, it is not content - neutral. See ACORN v. St. Louis County, 930 F.2d 591 (8th Cir. 199 1) (anti - solicitation law was content - neutral because it limited solicitations for all purposes); ACORN v. City of Phoenix, 798 F.2d 1260 (9th Cir. 1986) (city's statute content - neutral because it prohibits all kinds of solicitation, including that by charitable organizations); International Society for Krishna Consciousness of New Orleans, Inc. v. City of Baton Rouge, 876 F.2d 494 (5th Cir. 1989) with Benefit v. City of Cambridge, 424 Mass. 918, 679 N.E.2d 184 (Mass. 1997) (anti- solicitation law content -based because the content determined guilt or innocence); Loper v. New York City Police Department, 999 F.2d 699 (2d Cir. 1993). Content -based laws must be narrowly tailored to a compelling state interest to pass constitutional muster. The "state interest" identified in the draft appears to be to protect persons from potential discomfort or feelings of coercion due to an inability to easily disengage based on the place in which the solicitation occurs. It does not prohibit coercive solicitation — the code already deems this unlawful — but is merely prophylactic — "to help ensure that donations arising from such contact are less likely to be coerced." Without evidence of improper behavior, however, a listener's annoyance or discomfort "does not provide a basis for a law burdening that activity." Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 408 -09 (1989). See also Seattle v. Webster, 115 Wn. 2d 635, 653 (1990) (J. Utter, concurring and dissenting) ( "While a municipality may regulate First Amendment activity to prevent obstruction of passage, see Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 382 U.S. 87, 91 (1965), it may not restrict First Amendment rights just to prevent annoyance to the citizenry "). Clearly, many people feel uncomfortable and unable to disengage CFJ Comments 4 of when someone, perhaps disheveled and obviously poor, asks for money, The courts have never, however, deemed this sufficient to outlaw panhandling. While promoting this interest is unlikely to trump protected speech activities, public safety might. Madsen v. Women's Health Center, 512 U.S. 753 (1994) (public safety is a recognized legitimate state interest). However, because the ordinance allows others to approach persons in these locations, the City must show that these place restrictions are necessary to promote the safety of its citizens from solicitation that is otherwise lawful. Given that the place restrictions are not targeted to intimidating behavior, as defined in this code, it appears on its face unrelated to safety. It would also appear the City may be attempting to regulate panhandling on the basis of the "captive audience" doctrine. Under this doctrine, some courts have allowed restrictions where the audience does not have the freedom to choose whether or not to hear the message. Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 21 (197 1) (courthouse visitors were not captive to displays of free speech). Courts have refused, however, to extend this doctrine to restrictions on speech in a public forum. Kuba v. -1 -A Agricultural Association, 387 F.3d 850, 861 (9th Cir. 2004), As far as we can find, no court has ever upheld the type of protection from solicitation that the City wants to extend to public fora, especially where the public can simply "avert their eyes" from an unwelcome solicitation. Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville, 422 U.S. 205, 212 (1975) (pedestrians on public street are not captive audience and can simply avert their eyes from any unwanted speech). This issue was addressed more recently by die Ninth Circuit in Berger v. City of Seattle, -- F.3d - - -, 2009 WL 1773200 (0' Cir 2009). As the court explained, The Supreme Court's "captive audience" jurisprudence fully supports our conclusion that public park- goers, in general, are not a protectable captive audience for constitutional purposes. "The plain, if at times disquieting, truth is that in our pluralistic society, constantly proliferating new and ingenious forms of expression, we are inescapably captive audiences for many purposes," Erznoznik v. City of Jacksonville, 422 U.S. 205, 210, 95 S.Ct. 2268, 45 L.Ed.2d 125 (1975) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Only in "narrow circumstances" may government restrain speech to protect CFJ Commonts 5of7 such audiences. Id, at 210 -11, 95 S.Ct. 2268. "The ability of government, consonant with the Constitution, to shut off discourse solely to protect others from hearing it is, in other words, dependent upon a showing that substantial privacy interests are being invaded in an essentially intolerable manner." Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15, 21, 91 S.Ct, 1780, 29 L.Ed.2d 284 (1971). Such substantial privacy interests include "the psychological [and] physical well -being of the [hospital] patient held `captive' by medical circumstance." Madsen v. Women's Health Or., 512 U.S. 753, 768 -71, 114 S.Ct. 2516, 129 L.Ed.2d 593 (1994) (validating an injunction creating a 36 -foot buffer zone around entrances of an abortion clinic in which picketing and demonstrating, among other activities, were barred); see also Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703, 728 -30, 120 S.Ct. 2480, 147 L.Ed.2d 597 (2000) (upholding an eight -foot regulatory buffer around clinic entrances due to the "unique concerns that surround health care facilities," where those using the facilities "are often in particularly vulnerable physical and emotional conditions "). They also encompass "the quiet enjoyment" of one's home. Frisby, 487 U.S. at 483, 108 S.Ct. 2495 (upholding a ban on "focused picketing taking place solely in front of a particular residence "). The unique privacy and self- determination interests involved in protecting medical facilities and residences simply do not exist for those waiting in Iine or having lunch outdoors in a public park. Indeed, we have already rejected such a comparison in Kuba, 387 F.3d at 861 n. 10, explaining that patrons of a "place of public entertainment" were not a captive audience similar to the intended audiences in Madsen and its progeny, because they were obviously not "particularly vulnerable," as are the patients and doctors in such cases. Id. at 17. As the Berger court makes clear, the captive audience doctrine is an attempt to balance one's right to be left alone while in public against anther's First Amendment rights. It is doubtful that substantial privacy interests are implicated for those merely filling their gas tanks or emerging from buildings or vehicles, or waiting for a ride. This is not to say that the privacy interests of persons at ATMs might be implicated, however. One could argue that most people feel uncomfortable when anyone approaches close enough to see how much money was obtained fiom the ATM or to decipher one's pin number, whether or not they intend to ask for anything. The question then is whether a content -based restriction is necessary to achieve the legitimate goal of public safety in this context. If the City's intent is really safety, then the City might consider an ordinance targeting the "act" of CFI Comments 6 of 7 approaching within a certain distance of ATMs, which is not a regulation of speech, or an ordinance that prohibits all solicitation, which would more likely be seen as narrowly tailored to that interest. The analysis might also be somewhat different for gas stations which, I presume, are on private property. It may be that the owners could themselves, unlike the City, prohibit solicitation of all kinds as may home owners without rumiing afoul of the constitution, Without a doubt, panhandlers who obstruct traffic or threaten individuals are in violation of existing law. For those who do not, even in the places implicated here, the distinction is not narrowly drawn. Further, the distinction is not narrowly drawn where solicitation near the entrance of a building but on a public sidewalk is left to the unfettered discretion of private persons. Such a provision may also be unreasonable as susceptible to arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. State v. Smith, 111 Wn. 2d 1, 7 (1988). Thus as drafted, we believe this ordinance is subject to attack as a content -based restriction that is not narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest. CFJ Comments 7of7 Some Quotes Concerning Panhandling Bill Gothmann 12 -7 -08 "[T]he average Phoenix panhandler works the streets only until he or she has enough money to purchase a bottle of beer or fortified wine, a vial of crack, or, rarely, a meal at a fast food restaurant. ... The percentage [of homeless who panhandle] ranges from a high of 34.4% in Washington, D.C. to 6.8% in Denver. For how many homeless people did panhandling represent most or all of their income? 2.2 %." (Stark, "From Lemons to Lemonade: An Ethnographic Sketch of Late Twentieth - Century Panhandling" , 1992). In a study of Toronto panhandlers, they reported a median monthly income equivalent to US $1904200. (Robit Bose and Stephen Hwang) "Most of the money they get goes to alcohol and drugs." (Mike McManus, an outreach worker for the Colorado Coalition for the Homeless. ) Earnings are rarely saved. They are spent on short-term purchases, generally alcohol or drugs, occasionally food. (The Straight Dope) "According to research done in the city of Denver, 90 percent of the money given to panhandlers is used to further enable that panhandler's lifestyle of drug or alcohol addiction." (The Rabble Rouser) "... $4.6 million is a lot of money [Amount annually given to panhandlers in Denver]. ... Sadly, we know that in most cases, the money is used in ways that perpetuate the problem." (Mary Buckley, Denver's Department of Economic Development). [Are people helping when they give to panhandlers ?] My view is they're hurting, and many people in the homeless advocacy communities believe they're hurting rather than helping. (Dallas Chief of Police David Kunkle) "I don't recall a single time where Jesus helped someone who was drunk," he said. "He helped people who couldn't help themselves. He helped the lame, helped the blind, helped feed those who couldn't feed themselves." (Rev. Dallas Lenear, executive pastor of New Hope Baptist Church) "Don't ever give money to panhandlers under any circumstances. The bulk of the people are going to use it for drugs or alcohol," (Don Tack, founder and executive director of Servants Center, an organization that reaches out to those who are homeless and mentally ill. ) "Most (panhandlers) have lived here a long time and actually have homes. This is just their chosen profession." (Coos Bay Police Capt. Rodger Craddock). "Coos Bay Police Department found that people who ask for money outside the Wal -Mart on Newmark Avenue can make $300 in one day." (Coos Bay, "The World," Alexander Rich) "Even beggars in the direst straits would be better off getting their needs met at a shelter rather than through individual donations on the street." (Andy Bales, President, Union Rescue Mission, downtown Los Angeles). "Please do not give money to panhandlers." (Escondido Police Department) "Drug addicts come from out of state to panhandle in Times Square. The tourists think they're doing good, but they're just making it easier for them to get high, and that makes our job tougher. [Those who give to panhandlers] may be the only beneficiaries from the transaction. They get to go home warmed by the glow of their generosity. The crackhead left behind is not their problem." (James McNamara, Times Square Consortium for the Homeless) Panhandling Recommendations Panhandling in Spokane Valley Richard Munson, Mayor Bill Gothmann, Councilmember Ian Robertson, Planning Comm T i�. Chair A New Charity Charity Rules: 80% Goes to Drugs and Alcohol 2 November 2008 Prepared by Bill Gothmann, City of Spokane Valley Panhandling Recommendations Spokane Valley Panhandling Committee • Maggie Crabtree • Cathy Neet • Connie Nelson • Joe Schutz • Ian Robertson • Rose Dempsey • Bill Gothmann • Todd Babcock, City of Spokane • Met 7 times • Heard from — Police — Legal (two times) — Social service — SV Partners — What Spokane is doing 4 November 2008 Prepared by Bill Gothmann, City of Spokane Valley 2 Panhandling Recommendations Panhandling The Problem Possible Solutions 5 The Typical Panhandler • Is unemployed • Unmarried • Has substance abuse. ~. problem _ • Is NOT homeless • 80 %/20% rule 6 November 2008 Prepared by Bill Gothmann, City of Spokane Valley 3 Panhandling Recommendations Panhandlers • Some have mental problems • Many have criminal records • Most choose to panhandle because it makes good t ��.s r. • a il to them • Flop Areas: Example: Charlie • White male • Convicted felon with long record — Four outstanding warrants — A felony —Two misdemeanors — Felony Dept. of Corrections escape warrant November 2008 Prepared by Bill Gothmann, City of Spokane Valley 4 'Pa§P ane-O ng RzCO§nMONcalaO!OHg C. Life long alcoholic Lives at Red Lion Inn in Spokane — Sometimes lives with his wife in South Hill neighborhood Has a solicitors license, "Cardboard Expressions" Takes STA to Spokane Valley 1141 , 11"MI - 131 III Averages $60 -80 per 2 hours in SV "All the pretty women in their 30's and 40's give me 20 dollar bills" Wal -Mart and Valley Mall are most lucrative spots November 2008 Prepared by Bill Gothmann, City of Spokane Valley 5 Panhandling Recommendations Sullivan Area Problems • Sharing corners and violence • Daily Police Service calls — Strip mall at Walmart — Chevron near Mirabeau Hotel — Valley Mall — Toys R Us — Ross III Three Parts of Solution • Tools for Law Enforcement • Links to Social Services • Community Education A ll any ) 4 12 November 2008 Prepared by Bill Gothmann, City of Spokane Valley 6 Panhandling Recommendations I. Law Enforcement Tools Now in place • Prohibit aggressive panhandling — Coerce or frighten into submission or obedience 13 Aggressive Panhandling • It is a problem — Case 1: Panhandler sits in car seat — Case 2: Panhandler obstructs movement • No Arrest without pressing Charges November 2008 Prepared by Bill Gothmann, City of Spokane Valley 7 Panhandling Recommendations Also Presently in Place • Prohibit obstruction of vehicle traffic • Property owners can prohibit panhandling • False claim to be a veteran prosecuted • Problem with ticketing 15 Law Enforcement Tools Committee Recommendations • Prohibit motorists and passengers from giving while in a traffic lane • Drunken behavior in public 16 November 2008 Prepared by Bill Gothmann, City of Spokane Valley 8 Panhandling Recommendations Law Enforcement Tools Place Restrictions • Within 100 feet of ATM, bus stop traffic signal, or freeway entrance • On medians San Francisco ar peopl 041n y P�raa,aYy! SFPDcaree Events Since Report • Spokane Adopted their ordinance • Recommendations presented to SV Council • Ordinances were drafted • Center for Justice reviewed ordinance • Courts ruled that city must prove place restrictions are necessary • Council decided to leave law as it is 18 November 2008 Prepared by Bill Gothmann, City of Spokane Valley 9 Panhandling Recommendations II. Available Services • Spokane Valley Partners • Meals on Wheels • 2 Hands — organization requesting assistance • Veterans Representative • Others New Social Service Link • Card and wooden nickel — Good for food — Good for clothin' — Makes connectic — Selling problem. November 2008 Prepared by Bill Gothmann, City of Spokane Valley 10 Panhandling Recommendations III. Public Education • Web Site • Posters • Radio • Newspapers `.: 21 Cities with Programs • Tacoma • Denver • Portland • Seattle • Others • Don't reinvent th, P support my addition, Don't supp pan}�andlers'. t�tis "snY is bf"13M+ i3 yt.4 !Y tk Cat9ary Dowtovn AcyaCia . November 2008 Prepared by Bill Gothmann, City of Spokane Valley it Panhandling Recommendations Anchorage Program • Some ordinance changes • Only Web Site and Posters • Wooden nickel program • Initial municipal funds • Donated media expertise • Very low cost operation Web Site • Anchorage http : / /changeforthebetteraIaska.org 24 November 2008 Prepared by Bill Gothmann, City of Spokane Valley 12 23 R wl ji-I ME CKLVA To A F&WHAAMLER AM TREY MAY 1407 SPED MAT L-P mahry ACT FORD OR SHELTER. �� , GIVE To na SOCIAL SERVICE I ACERMS or LNCKORAGI no ,� � YOU MY MELP M FOR, 507 26 mma.3 rw em—mi ����, � 61aneLac�TRncnrces 152'"mSava =.itzs mmu--YOU AN(MRAGE DOWMVH PARMME �� � BONT FEED AN D I I N I kl myt CHANGE mctLv To FAMHAhOLERS AMC VLO NEVER KNOW wwm rr cas. GIVE TO ANCISO.Um SOCIAL SERVICE AGENCIES Au Ylua AwffY GUS to: 587 MUMMY 21111TI➢ AIDS 26 PMERMS nuT OMA MEALS 15 SIMIT UNTEE AMMIS 10 UZOWL A 222C F"Al MMUMG 6 TAMIL REALTY! AGINCM3 vaum ma CHANGE is wuE umnvi: wwA a sKs TO TOM PROGRAMS tKAT ASSIST Pumpouits. visn mm wasm To LE&PA now YOU CAN HELP. ANG*WfA DOWNTOWN Panhandling Recommendations November 2008 Prepared by Bill Gothmann, City of Spokane Valley 14 Panhandling Recommendations say NO to panhandlin say yes to charities that help the homeless an Panhandling is not the solution Please give to a local charity 301 November 2008 Prepared by Bill Gothmann, City of Spokane Valley 15 Panhandling Recommendations Other Media for SV • Radio • Television rF; • Newspapers 1 t' • Other media forms 32 November 2008 Prepared by Bill Gothmann, City of Spokane Valley 16 Panhandling Recommendations How to Get Started • Form a Panhandling Action Network (PAN) — Business — Service Clubs — Service Providers — Faith Based Community — Media director • Fund by SV and businesses • Not directed by City 33 Advice for My Generous Friends [Those who give to panhandlers] may be the only beneficiaries from the transaction. They get to go home warmed by the glow of their generosity. The crackhead left behind is not their problem. James McNamara Times Square Consortium 34 November 2008 Prepared by Bill Gothmann, City of Spokane Valley 17 Panhandling Recommendations Questions? f � STEED AESERVE j ;i t Al r 35 November 2008 Prepared by Bill Gothmann, City of Spokane Valley 18 U.S. Department of Justice - )ffice of Community Oriented Policing Services COPVS COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING SERVICES US DEPARTMENT DO JUSTME Problem - Oriented Guides for Police Series No. 13 E ) 11 P anhandlin.0-- 7 bY Michael S. Scott Problem - Oriented Guides for Police Series Guide No. 13 Panhandling Michael S. Scott This project was supported by cooperative agreement #99- CK -WX- K004 by the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, U.S. Department of Justice. The opinions contained herein are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the official position of the U.S. Department of Justice. www.cops.usdoj.gov About the Guide Series I i About the Guide Series The Problem - Oriented Guides for Police summarize knowledge about how police can reduce the harm caused by specific crime and disorder problems. They are guides to prevention and to improving the overall response to incidents, not to investigating offenses or handling specific incidents. The guides are written for police —of whatever rank or assignment—who must address the specific problem the guides cover. The guides will be most useful to officers who Understand basic problem- oriented policing principles and methods. The guides are not primers in problem - oriented policing. They deal only briefly with the initial decision to focus on a particular problem, methods to analyze the problem, and means to assess the results of a problem - oriented policing project. They are designed to help police decide how best to analyze and address a problem they have already identified. (An assessment guide has been produced as a companion to this series and the COPS Office has also published an introductory guide to problem analysis. For those who want to learn more about the principles and methods of problem- oriented policing, the assessment and analysis guides, along with other recommended readings, are listed at the back of this guide.) Can look at a problem in depth. Depending on the complexity of the problem, you should be prepared to spend perhaps weeks, or even months, analyzing and responding to it. Carefully studying a problem before responding helps you design the right strategy, one that is most likely to work in your community. You should not blindly adopt the responses others have used; you must decide whether they are appropriate to your local situation. What is true in one place may not be true elsewhere; what works in one place may not work everywhere. ii I Panhandling • Are willing to consider new ways of doing police business. The guides describe responses that other police departments have used or that researchers have tested. While not all of these responses will be appropriate to your particular problem, they should help give a broader view of the kinds of things you could do. You may think you cannot implement some of these responses in your jurisdiction, but perhaps you can. In many places, when police have discovered a more effective response, they have succeeded in having laws and policies changed, improving the response to the problem. • Understand the value and the limits of research knowledge. For some types of problems, a lot of useful research is available to the police; for other problems, little is available. Accordingly, some guides in this series summarize existing research whereas other guides illustrate the need for more research on that particular problem. Regardless, research has not provided definitive answers to all the questions you might have about the problem. The research may help get you started in designing your own responses, but it cannot tell you exactly what to do. This will depend greatly on the particular nature of your local problem. In the interest of keeping the guides readable, not every piece of relevant research has been cited, nor has every point been attributed to its sources. To have done so would have overwhelmed and distracted the reader. The references listed at the end of each guide are those drawn on most heavily; they are not a complete bibliography of research on the subject. • Are willing to work with other community agencies to find effective solutions to the problem. The police alone cannot implement many of the responses discussed in the guides. They must frequently implement them in partnership with other responsible private and public entities. An effective problem - solver must know how to forge genuine About the Guide Series I iii partnerships with others and be prepared to invest considerable effort in making these partnerships work. These guides have drawn on research findings and police practices in the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Netherlands, and Scandinavia. Even though laws, customs and police practices vary from country to country, it is apparent that the police everywhere experience common problems. In a world that is becoming increasingly interconnected, it is important that police be aware of research and successful practices beyond the borders of their own countries. The COPS Office and the authors encourage you to provide feedback on this guide and to report on your own agency's experiences dealing with a similar problem. Your agency may have effectively addressed a problem using responses not considered in these guides and your experiences and knowledge could benefit others. This information will be used to update the guides. If you wish to provide feedback and share your experiences it should be sent via e -mail to cops—pubs@usdoj.gov. Acknowledgments I v Acknowledgments The Problem - Oriented Guides for Police series is very much a collaborative effort. While each guide has a primary author, other project team members, COPS Office staff and anonymous peer reviewers contributed to each guide by proposing text, recommending research and offering suggestions on matters of format and style. The principal project team developing the guide series comprised Herman Goldstein, professor emeritus, University of Wisconsin Law School; Ronald V. Clarke, professor of criminal justice, Rutgers University; John E. Eck, associate professor of criminal justice, University of Cincinnati; Michael S. Scott, police consultant, Savannah, Ga.; Rana Sampson, police consultant, San Diego; and Deborah Lamm Weisel, director of police research, North Carolina State University. Karin Schmerler, Rita Varano and Nancy Leach oversaw the project for the COPS Office. Megan Tate Murphy coordinated the peer reviews for the COPS Office. Suzanne Fregly edited the guides. Research for the guides was conducted at the Criminal Justice Library at Rutgers University under the direction of Phyllis Schultze by Gisela Bichler- Robertson, Rob Guerette and Laura Wyckoff. The project team also wishes to acknowledge the members of the San Diego, National City and Savannah police departments who provided feedback on the guides' format and style in the early stages of the project, as well as the line police officers, police executives and researchers who peer reviewed each guide. Contents I vii Contents About the Guide Series ................. ............................... i Acknowledgments ...................... ..............................v The Problem of Panhandling .............. .............................. Related Problems ............................... 3 ................. Factors Contributing to Panhandling ... ............................... 4 Whether Panhandling Intimidates Passersby ........................ 4 Who the Panhandlers Are ........ ............................... 5 Who Gets Panhandled and Who Gives Money to Panhandlers ........... 7 Where and When Panhandling Commonly Occurs .................... 8 Panhandlers................... 10 Economics of Panhandling ...................................... Location/Time .................. Economic, Social and Legal Factors That Influence Panhandling Levels ...11 Understanding Your Local Problem ......... ............................. Responses to the Problem of Panhandling .... .............................17 General Considerations for an Effective Response Strategy ................17 Asking the Right Questions ........... ............................. Complainants and Donors ......... ............................. Public Education Responses ......... ............................... Panhandlers................... ............................. Location/Time .................. ............................. 29 Response With Limited Effectiveness . ............................... Current Response ............... ............................. Measuring Your Effectiveness ......... .............................15 Responses to the Problem of Panhandling .... .............................17 General Considerations for an Effective Response Strategy ................17 Enforcement Responses .............. ............................. 24 Public Education Responses ......... ............................... Situational Responses ...... ....... ............................. 28 Social Services/Treatment Response .. ............................... 29 Response With Limited Effectiveness . ............................... viii I Panhandling Appendix A: Summary of Responses to Panhandling ............................... 31 Appendix B: Selected Court Cases on Panhandling . ............................... 35 Endnotes................................... .............................37 References.................................. .............................43 About the Author ............................. .............................51 Recommended Readings ....................... .............................53 Other Guides in This Series ................... ............................... 57 The Problem of Panhandling I 1 The Problem of Panhandling This guide addresses the problem of panhandling.t It also covers nearly equivalent conduct in which, in exchange for donations, people perform nominal labor such as squeegeeing (cleaning) the windshields of cars stopped in traffic, holding car doors open, saving parking spaces, guarding parked cars, buying subway tokens, and carrying luggage or groceries. The guide begins by describing the panhandling problem and reviewing factors that contribute to it. It then identifies a series of questions that might help you in analyzing your local problem. Finally, it reviews responses to the problem, and what is known about those responses from evaluative research and police practice. Generally, there are two types of panhandling: passive and aggressive. Passive panhandling is soliciting without threat or menace, often without any words exchanged at all —just a cup or a hand held out. Aggressive panhandling is soliciting coercively, with actual or implied threats, or menacing actions. If a panhandler uses physical force or extremely aggressive actions, the panhandling may constitute robbery. Isolated incidents of passive panhandling are usually a low police priority.' In many jurisdictions, panhandling is not even illegal. Even where it is illegal, police usually tolerate passive panhandling, for both legal and practical reasons.' Courts in some jurisdictions have ruled that passive panhandling is constitutionally protected activity. Police can reasonably conclude that, absent citizen complaints, their time is better spent addressing more serious problems. Whether panhandling and other forms of street disorder cause or contribute to more serious crime —the broken windows T "Panhandling," a common term in the United States, is more often referred to as "begging" elsewhere, or occasionally, as "cadging." "Panhandlers" are variously referred to as "beggars," "vagrants," "vagabonds," "mendicants," or "cadgers." The term "panhandling" derives either from the impression created by someone holding out his or her hand (as a pan's handle sticks out from the pan) or from the image of someone using a pan to collect money (as gold miners in the American West used pans to sift for gold). 2 I Panhandling tt In one study, 50 percent of Police must also be concerned with the welfare of panhandlers claimed to have been panhandlers who are vulnerable to physical and verbal assault mugged within the past year (Goldstein 1993). by other panhandlers, street robberstt or passersby who react violently to being panhandled.' Panhandlers often claim certain spots as their own territory, and disputes and fights over territory are not uncommon.' Broadly speaking, public policy perspectives on panhandling are of two types —the sympathetic view and the unsympathetic view. The sympathetic view, commonly but not unanimously held by civil libertarians and homeless advocates, is that panhandling is essential to destitute people's survival, and should not be regulated by police.' Some even view panhandling as a poignant expression of the plight of the needy, and an opportunity for the more fortunate to help.' The unsympathetic view is that panhandling is a blight that contributes to further community disorder and crime, as well as to panhandlers' degradation and deterioration as their underlying problems go unaddressed. Those holding this view believe panhandling should be heavily regulated by police. People's opinions about panhandling are rooted in deeply held beliefs about individual liberty, public order and social thesis —is hotly debated, but the debate is as yet unsettled.' Panhandling becomes a higher police priority when it becomes aggressive or so pervasive that its cumulative effect, t Business owners who work on site even when done passively, is to make passersby apprehensive.' are most likely to call police. Employees, especially younger Panhandling is of greater concern to merchants who worry employees, are less likely to do so that their customers will be discouraged from patronizing because they have less at stake if their business. Merchants are most likely to call police when panhandling disrupts business (Goldstein 1993). panhandling disrupts their commerce."t tt In one study, 50 percent of Police must also be concerned with the welfare of panhandlers claimed to have been panhandlers who are vulnerable to physical and verbal assault mugged within the past year (Goldstein 1993). by other panhandlers, street robberstt or passersby who react violently to being panhandled.' Panhandlers often claim certain spots as their own territory, and disputes and fights over territory are not uncommon.' Broadly speaking, public policy perspectives on panhandling are of two types —the sympathetic view and the unsympathetic view. The sympathetic view, commonly but not unanimously held by civil libertarians and homeless advocates, is that panhandling is essential to destitute people's survival, and should not be regulated by police.' Some even view panhandling as a poignant expression of the plight of the needy, and an opportunity for the more fortunate to help.' The unsympathetic view is that panhandling is a blight that contributes to further community disorder and crime, as well as to panhandlers' degradation and deterioration as their underlying problems go unaddressed. Those holding this view believe panhandling should be heavily regulated by police. People's opinions about panhandling are rooted in deeply held beliefs about individual liberty, public order and social The Problem of Panhandling I 3 responsibility. Their opinions are also shaped by their actual exposure to panhandling —the more people are panhandled, the less sympathetic they are toward panhandlers. While begging is discouraged on most philosophical grounds and by most major religions, many people feel torn about whether to give money to panhandlers." Some people tolerate all sorts of street disorder, while others are genuinely frightened by it. This tension between opposing viewpoints will undoubtedly always exist. This guide takes a more neutral stance: without passing judgment on the degree of sympathy owed to panhandlers, it recognizes that police will always be under some pressure to control panhandling, and that there are effective and fair ways to do so. Related Problems Panhandling and its variants are only one form of disorderly street conduct and street crime about which police are concerned. Other forms —not directly addressed in this guide — include: • disorderly conduct of day laborers; • disorderly conduct of public inebriates (e.g., public intoxication, public drinking, public urination and defecation, harassment, intimidation, and passing out in public places); • disorderly conduct of transients /homeless (e.g., public camping, public urination and defecation, and sleeping on sidewalks and benches, and in public libraries); • disorderly youth in public places; • harassment (usually sexual) of female pedestrians; • pickpocketing; • purse snatching; • robbery at automated teller machines (ATMs); • trash picking (for food or to salvage aluminum cans and bottles); 4 I Panhandling t In some instances, there is a fine distinction between panhandlers who use brief entertainment as part of their solicitation and more - accomplished street musicians, jugglers, mimes, and other skilled entertainers. • unlicensed street entertainments and • unlicensed street vending (also referred to as illegal peddling). Some of these other forms of disorderly street conduct may also be attributable to panhandlers, but this is not necessarily so. These problems overlap in various ways, and a local analysis of them will be necessary to understand how they do. Factors Contributing to Panhandling Understanding the factors that contribute to your panhandling problem will help you frame your own local analysis questions, determine good effectiveness measures, recognize key intervention points, and select appropriate responses. Whether Panhandling Intimidates Passersby Panhandling intimidates some people, even causing some to avoid areas where they believe they will be panhandled." One - third of San Franciscans surveyed said they gave money to panhandlers because they felt pressured, and avoided certain areas because of panhandling; nearly 40 percent expressed concern for their safety around panhandlers. But most studies conclude that intentional aggressive panhandling is rare, largely because panhandlers realize that using aggression reduces their income, and is more likely to get them arrested or otherwise draw police attention to them." Whether panhandling intimidates passersby depends, of course, on how aggressive or menacing the panhandler is, but it also depends on the context in which panhandling occurs. In other words, an act of panhandling in one context might The Problem of Panhandling I 5 not be intimidating, but the same behavior in a different context might. Among the contextual factors that influence how intimidating panhandling is are: • the time of day (nighttime panhandling is usually more intimidating than daytime panhandling); • the ease with which people can avoid panhandlers (panhandling is more likely to intimidate motorists stuck in traffic than it is those who can drive away); • the degree to which people feel especially vulnerable (for example, being panhandled near an ATM makes some people feel more vulnerable to being robbed); • the presence of other passersby (most people feel safer when there are other people around); • the physical appearance of the panhandler (panhandlers who appear to be mentally ill, intoxicated or otherwise disoriented are most likely to frighten passersby because their conduct seems particularly unpredictable); " • the reputation of the panhandler (panhandlers known to be aggressive or erratic are more intimidating than those not known to be so); • the characteristics of the person being solicited (the elderly tend to be more intimidated by panhandlers because they are less sure of their ability to defend themselves from attack); • the number of panhandlers (multiple panhandlers working together are more intimidating than a lone panhandler); and • the volume of panhandling (the more panhandlers present in an area, the more intimidating and bothersome panhandling will seem). Who the Panhandlers Are Typically, relatively few panhandlers account for most complaints to police about panhandling. The typical profile of a panhandler that emerges from a number of studies is that of an unemployed, unmarried male in his 30s or 40s, with substance abuse problems, few family ties, a high school 6 I Panhandling Most studies conclude that panhandlers make rational economic choices —that is, they look to make money in the most efficient way possible. Panhandlers develop their "sales pitches," and sometimes compete with one another for the rights to a particular sales pitch 2 Their sales pitches are usually, though not always, fraudulent in some respect. Some panhandlers will admit to passersby that they want money to buy alcohol (hoping candor will win them favor), though few will admit they intend to buy illegal drugs 2 Many panhandlers make it a habit to always be polite and appreciative, even when they are refused. Given the frequent hostility they experience, maintaining their composure can be a remarkable psychological feat. Panhandlers usually give some consideration to their physical appearance: they must balance looking needy against looking too offensive or threatening.31 education, and laborer's skills. Some observers have noted that younger people —many of whom are runaways or otherwise transient—are turning to panhandling. , t A high t In many less - developed countries, percentage of panhandlers in U.S. urban areas are African - children commonly beg to support themselves and their families, a American. Some panhandlers suffer from mental illness, but phenomenon less common in the most do not.' Many panhandlers have criminal records, but United States and other more highly developed countries. panhandlers are nearly as likely to have been crime victims as offenders. Some are transient, but most have been in their tt Definitions of homelessness vary, community for a long time." but at a minim most studies have found that few panhandlers routinely sleep outdoors at night. See, Contrary to common belief, panhandlers and homeless people however, Burke (1998) for evidence are not necessarily one and the same. Many studies have that a high percentage of the panhandlers in Leicester, England, found that only a small percentage of homeless people have been homeless. panhandle, and only a small percentage of panhandlers are homeless. Most studies conclude that panhandlers make rational economic choices —that is, they look to make money in the most efficient way possible. Panhandlers develop their "sales pitches," and sometimes compete with one another for the rights to a particular sales pitch 2 Their sales pitches are usually, though not always, fraudulent in some respect. Some panhandlers will admit to passersby that they want money to buy alcohol (hoping candor will win them favor), though few will admit they intend to buy illegal drugs 2 Many panhandlers make it a habit to always be polite and appreciative, even when they are refused. Given the frequent hostility they experience, maintaining their composure can be a remarkable psychological feat. Panhandlers usually give some consideration to their physical appearance: they must balance looking needy against looking too offensive or threatening.31 The Problem of Panhandling 1 7 Kip Kellogg t Ninety percent of San Franciscans surveyed reported having been panhandled within the past year (Kelling and Coles 1996). Most panhandlers are not interested in regular employment, particularly not minimum -wage labor, which many believe would scarcely be more profitable than panhandling. Some panhandlers' refusal to look for regular employment is better explained by their unwillingness or inability to commit to regular work hours, often because of substance abuse problems. Some panhandlers buy food with the money they receive, because they dislike the food served in shelters and soup kitchens." Who Gets Panhandled and Who Gives Money to Panhandlers In some communities, nearly everyone who routinely uses public places has been panhandled .t Many who get panhandled are themselves people of modest means. Wealthy citizens can more readily avoid public places where panhandling occurs, whether consciously, to avoid the nuisances of the street, or Some panhandlers hope that candor will increase donations. Here, a panhandler's donation box reveals that the money will be spent on beer as well as on food. 8 I Panhandling merely because their lifestyles do not expose them to public places. Estimates of the percentage of people who report that they give money to panhandlers range from 10 to 60 percent. The percentage of college students who do so (between 50 and 60 percent) tends to be higher than that of the general population. There is some evidence that women and minorities tend to give more freely to panhandlers. Male- female couples are attractive targets for panhandlers because the male is likely to want to appear compassionate in front of the female. Panhandlers more commonly target women than men, but some find that lone women are not suitable targets because they are more likely to fear having their purses snatched should they open them to get change. Conventioneers and tourists are good targets for panhandlers because they are already psychologically prepared to spend money. Diners and grocery shoppers are good targets because dining and grocery shopping remind them of the contrast between their relative wealth and panhandlers' apparent poverty. Regular panhandlers try to cultivate regular donors; some even become acquaintances, if not friends. Where and When Panhandling Commonly Occurs Panhandlers need to go where the money is. In other words, they need to panhandle in communities and specific locations where the opportunities to collect money are best—where there are a lot of pedestrians or motorists, especially those who are most likely to have money and to give it. Panhandling is more common in communities that provide a high level of social services to the needy, because the same citizens who support social services are also likely to give money directly to panhandlers; panhandlers are drawn to communities where both free social services and generous passersby are plentiful. With respect to specific locations, panhandlers prefer to panhandle where passersby cannot The Problem of Panhandling I 9 readily avoid them, although doing so can make passersby feel more intimidated.' Among the more common, specific panhandling locations are the following: • near ATMs, parking meters and telephone booths (because ATM users, motorists and callers are less likely to say they do not have any money to give); • near building entrances /exits and public restrooms with a lot of pedestrian traffic; • on or near college campuses (because students tend to be more sympathetic toward panhandlers); • near subway, train and bus station entrances /exits (because of high pedestrian traffic, and because public transportation users are likely to be carrying cash to buy tickets or tokens); • on buses and subway trains (because riders are a "captive audience "); • near places that provide panhandlers with shade and shelter from bad weather (such as doorways, alcoves and alleys in commercial districts); • in front of convenience stores, restaurants and grocery stores (because panhandlers' claims to be buying food or necessities for them or their children seem more plausible, and because shoppers and diners often feel especially fortunate and generous); • at gas stations (because panhandlers' claims that they need money for gas or to repair their vehicle seem more plausible); • at freeway exits /entrances (because motorists will be stopped or traveling slowly enough to be able to give money); • on crowded sidewalks (because it is easier for panhandlers to blend in with the crowd should the police appear); • at intersections with traffic signals (because motorists will be stopped); and • near liquor stores and drug markets (so the panhandlers do not have to travel far to buy alcohol or drugs).' 10 I Panhandling There are typically daily, weekly, monthly, and seasonal patterns to panhandling; that is, panhandling levels often follow fairly predictable cycles, which vary from community to community. For example, panhandling may increase during winter months in warm - climate communities as transients migrate there from cold - weather regions. Panhandling levels often drop around the dates government benefits are distributed, because those panhandlers who receive benefits have the money they need. Once that money runs out, they resume panhandling.` Panhandling on or near college campuses often follows the cycles of students' going to and coming from classes. There are usually daily lulls in panhandling when those panhandlers who are chronic inebriates or drug addicts go off to drink or take drugs. Regular panhandlers keep fairly routine schedules, typically panhandling for four to six hours a day.' Economics of Panhandling Most evidence confirms that panhandling is not lucrative, although some panhandlers clearly are able to subsist on a combination of panhandling money, government benefits, private charity, and money from odd jobs such as selling scavenged materials or plasma. How much money a panhandler can make varies depending on his or her skill and personal appeal, as well as on the area in which he or she solicits. Estimates vary from a couple of dollars (U.S.) a day on the low end, to $20 to $50 a day in the mid -range, to about $300 a day on the high end. Women — especially those who have children with them —and panhandlers who appear to be disabled tend to receive more money. For this reason, some panhandlers pretend to be disabled and /or war veterans. Others use pets as a means of evoking sympathy from passersby. Panhandlers' regular donors can account for up to half their receipts." The Problem of Panhandling I 11 Panhandlers spend much of their money on alcohol, drugs and tobacco, although some money does go toward food, transportation and toiletries." Panhandlers rarely save any money, partly because they risk having it stolen, and partly because their primary purpose is to immediately buy alcohol or drugs." Economic, Social and Legal factors That Influence Panhandling Levels Broad economic, social and legal factors influence the overall level of panhandling, as well as community tolerance of it." Tolerance levels appear to have declined significantly during the 1990s, at least in the United States, leading to increased pressure on police to control panhandling. The state of the economy, at the local, regional and even national level, affects how much panhandling occurs. As the economy declines, panhandling increases. As government benefit programs become more restrictive, panhandling increases. At least as important as economic factors, if not more so, are social factors. The stronger the social bonds and social network on which indigent people can rely for emotional and financial support, the less likely they are to panhandle. Thus, the weakening of social bonds throughout society affects the indigent most negatively. As substance abuse levels rise in society, as, for example, during the crack epidemic, so too do panhandling levels. As the skid rows in urban centers are redeveloped, the indigent people who live there move to areas where their panhandling is less tolerated. As people with mental illnesses are increasingly released into the community, often without adequate follow -up care, panhandling also increases. Where there are inadequate detoxification and substance -abuse treatment facilities, panhandling is high." As courts strike down laws that 12 I Panhandling authorize police to regulate public disorder, and as police are less inclined to enforce such laws, panhandling flourishes. Arrest and incarceration rates may also affect panhandling levels: convicted offenders often have difficulty getting jobs after release, and some inevitably turn to panhandling." Understanding Your Local Problem 1 13 Understanding Your Local Problem The information provided above is only a generalized description of panhandling. You must combine the basic facts with a more specific understanding of your local problem. Analyzing the local problem carefully will help you design a more effective response strategy. Asking the Right Questions The following are some critical questions you should ask in analyzing your particular panhandling problem, even if the answers are not always readily available. Your answers to these and other questions will help you choose the most appropriate set of responses later on. Comp lainants and Donors (Surveys of citizens and beat police officers will likely be necessary to gather information about complaints and complainants, as well as about donors. Most complaints about panhandling are not formally registered with police.) • To what extent does panhandling bother or intimidate others? How many complaints do police receive ?t Do a few people account for many complaints, or do many people complain? Are complaints filed with other organizations (business /neighborhood associations)? • Who are the complainants? Merchants? Shoppers? Workers? Students? • Does panhandling alter people's behavior and routines (e.g., do people avoid certain areas or stores)? • What are the particular complaints? That panhandlers act aggressively, or that all panhandling is bothersome? • What do complainants suggest should be done to control panhandling? T Analyzing calls for service related to panhandling is important, but it can be time- consuming because, in many police agencies, such calls are classified under broad categories such as "disturbance" or "suspicious person," categories that encompass a wide range of behavior. It might be worthwhile to develop more -spec call categories, so future problem analysis will be easier. 14 I Panhandling • What percentage of passersby give money to panhandlers? • Why do people say they give money to panhandlers? What do they believe the panhandlers use the money for? Panhandlers (Surveys of suspected panhandlers, data from agencies that serve the needy, and discussions with beat police officers can help you answer the following questions. This information can help you determine whether there are clusters of panhandlers with similar characteristics. Different responses might be warranted for different types of panhandlers.) How many panhandlers are in the area? How many are regulars? How many are occasional? What is known about the regular panhandlers? What is their age, race, gender, family status, employment status, and employment history? Are they substance abusers? Do they suffer from mental illness? Do they have criminal records or a history of criminal victimization? Where do they live (in shelters, private homes, on the streets)? How many of the panhandlers are transient? How many are new to the area? How many are longtime residents? Do the panhandlers know about and use social services in the area (e.g., shelters, soup kitchens, job training, substance abuse treatment)? LocationlTime • Where does panhandling commonly occur? In parks, plazas and squares? On sidewalks? Near ATMs? Near public transportation stops and stations? • What, specifically, makes certain locations especially attractive or unattractive to panhandlers? • When is panhandling most prevalent? Are there daily, weekly, monthly, or seasonal cycles to it? Understanding Your Local Problem I 15 Current Response • How has the panhandling problem previously been handled in your jurisdiction? How is it currently handled? Is the current response adequate and appropriate? • What laws currently regulate panhandling? Are those laws adequate and /or constitutional? • Do the police arrest panhandlers? If so, on what charges? How are the charges processed? Are panhandlers prosecuted? If so, what is the typical sentence? • How do other criminal justice officials (prosecutors, judges, probation officers) view the panhandling problem? Measuring Your Effectiveness Measurement allows you to determine to what degree your efforts have succeeded, and suggests how you might modify your responses if they are not producing the intended results. You should take measures of your problem before you implement responses, to determine how serious the problem is, and after you implement them, to determine whether they have been effective. All measures should be taken in both the target area and the surrounding area. (For more detailed guidance on measuring effectiveness, see the companion Q,,;r1P to this series, Assessing responses to Problems. An Introduch Guide for Police Problem - Solvers.) The following are potentially useful measures of the effectiveness of responses to panhandling: • number of complaints filed with police about panhar • number of complaints filed with other organizations people (e.g., neighborhood /business associations, ele officials) about panhandling; • levels of concern expressed about panhandling (frorr. surveys); 16 I Panhandling T Lankenau (1999) asserts that most panhandlers will likely turn to other illegitimate ways to make money, rather than find regular employment or enter treatment programs. Duneier (1999) states that some panhandlers see crime as one of the few viable alternatives to panhandling. • number of known chronic panhandlers (based on complaints, contacts and arrests); • costs of police response to panhandling complaints; • evidence that panhandling has been displaced to other areas, or is resulting in an increase in other forms of nuisance behavior or crime (e.g., trash scavenging, shoplifting, theft from autos, purse snatching, prostitution, drug dealing);t and • indicators of the economic health of the area beset with panhandling (e.g., property vacancy rates, shoppers' presence, commerce levels, tax receipts, private - security expenditures). Responses to the Problem of Panhandling I 17 Responses to the Problem of Panhandling Your analysis of your local problem should give you a better understanding of the factors contributing to it. Once you have analyzed your local problem and established a baseline for measuring effectiveness, you should consider possible responses to address the problem. The following response strategies provide a foundation of ideas for addressing your particular problem. These strategies are drawn from a variety of research studies and police reports. Several of these strategies may apply to your community's problem. It is critical that you tailor responses to local circumstances, and that you can justify each response based on reliable analysis. In most cases, an effective strategy will involve implementing several different responses. Law enforcement responses alone are seldom effective in reducing or solving the problem. Do not limit yourself to considering what police can do: give careful consideration to who else in your community shares responsibility for the problem and can help police better respond to it. General Considerations for an Effective Response Strategy Most researchers and practitioners seem to agree that the enforcement of laws prohibiting panhandling plays only a part in controlling the problem. Public education to discourage people from giving money to panhandlers, informal social control and adequate social services (especially alcohol and drug treatment) for panhandlers are the other essential components of an effective and comprehensive response. 18 I Panhandling t Goldstein's (1993) study of panhandling in New Haven, Conn., provides an excellent example of how panhandling is controlled through informal means. Duneier s (1999) study of New York City street vendors, scavengers and panhandlers also provides an exceptional example of informal social control on the street. Panhandling, like many other forms of street disorder, is controlled more through informal means than through formal enforcement.t Panhandlers, merchants, passersby, social workers, and police beat officers form an intricate social network of mutual support and regulation. They all have something to gain by cooperating with one another (and, consequently, to lose by not cooperating with one another). Panhandlers obviously gain money, food and some social interaction from their activity; they risk losing them if they act too disorderly. Merchants will usually tolerate some panhandling, though seldom directly in front of their businesses. Some merchants even give panhandlers food or hire them to do odd jobs such as wash store windows. Passersby gain freedom from the harassment and intimidation of persistent and menacing panhandlers, along with the positive feelings they experience from truly voluntary charity. Social workers are more likely to be able to help those street people who are not frequently arrested for panhandling. Police beat officers can cultivate panhandlers as informants, helping the officers stay current with what is happening on the street. Enforcement Responses Whether or not you emphasize enforcement of laws that regulate panhandling, it is important that the laws be able to survive legal challenge. Police should have valid enforcement authority to bolster other responses they use, including issuing warnings to panhandlers. Laws that prohibit aggressive panhandling or panhandling in specified areas are more likely to survive legal challenge than those that prohibit all panhandling. If enforcement of panhandling laws will be a key component of your strategy, and if you think the Responses to the Problem of Panhandling I 19 panhandling laws you rely on are vulnerable to legal challenge (or if you want to draft a new panhandling law), you should consult legal counsel to help you draft and propose new legislation. There are a number of model panhandling ordinances" and legal commentaries on the constitutionality of panhandling laws" in the literature. See Appendix B for a list and brief summary of some of the leading cases on the constitutionality of panhandling and laws that regulate it. Warning panhandlers and ordering them to "move along" are perhaps the most common police responses to panhandling." Many police beat officers develop working relationships with regular panhandlers; they use a mix of formal and informal approaches to keeping panhandling under control. Most officers do not view panhandling as a serious matter, and are reluctant to devote the time necessary to arrest and book offenders. Moreover, even when they have the authority to issue citations and release the offenders, most officers realize that panhandlers are unlikely to either appear in court or pay a fine. Prosecutors are equally unlikely to prosecute panhandling cases, typically viewing them as an unwise use of scarce prosecutorial resources." Panhandler arrests are rare,` but when they occur, this is the typical scenario: An officer issues a panhandler a summons or citation that sets a court date or specifies a fine. The panhandler fails to appear in court or fails to pay the fine. A warrant is issued for the panhandler's arrest. The police later arrest the panhandler after running a warrant check during a subsequent encounter. The panhandler is incarcerated for no more than a couple of days, sentenced to time already served by the court, and released. t Goldstein (1993) estimated that police made arrests for panhandling in only about 1 percent of all police - panhandler encounters. 20 I Panhandling 1. Prohibiting aggressive panhandling. Laws that prohibit aggressive panhandling are more likely to survive legal challenge than laws that prohibit all panhandling, and are therefore to be encouraged. A growing number of jurisdictions have enacted aggressive - panhandling laws, most within the past 10 years.tt Enforcing aggressive - panhandling laws can be difficult, partly because few panhandlers behave aggressively, and partly because many victims of aggressive panhandling do not report the offense to police or are unwilling to file a complaint. Police can use proactive enforcement methods such as having officers serve as decoys, giving panhandlers the opportunity to panhandle them aggressively. Some agencies have provided officers with special legal training before enforcing aggressive - panhandling laws. Enforcing other laws panhandlers commonly violate —those regarding drinking in public, trespassing, disorderly conduct, etc. —can help control some aspects of the panhandling problem. Because prosecutors and judges are unlikely to view isolated panhandling cases as serious matters, it is advisable to prepare and present to the court some background information on t British antisocial behavior orders panhandling's overall impact on the community. A problem - axe similar in some respects to American restraining and nuisance impact statement can help prosecutors and judges understand abatement orders. the overall negative effect the seemingly minor offense of panhandling is having on the community." In the United it Among the jurisdictions to have Kingdom, police can apply to the courts for an �� antisocial enacted aggressive - panhandling laws are the states of Hawaii and behavior order" against individuals or groups as one means of California, and the cities of San controlling their persistent low -level offending." Violations of Francisco; Seattle; Minneapolis; Albuquerque, N.M.; Atlanta; the orders can result in relatively severe jail sentences.t It is Baltimore; Cincinnati; Dallas; Tulsa, unknown how effective the orders have been in controlling Okla.; and Washington, D.C. panhandling. 1. Prohibiting aggressive panhandling. Laws that prohibit aggressive panhandling are more likely to survive legal challenge than laws that prohibit all panhandling, and are therefore to be encouraged. A growing number of jurisdictions have enacted aggressive - panhandling laws, most within the past 10 years.tt Enforcing aggressive - panhandling laws can be difficult, partly because few panhandlers behave aggressively, and partly because many victims of aggressive panhandling do not report the offense to police or are unwilling to file a complaint. Police can use proactive enforcement methods such as having officers serve as decoys, giving panhandlers the opportunity to panhandle them aggressively. Some agencies have provided officers with special legal training before enforcing aggressive - panhandling laws. Enforcing other laws panhandlers commonly violate —those regarding drinking in public, trespassing, disorderly conduct, etc. —can help control some aspects of the panhandling problem. Responses to the Problem of Panhandling 1 21 Police need not heavily enforce aggressive - panhandling laws in order to control panhandling; the informal norms among most panhandlers discourage aggressive panhandling anyway. Panhandlers exercise some influence over one another's behavior, to minimiz complaints and keep police from intervening -" Enforcing aggressive - panhandling laws can serve to reinforce the informal norms because aggressive panhandling by the few makes panhandling less profitable for others." Aggressive - panhandling laws typically include the following specific prohibitions: • confronting someone in a way that would cause a reasonable person to fear bodily harm; • touching someone without his or her consent; • continuing to panhandle or follow someone after he or she has refused to give money; • intentionally blocking or interfering with the safe passage of a person or vehicle; • using obscene or abusive language toward someone while attempting to panhandle him or her; and • acting with intent to intimidate someone into giving money. 78 2. Prohibiting panhandling in specified areas. Many courts have held that laws can restrict where panhandling occurs. Panhandlers are increasingly being prohibited from panhandling: • near ATMs; • on public transportation vehicles and near stations and stops; 22 I Panhandling • near business entrances /exits; • on private property, if posted by the owner; and • on public beaches and boardwalks. One legal commentator has proposed a novel approach to regulating panhandling: zoning laws that would strictly prohibit panhandling in some areas, allow limited panhandling in other areas, and allow almost all panhandling in yet other areas. The literature does not report any jurisdiction that has adopted this approach as a matter of law, though clearly, police officers informally vary their enforcement depending on community tolerance levels in different parts of their jurisdiction. Kip Kellogg 3. Prohibiting interference with pedestrians or vehicles. Some jurisdictions have enacted laws that specifically prohibit impeding pedestrians' ability to walk either by standing or by lying down in the way. Enforcement can be difficult where such laws require police to establish the panhandler's intent to panhandling in specified areas. Responses to the Problem of Panhandling I 23 obstruct others. The city of Seattle drafted a law that eliminated the need to establish intent, and that law survived a legal challenge. Where panhandling occurs on roads, as car window- washing usually does, enforcing laws that prohibit interfering with motor vehicle traffic can help control the problem. 4. Banning panhandlers from certain areas as a condition of probation. Because panhandling's viability depends so heavily on good locations, banning troublesome panhandlers from those locations as a condition of probation, at least temporarily, might serve to discourage them from panhandling and, perhaps, compel them to consider legitimate employment or substance abuse treatment. Convicted panhandlers might also be temporarily banned from publicly funded shelters. Alternatively, courts could use civil injunctions and restraining orders to control chronic panhandlers' conduct, although actual use of this approach does not appear in the literature. Obviously, police will require prosecutors' endorsements and judicial approval to advance these sorts of responses. 5. Sentencing convicted panhandlers to appropriate community service. Some jurisdictions have made wide use of community service sentences tailored to the particular offender and offense." For example, officers in St. Louis asked courts to sentence chronic panhandlers to community service cleaning the streets, sidewalks and alleys in the area where they panhandled." G. Requiring panhandlers to obtain solicitation permits. Some cities, including Wilmington, Del., and New Orleans, have at some time required panhandlers and window washers to obtain solicitation permits, just as permits are required from street vendors and others who solicit money in public.` t Licensing schemes for beggars reportedly have existed in England as far back as 1530 (Teir 1993). The Criminal Justice Legal Foundation (1994) has published guidance on drafting laws enabling permit systems, though the language seems designed to inhibit panhandling, rather than allow it. 24 1 Panhandling Little is known about the effectiveness of such permit schemes. Public Education Responses 7. Discouraging people from giving money to panhandlers, and encouraging them to give to charities that serve the needy. In all likelihood, if people stopped giving money to panhandlers, panhandling would cease. Public education campaigns are intended to discourage people from giving money to panhandlers. They typically offer three main arguments: 1) panhandlers usually use the money to buy alcohol and drugs, rather than goods and services that will improve their condition; 2) giving panhandlers small amounts of money is insufficient to address the underlying circumstances that cause them to panhandle; and 3) social services are available to meet panhandlers' food, clothing, shelter, health care, and employment needs. Some people do not understand the relationship between panhandling and substance abuse, or are unaware of available social services, however obvious these factors may seem to police. Public education messages have been conveyed via posters, pamphlets, movie trailers, and charity collection points. A poster campaign was an important element of the New York City Transit Authority's effort to control subway panhandling. In Nashville and Memphis, Tenn., special parking meters were used as collection points for charities that serve the needy. Some police officers have invested a lot of their own time making personal appeals to discourage people from giving money to panhandlers. Some cities, such as Evanston, Ill., have hired trained civilians to make such appeals. Not everyone will be persuaded by the appeals; some will undoubtedly perceive them as uncaring. Responses to the Problem of Panhandling I 25 STOP PANHANDLING! Area merchants and the btad:sen Pollee Department ask you to help discourage panhandlin„ In Madison by refusing those who ask for change on the street. By doing this, you wW toster a better environm?nt for all, Avoid supporting what is In many cases an alcoholic and destructive Iilestyle. Basic needs are avallabls through support agencies for tr.Ose who Irish to utilize them and you need not feel guilty when saying no to panhandlers. You are also encouraged to contact the Madison Police dispatcher. 2 -4275, regarding any Ind'vidua' who verbally or physically threatens you in an attempt to obtain money. Such InciOduals are subject to arrest and p csecution. Area merchants wit' assist you in making such contact. Your cooperaticn wD. he'c mainta n a harassment-free, cliTmate in public places Inane city of Madison. City ordinance 24.12. Sponsored by: Greater Stare Street Business Association and the ldbdison PclIce Department igns and flyers, such as this one from Madis Wis., have been used effectively to discourage people from giving money to panhandlers. 8. Using civilian patrols to monitor and discourage panhandling. In Baltimore, a business improvement district group hired police - trained, uniformed, unarmed civilian public - safety guides to intervene in low -level disorder incidents, and to radio police if their warnings were not heeded. Portland, Ore., developed a similar program," as did Evanston.98 26 I Panhandling t The earliest reported program was in Los Angeles. Other cities where voucher programs have been instituted include Berkeley, Santa Cruz and San Francisco, Calif.; Nashville; Memphis; New Haven; Portland, Ore.; Chicago; Seattle; Boulder, Colo.; New York; and Edmonton, Alberta (Ellickson 1996; New York Times 1993; Wall Street Journal 1993). Some communities have considered and rejected voucher programs (Evanston Police Department 1995). 9. Encouraging people to buy and give panhandlers vouchers, instead of money. Some communities have instituted programs whereby people can buy and give panhandlers vouchers redeemable for food, shelter, transportation, or other necessities, but not for alcohol or tobacco.t Typically, a private nonprofit organization prints and sells the vouchers and serves as the broker between buyers and merchants. Some vouchers are printed in a way that makes them difficult to counterfeit. Vouchers are often accompanied with printed information about where they can be redeemed and what social services are available to the needy. Window signs and flyers are commonly used to advertise voucher programs. There is some risk, however, that panhandlers will exchange the vouchers for money through a black market, or that few people will buy the vouchers, as has been reported in some jurisdictions. "' Situational Responses 10. Modifying the physical environment to discourage panhandlers from congregating in the area. Among the environmental features conducive to or facilitating panhandling are the following: access to water (for drinking, bathing and filling buckets for window washing); restrooms; unsecured garbage dumpsters (for scavenging food and sellable materials); and places to sit or he down, protected from the elements. These physical features can be modified to discourage panhandling. Police in Santa Ana, Calif., as part of a larger effort to control aggressive panhandling, persuaded business owners to modify many physical features of their property, to make it less attractive to panhandlers, without inconveniencing customers. A number of police efforts to address broader problems related to transient encampments — problems that included panhandling — entailed Responses to the Problem of Panhandling I 27 removing the transients from the encampments and referring them to social service agencies."' 11. Regulating alcohol sales to chronic inebriates who panhandle in the area. Because many panhandlers are chronic inebriates, and because they spend so much of their panhandling money on alcohol, enforcing laws that prohibit alcohol sales to intoxicated people or chronic inebriates is one means of discouraging panhandling in the area. Several police agencies have reported using this approach in their efforts to control panhandling and other problems related to chronic inebriates. Alternatively, merchants might be persuaded to change their sales practices to discourage panhandlers from shopping at their stores (e.g., by eliminating such products as fortified wine or not selling single containers of beer). 12. Controlling window- washing materials. Several police agencies have reported on ways to control how squeegee men /panhandlers acquire, store and use window- washing materials. Santa Ana police asked nearby businesses to remove an outdoor water fountain that squeegee men were using to fill their buckets."' Vancouver, British Columbia, police discovered where squeegee men stored their buckets and squeegees, and had property owners secure the storage places. They also had gas station owners engrave their squeegee equipment with identifying marks to deter theft by panhandlers. "' 13. Promoting legitimate uses of public places to displace panhandlers. Police in Staffordshire, England, encouraged the municipal authority to promote street musicians in public places where panhandlers abounded, as one means to discourage panhandlers from begging in the area. The underlying logic was that passersby would likely notice the distinction between those who solicit money in 28 1 Panhandling exchange for something pleasant, and those who panhandle but offer nothing in return. Passersby would theoretically be less inclined to give money to panhandlers, thereby discouraging panhandling. Similarly, the New York /New Jersey Port Authority promoted new and attractive businesses in the Manhattan bus terminal as part of a larger strategy to reduce crime and disorder, including panhandling. Complaints about panhandling in the terminal declined by one -third over a four -year period. "' Social Services/Treatment Response 14. Providing adequate social services and substance abuse treatment to reduce panhandlers' need to panhandle. To address some of the underlying problems of many panhandlers (e.g., substance abuse, lack of marketable skills, mental illness, inadequate housing), police may need to advocate new social services, or help coordinate existing services. Police can be and have long been instrumental in advocating and coordinating social services for panhandlers, and in referring people to those services. Fontana, Calif., police coordinated a highly successful program that provided panhandlers and other transients with a wide range of health care, food, job training, and housing placement services. They offered treatment as an alternative to enforcement; they enforced laws regulating street disorder, including panhandling, and transported those willing to accept treatment to the social service center. "' New York /New Jersey Port Authority police did likewise in helping to control panhandling and other forms of crime and disorder in the Port Authority bus terminal in New York City."' Short -term substance -abuse treatment programs, however, are not likely to be effective for most panhandlers —their addictions are too strong —and most who participate in short- Responses to the Problem of Panhandling I 29 term programs quickly revert to their old habits. Unfortunately, long -term programs cost more than most communities are willing to spend. Police could advocate the most chronic offenders' being given priority for long -term treatment programs, or the courts could mandate such programs."' Some social service outreach efforts target those people identified as causing the most problems for the community. In Madison, Wis., detoxification workers even took to the streets to proactively monitor the conduct of their most difficult clients. Some panhandlers will, of course, refuse social service and treatment offers because they are unwilling to make the lifestyle changes usually required to stay in the programs. Response With Limited Effectiveness 15. Enforcing laws that prohibit all panhandling. Many laws that prohibit all panhandling were written long ago and are vaguely and broadly worded: consequently, they are unlikely to survive a legal challenge .t About half of the states and over a third of major cities in America have laws that prohibit all or some forms of panhandling. "' t See Teir (1993) for a discussion of the long history of laws prohibiting and regulating begging. Appendix A: Summary of Responses to Panhandling 1 31 Appendix A: Summary of Responses to Panhandling The table below summarizes the responses to panhandling, the mechanism by which they are intended to work, the conditions under which they ought to work best, and some factors you should consider before implementing a particular response. It is critical that you tailor responses to local circumstances, and that you can justify each response based on reliable analysis. In most cases, an effective strategy will involve implementing several different responses. Law enforcement responses alone are seldom effective in reducing or solving the problem. Response Page No. Response How It Works Considerations No. Works Best If... Enforcement Responses 1. 20 Prohibiting Subjects the most ...the law can Enforcement is aggressive offensive survive legal difficult because panhandling panhandlers to challenge, and few panhandlers crimin penalties; panhandlers are are intentionally reinforces clearly informed aggressive; informal rules of of what officers should be conduct among constitutes legal properly trained panhandlers vs. illegal conduct to make aggressive - panhandling charges 2. 21 Prohibiting Restricts ...the law can Costs associated panhandling in panhandling in survive legal with properly specified areas areas where it is challenge, posting areas most likely to panhandlers are where disrupt commerce clearly informed panhandling is and be of where they prohibited intimidating cannot panhandle, and enforcement is consistent 32 I Panhandling Response Page No. Response How It Works Considerations No. Works Best If... 3. 22 Prohibiting Restricts conduct ...the law can Proving intent to interference with that commonly survive legal interfere with pedestrians or disrupts challenge, and pedestrians can be vehicles commerce and enforcement is difficult intimidates consistent pedestrians; deals directly with window washing by denying window washers access to motorists 4. 23 Banning Denies ...panhandlers are Requires the panhandlers from panhandlers clearly informed cooperation of certain areas as a access to areas of where they prosecutors, judges condition of where cannot go, and and probation probation panhandling is police officers are officials profitable informed of which panhandlers are banned from the area 5. 23 Sentencing Tailors the ...the community Requires the convicted punishment to service is cooperation of panhandlers to the offense; meaningful and prosecutors, judges appropriate makes the properly and corrections community offender consider supervised officials service the impact panhandling has on the community 6. 23 Requiring Discourages ...police officers May be viewed as panhandlers to panhandling are informed of unfair by the public; obtain solicitation through the permit little is known permits procedural requirement and about how effective requirements that consistently this approach is many panhandlers enforce it are unlikely to follow; allows for easier enforcement (no witnesses are required) Appendix A: Summary of Responses to Panhandling 133 Response Page No. Response How It Works Considerations No. I I I Works I Best If... Public Education Responses 7. 9. 24 Discouraging people from giving money to panhandlers, and encouraging them to give to charities that serve the needy 25 Using civilian patrols to monitor and discourage panhandling 26 Encouraging people to buy and give panhandlers vouchers, instead of money Situational Responses 10. 11 26 27 Modifying the physical environment to discourage panhandlers from congregating in the area Regulating alcohol sales to chronic inebriates who panhandle in the area Decreases the supply of money to panhandlers and, consequently, lowers the level of panhandling Increases the level of official monitoring and intervention Restricts panhandlers' ability to buy alcohol and drugs Discourages panhandlers from soliciting in an area by making it less comfortable to do so Forces panhandlers to travel farther to buy alcohol, thereby potentially displacing them from the area ...the message that adequate social services are available is credible, and the message is heavily promoted ...civilian patrollers are properly trained and supported by police ... supported by merchants and the community ...private (and public) property owners understand how the environment can contribute to panhandling ...liquor license holders understand the rationale for liquor law enforcement, and enforcement is consistent May require new investments in social services to make the message credible; advertising and promoting the message incurs costs Salary, training and equipment costs Start -up and administrative costs for the program; a black market may allow panhandlers to convert vouchers to cash, undermining the program; people may not buy vouchers Requires property owners' cooperation; costs of making environmental changes; some risk that changes will also make the area less attractive for lezritimate users Will not address panhandlers who are not chronic inebriates, including drug addicts 34 I Panhandling Response No. 12. 13. Page No. I Response 27 I Controlling window- washing materials 27 Promoting legitimate uses of public places to displace panhandlers How It Works Makes window washing (squeegeeing) more difficult Discourages people from giving money to panhandlers by encouraging them to give to legitimate street solicitors Works Best If... ...property owners cooperate in efforts to control the use of the materials ... passersby approve of and support legitimate street solicitors Considerations Costs (usually modest) of modifying the environment or securing the materials May attract more people to an area, making it more attractive to panhandlers Social Senicesl Treatment Response 14. 28 Providing adequate social services and substance abuse treatment to reduce panhandlers' need to panhandle Response With Limited Effectiveness 15. 29 Enforcing laws that prohibit all panhandling Removes panhandlers' excuses for panhandling; undermines the rationale for giving money to panhandlers; addresses the underlying problems that cause some people to panhandle ...there are outreach efforts to identify and serve panhandlers who will benefit from social services, especially the most chronic offenders; substance -abuse treatment programs are sufficiently long- term to be effective; panhandling enforcement is consistent, to motivate panhandlers to seek legitimate aid; and social services and police efforts are coordinated May require substantial new investments in social services if the community is lacking them Unlikely to survive legal challenge Appendix B: Selected Court Cases on Panhandling 1 35 Appendix B: Selected Court Cases on Panhandling The following are some notable U.S. court cases addressing the constitutionality of panhandling and laws that regulate it. You should consult local legal counsel to determine the state of the law in your jurisdiction. Berkeley Community Health Project v. Berkeley, 902 F. Supp. 1084 (N.D. Cal. 1995) and 966 F. Supp. 941 (N.D. Cal. 1997). Struck down an ordinance that, among other restrictions, banned begging at night. The city subsequently deleted that provision from the ordinance, leaving only an ATM restriction intact. Blair v. Shanahan, 775 F. Supp. 1315 (N.D. Cal. 1991). Struck down a ban on accosting people to beg. The decision was subsequently vacated, 919 F. Supp. 1361 (N.D. Cal. 1996). C.C.B. v. State, 458 So. 2d 47 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1984). Struck down a total ban on begging in public. Carreras v. City of !Anaheim, 768 F. 2d 1039, 1046 (9th Cit. 1985). Held that the California Constitution is broader than the U.S. Constitution in protecting speech; struck down begging ordinances. Chad v. Fort Lauderdale, 861 F. Supp. 1057 (S.D. Fla. 1994). Upheld a ban on begging on the beach and boardwalk. City of Seattle v. Wehster, 802 P. 2d 1333 (Wash. 1990), cert. denied, 111 S. Ct. 1690 (1991). Upheld an ordinance banning sidewalk obstruction. 36 1 Panhandling Doucette v. Santa Monica, 995 R Supp. 1192 (C.D. Cal. 1996). Upheld time, place and manner restrictions on begging. Greater Cincinnati Coalition for the Homeless v. City of Cincinnati, 56 R 3d 710, 714 (6th Cir. 1995). Cites evidence that the enforcement of an anti - begging ordinance reduced the incidence of begging. Loper v. New York City Police Department, 999 F. 2d 699 (2d Cir. 1993). Struck down a ban on loitering for the purposes of begging on city streets. Los Angeles Alliance for Survival v. City of Los Angeles, 157 R 3d 1162 (9th Cir. 1998). Struck down an aggressive - begging ordinance. The California Supreme Court subsequently overturned the lower court's ruling on the constitutionality of the ordinance, sending the case back to the federal district court. State ex rel. Williams v. City Court of Tucson, 520 P. 2d 1166 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1974). Upheld a loitering- for - the - purposes- of- begging ordinance. Ulmer v. Municipal Court for Oakland - Piedmont Judicial District, 55 Cal. App. 3d 263, 127 Cal. Rpt. 445 (1976). Upheld a ban on begging that was later struck down by the Blair court. Young v. New York City Transit Authority, 903 R 2d 146 (2d Cir. 1990). Upheld a ban on begging in the subway. Endnotes I 37 Endnotes ' Cosgrove and Grant (1997). z Burke (2000). s Kelling and Coles (1996, 1994); Kozlowski (1999); Leoussis (1995); Harcourt (1998); Skogan (1990). a Kelling and Coles (1996, 1994); Ellickson (1996); Vancouver Police Department (1999); Fontana Police Department (1998). s Cosgrove and Grant (1997); Lankenau (1999); Goldstein (1993); Fontana Police Department (1998); Manning (2000). Burke (1998); Goldstein (1993); Teir (1993); Lankenau (1999); St. Petersburg Police Department (1997); Manning (2000). ' Goldstein (1993); Vancouver Police Department (1999). s See Ammann (2000); Barta (1999); Burns (1992); Hershkoff position in Hershkoff and Conner (1993); Lankenau (1999); Munzer (1997); Harcourt (1998). 9 Munzer (1997). 70 See Kelling and Coles (1996); Ellickson (1996); Burke (2000); Teir (1998, 1993); Conner position in Hershkoff and Conner (1993); Criminal Justice Legal Foundation (1994). " Wilson (1991). 12 Ellickson (1996). 13 Kelling and Coles (1996); Ellickson (1996). 14 Kelling and Coles (1996). 1s Burke (2000); Lankenau (1999). 16 Kelling and Coles (1996,1994); Kelling (1999). " Goldstein (1993). 18 Ellickson (1996); Goldstein (1993); University of Wisconsin- Madison Department of Police and Security (1997); St. Petersburg Police Department (1997); Alexandria Police Department (1995); Evanston Police Department (1995); Sampson and Scott (2000) (Fort Pierce, Fla., case study); Higdon and Huber (1987) (Dundalk project); Manning (2000). Burke (1998); Stark (1992); Lankenau (1999); Luckenbach and Acosta (1993); Evanston Police Department (1995, n.d.); Goldstein (1993); Santa Ana Police Department (1993); Chicago Dibune (1994); Manning (2000). zo Burke (1998). Z' Lankenau (1999); Goldstein (1993); Luckenbach and Acosta (1993); Evanston Police Department (1995); Duneier (1999). 38 I Panhandling n Goldstein (1993); Cosgrove and Grant (1997); Ellickson (1996); Burke (1998); Luckenbach and Acosta (1993). 23 Goldstein (1993); Luckenbach and Acosta (1993); New York City Police Department (1994); St. Petersburg Police Department (1997); Chicago Tribune (1994); Evanston Police Department (n.d.); Higdon and Huber (1987) (Dundalk project); Manning (2000). 24 Goldstein (1993); St. Petersburg Police Department (1997); University of Wisconsin - Madison Department of Police and Security (1997). 2' Ellickson (1996); Stark (1992); Goldstein (1993). 2G Ellickson (1996); Teir (1998); Goldstein (1993); Fontana Police Department (1998); Chicago Tribune (1994); Manning (2000). 27 Stark (1992). " Burke (1998); Lankenau (1999). 29 Stark (1992). 3' Lankenau (1999); Goldstein (1993). 31 Lankenau (1999); Goldstein (1993). 32 Goldstein (1993); Ellickson (1996). 33 Goldstein (1993); Luckenbach and Acosta (1993). 34 Ellickson (1996); Kelling and Coles (1996); Butterfield (1988). 3' Burns (1992). 36 Stark (1992). 37 Wilson (1991). 38 Stark (1992). 39 Stark (1992); St. Petersburg Police Department (1997). " Ellickson (1996); Burke (1998); Stark (1992); Lankenau (1999); Goldstein (1993); Duneier (1999). 41 Ellickson (1996); Fontana Police Department (1998); University of Wisconsin - Madison Department of Police and Security (1997); Santa Ana Police Department (1993). 42 Leoussis (1995). 43 Stark (1992); Seattle Police Department (2000); Sampson and Scott (2000) (Fort Pierce case study). "Goldstein (1993). 41 University of Wisconsin - Madison Department of Police and Security (1997). 4' Goldstein (1993). 47 Goldstein (1993); Burke (1998); Luckenbach and Acosta (1993); Evanston Police Department (n.d.); Ellickson (1996); Stark (1992); Duneier (1999). 41 Ellickson (1996); Mabry (1994); Goldstein (1993); Luckenbach and Acosta (1993); Manning (2000); Duneier (1999). Endnotes I 39 a� Burns (1992). so Lankenau (1999); Goldstein (1993). 57 Burke (1998); Lankenau (1999); Goldstein (1993); Luckenbach and Acosta (1993). ss Stark (1992); Goldstein (1993). ss Burke (1998); Ellickson (1996). " Burke (1998). " Ellickson (1996). 56 Stark (1992). 57 Kelling and Coles (1996,1994); Teir (1993). 58 Ellickson (1996). S9 Goldstein (1993); Cosgrove and Grant (1997); Ellickson (1996); Evanston Police Department (1995). G0 Ellickson (1996); Goldstein (1993). 61 Teir (1993); Center for the Community Interest (1996); Criminal Justice Legal Foundation (1994). 62 Kelling and Coles (1996); Barta (1999); Ellickson (1996); Delmonico (1996); Kozlowski (1999); Leoussis (1995); Mabry (1994); Mitchell (1994); Nichols (1997); Teir (1998,1993); Walston (1999); Hershkoff and Conner (1993); Munzer (1997). 63 Leoussis (1995). 64 Kelling and Coles (1996); Ellickson (1996). 6s Goldstein (1993). 66 Santa Ana Police Department (1993); Little (1992). G Cosgrove and Grant (1997); Goldstein (1993). be New York City Police Department (1994); Cosgrove and Grant (1997); Ellickson (1996); Burke (1998); Leoussis (1995); Teir (1993); Goldstein (1993). 69 Ammann (2000). 70 St. Petersburg Police Department (1997); Vancouver Police Department (1999); Higdon and Huber (1987) (Dundalk project); Savannah Police Department (1995). 71 Bland and Read (2000). 72 Kelling and Coles (1996); Kelling (1999). 73 Savannah Police Department (1995). 40 I Panhandling 74 Kelling and Coles (1996) (discussing Seattle's response to panhandling); Santa Ana Police Department (1993); Felson et al. (1996). 75 Ellickson (1996); Lankenau (1999); Goldstein (1993). 76 Goldstein (1993). " Burke (2000); Delmonico (1996). 7a Kelling and Coles (1996). Kelling and Coles (1996); Cosgrove and Grant (1997); Ellickson (1996); Mabry (1994); Teir (1998); Kozlowski (1999) (citing a Fort Lauderdale law). eo Ellickson (1996); see Munzer (1997) for a critique of Ellickson's zoning proposal. ai Kelling and Coles (1996) (citing a Seattle law). az Vancouver Police Department (1999); New York City Police Department (1994). a3 University of Wisconsin - Madison Department of Police and Security (1997). 94 Teir (1993). as Ellickson (1996). se Ammann (2000); Harcourt (1998). s7 Heimberger (1992). sa Cosgrove and Grant (1997); Ellick (1996); Mabry (1994); Ybarra (1996); Santa Ana Police Department (1993). a� Ellickson (1996). 90 Manning (2000). Ellickson (1996); Luckenbach and Acosta (1993); Santa Ana Police Department (1993); Vancouver Police Department (1999); Evanston Police Department (1995); Higdon and Huber (1987); Manning (2000); Cosgrove and Grant (1997). 92 Barta (1999); Harcourt (1998). " Ellickson (1996). 94 University of Wisconsin - Madison Department of Police and Security (1997); Sampson and Scott (2000) (Fort Pierce case study). " Evanston Police Department (1995). ` Kelling and Coles (1996). 97 Nkrumah (1998); Egan (1993). Endnotes 141 sa Evanston Police Department (1995). 99 Goldstein (1993). 100 Egan (1993). 701 Burns (1992); Green Bay Police Department (1999); Vancouver Police Department (1999); Sampson and Scott (2000) (Fort Pierce case study); Felson et al. (1996); Duneier (1999). 102 Santa Ana Police Department (1993). 103 Sampson and Scott (2000) (Fort Pierce and San Diego case studies); Santa Ana Police Department (1993); Kelling and Coles (1996) (discussion of San Francisco's Operation Matrix). 104 Seattle Police Department (2000); Alexandria Police Department (1995); Green Bay Police Department (1999); Higdon and Huber (1987) (Dundalk project). 1os Santa Ana Police Department (1993). 10� Vancouver Police Department (1999). 107 Manning (2000). ' Felson et al. (1996). 109 Stark (1992). 110 Bittner (1967); Kelling and Coles (1994); Burke (1998); Goldstein (1993); Little (1992); Sampson and Scott (2000) (Fort Pierce case study); Fontana Police Department (1998); Higdon and Huber (1987) (Dundalk project); Manning (2000); Felson et al. (1996). 11 Fontana Police Department (1998). 112 Felson et al. (1996). 113 Goldstein (1993). 74 Manning (2000). " University of Wisconsin - Madison Department of Police and Security (1997); Manning (2000). "'Manning (2000); Goldstein (1993); Stark (1992); Kelling and Coles (1994); Evanston Police Department (1995). 11 Leoussis (1995); Teir (1998, 1993). References) 43 References Alexandria (Va.) Police Department (1995). "Alexandria Alcohol Interdiction Program." Submission for the Herman Goldstein Award for Excellence in Problem- Oriented Policing. Ammann, J. (2000). "Addressing Quality -of -Life Crimes in Our Cities: Criminalization, Community Courts and Community Compassion." Saint Louis University Law Journal 44:811 -820. Barta, P. (1999). "Giuliani, Broken Windows and the Right To Beg." Georgetown Journal of Poverty Lazy & Policy 6:165 -194. Bittner, E. (1967). "The Police on Skid Row. A Study of Peace Keeping." American Sociological Review 32(5):699 -715. Bland, N., and T. Read (2000). Policing Anti- Social Behaviour. Police Research Series, Paper 123. London: Home Office. Burke, R. (2000). "The Regulation of Begging and Vagrancy: A Critical Discussion." Crime Prevention and Community Safety 2(2):43 -52. (1998). "Begging, Vagrancy and Disorder." In R.H. Burke (ed.), Zero Tolerance Policing. Leicester, England: Perpetuity Press. Burns, M. (1992). "Fearing the Mirror: Responding to Beggars In a 'Kinder and Gentler' America." Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly 19(3):783 -844. Butterfield, F (1988). "New Yorkers Growing Angry Over Aggressive Panhandlers." New York Times, July 28, P. Al 44 1 Panhandling Center for the Community Interest (1996). "Aggressive Panhandling (Model Ordinance)." Washington, D.C.: Center for the Community Interest. www.comrnunityinterest.o.tg/backgrounders /panhandling.htm. Chicago Tribune (1994). "Evanston Fights Panhandlers —With a Smile." May 27, p. 1. Cosgrove, C., and A. Grant (1997). National Survey of Municipal Police Departments on Urban Quality -of- -Life Initiatives. Washington, D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum. Criminal Justice Legal Foundation (1994). A Guide To Regulating Panhandling. Sacramento, Calif.: Criminal Justice Legal Foundation. Delmonico, D. (1996). "Aggressive Panhandling Legislation and the Constitution: Evisceration of Fundamental Rights —Or Valid Restrictions Upon Offensive Conduct ?" Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly 23:557 -590. Duneier, M. (1999). Sidewalk. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Egan, T. (1993). "In 3 Progressive Cities, It's Law vs. Street People." New York Times, Dec. 12. Ellickson, R. (1996). "Controlling Chronic Misconduct in City Spaces: Of Panhandlers, Skid Rows and Public -Space Zoning." Yale Law Journal 105(5):1165 -1248. References 145 Evanston Police Department (1995). "Anti - Panhandling Strategy." Submission for the Herman Goldstein Award for Excellence in Problem- Oriented Policing. Cited in Sampson, R., and M. Scott (2000). Tackling Crime and Other Public - Safety Problems: Case Studies in Problem - Solving. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice. Also published as Mulholland, J., J. Sowa and E. Steinhoff (1997). "Evanston Reduces Aggressive Panhandling by Influencing the Behavior of Givers." Problem - Solving Quarterly 10(1):9 -12. (n.d.). "Panhandling in Evanston: Preliminary Report." Evanston, Ill.: Evanston Police Department. Felson, M., M. Belanger, G. Bichler, C. Bruzinski, G. Campbell, C. Fried, K. Grofik, I. Mazur, A. O'Regan, P. Sweeney, A. Ullman, and L. Williams (1996). "Redesigning Hell: Preventing Crime and Disorder at the Port Authority Bus Terminal." In R. Clarke (ed.), Preventing Mass Transit Crime. Crime Prevention Studies, Vol. 6. Monsey, N.Y.: Criminal Justice Press. Fontana Police Department (1998). "Transient Enrichment Network." Submission for the Herman Goldstein Award for Excellence in Problem - Oriented Policing. Goldstein, B. (1993). "Panhandlers at Yale: A Case Study in the Limits of Law" Indiana Lain Review 27(2):295 -359. Green Bay (Wis.) Police Department (1999). "Street Sweeping, Broadway Style." Submission for the Herman Goldstein Award for Excellence in Problem- Oriented Policing. Published in Police Executive Research Forum, National Institute of Justice and Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (2000). Excellence in Problem - Oriented Policing.- The 1999 Herman Goldstein Award Winners. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice. 46 I Panhandling Harcourt, B. (1998). "Reflecting on the Subject: A Critique of the Social Influence Conception of Deterrence, the Broken Windows Theory and Order - Maintenance Policing, New York Style." Michigan Lazy Review 97:291 -389. Heimberger, B. (1992). "Working the Nightshift." Problem - Solving Quarterly 5(4):1 -2. Hershkoff, H., and R. Conner (1993). "Aggressive Panhandling Laws." ABA journal 79 Qune):40-41. Higdon, R. and P. Huber (1987). How To Fight Fear: The COPE Program Package. Washington, D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum. Kelling, G. (1999). 'Broken Windows' and Police Discretion. Washington, D.C.: National Institute of Justice. Kelling, G., and C. Coles (1996). Fixing Broken Windows. Restoring Order and Reducing Crime in Our Communities. New York: Free Press. (1994). "Disorder and the Court." Public Interest 116 (Summer):57 -74. Kozlowski, J. (1999). "Brother, Can You Spare a Dime? Panhandling in Public Parks and Places." NRPA Law Review 34 (December):34 -41. Lankenau, S. (1999). "Stronger Than Dirt: Public Humiliation and Status Enhancement Among Panhandlers." Journal of Contemporary Ethnography 28(3):288 -318. Leoussis, F. (1995). "The New Constitutional Right To Beg —Is Begging Really Protected Speech ?" Saint Louis University Public Lazy Review 14(2):529 -550. References) 47 Little, J. (1992). "Moral Dilemma." St. Louis Post - Dispatch, June 7, p. C1. Luckenbach, R., and P. Acosta (1993). "The Street Beggar: Victim or Con Artist ?" The Police Chief (October): 126-128. Mabry, C. (1994). "Brother, Can You Spare Some Change?—And Your Privacy, Too ?: Avoiding a Fatal Collision Between Public Interests and Beggars' First Amendment Rights." University of San Francisco Lazy .Review 28(2):310 -341. Manning, N. (2000). "The Make -It -Count Scheme: A Partnership Response to Begging in Stoke -on -Trent City Centre." Problem - Solving Quarterly 13(3):5 -8. Mitchell, C. (1994). "Aggressive Panhandling Legislation and Free Speech Claims: Begging for Trouble." New York Law School Law review 39(4):697 -717. Munzer, S. (1997). "Ellickson on 'Chronic Misconduct' in Urban Spaces: Of Panhandlers, Bench Squatters and Day Laborers." Harvard Civil Rights — Civil Liberties Law review 32:1 -48. New York City Police Department (1994). Police Strategy No. S: Declaiming the Public Spaces of New York. New York: New York City Police Department. New York Times (1993). "Plan Helps Panhandlers With Vouchers, Not Quarters." Current Events Edition. Sept. 26, p. I42. Nichols, P. (1997). "The Panhandler's First Amendment Right: A Critique of Loper v New York City Police Department and Related Academic Commentary." South Carolina Law Review 48:267 -291. 48 I Panhandling Nkrumah, W (1998). "Shoppers Can Get Vouchers To Offer Panhandlers." The Oregonian, Nov 25. www.oregonnve.com. St. Petersburg (Fla.) Police Department (1997). "Repeat Alcoholic Offenders in Downtown St. Petersburg." Submission for the Herman Goldstein Award for Excellence in Problem- Oriented Policing. Sampson, R., and M. Scott (2000). Tackling Crime and Other Public - Safety Problems: Case Studies in Problem - Solving. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice. Santa Ana Police Department (1993). "Harbor Plaza /Riverbed Project." Submission for the Herman Goldstein Award for Excellence in Problem - Oriented Policing. Cited in Sampson, R., and M. Scott (2000). Tackling Crime and Other Public - Safety Problems: Case Studies in Problem - Solving. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice. Also published as Tegeler, B. (1993). "Shopping Center Blues." Problem - Solving .Quarterly 6(4):4 -5. Savannah (Ga.) Police Department (1995). "Crime Suppression Unit P.O.P. Project." Submission for the Herman Goldstein Award for Excellence in Problem - Oriented Policing. Seattle Police Department (2000). Problem-Solving. • Nine Case Studies and Lessons Learned. Seattle: Seattle Police Department. Skogan, W (1990). Disorder and Decline: Crime and the Spiral of Decay in American Neighborhoods. New York: Free Press. Stark, L. (1992). "From Lemons to Lemonade: An Ethnographic Sketch of Late 20th Century Panhandling." Neu England of Public Policy 8(1):341 -352. References) 49 Teir, R (1998). "Restoring Order in Urban Public Spaces." Texas Review of Law & Politics 2:256 -291. (1993). "Maintaining Safety and Civility in Public Spaces: A Constitutional Approach to Panhandling." Louisiana Lazy Review 54(2):285 -338. University of Wisconsin - Madison Department of Police and Security (1997). "UW Police Response to Alcoholic Vagrants." Submission for the Herman Goldstein Award for Excellence in Problem- Oriented Policing. Vancouver Police Department (1999). "Intersecting Solutions." Submission for the Herman Goldstein Award for Excellence in Problem- Oriented Policing. Fall Street Journal (1993). "Vouchers for Panhandlers." Aug. 26, p. Al. Walston, G. (1999). "Ex aminin g the Constitutional Implications of Begging Prohibitions in California." Whittier Lazy Review 20:547 -575. Wilson, G. (1991). "Exposure to Panhandling and Beliefs About Poverty Causation." Sociology and Social Research 76(1):14 -19. Ybarra, M. (1996). "Don't Ask, Don't Beg, Don't Sit." Nex York Times, May 19. About the Author 151 About the Author Michael S Scott Michael S. Scott is an independent police consultant based in Savannah, Ga. He was formerly chief of police in Lauderhill, Fla.; served in various civilian administrative positions in the St. Louis Metropolitan, Ft. Pierce, Fla., and New York City police departments; and was a police officer in the Madison, Wis., Police Department. Scott developed training programs in problem- oriented policing at the Police Executive Research Forum (PERF), and is a judge for PERF's Herman Goldstein Award for Excellence in Problem- Oriented Policing. He is the author of Problem - Oriented Policing: Deflections on the First 20 Years, and coauthor (with Rana Sampson) of Tackling Crime and Other Public - Safety Problems. Case Studies in Problem - Solving. Scott holds a law degree from Harvard Law School and a bachelor's degree from the University of Wisconsin - Madison. Recommended Readings 153 Recommended Readings A Police Guide to Surveying Citizens and Their Environments, Bureau of Justice Assistance, 1993. This guide offers a practical introduction for police practitioners to two types of surveys that police find useful: surveying public opinion and surveying the physical environment. It provides guidance on whether and how to conduct cost - effective surveys. Assessing Responses to Problems: An Introductory Guide for Police Problem - Solvers, by John E. Eck (U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 2001). This guide is a companion to the Problem - Oriented Guides for Police series. It provides basic guidance to measuring and assessing problem- oriented policing efforts. • Conducting Community Surveys, by Deborah Weisel (Bureau of Justice Statistics and Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 1999). This guide, along with accompanying computer software, provides practical, basic pointers for police in conducting community surveys. The document is also available at www.ojp.usdoj.gov /bjs. Crime Prevention Studies, edited by Ronald V. Clarke (Criminal Justice Press, 1993, et seq.). This is a series of volumes of applied and theoretical research on reducing opportunities for crime. Many chapters are evaluations of initiatives to reduce specific crime and disorder problems. 54 1 Panhandling • Excellence in Problem- Oriented Policing: The 1999 Herman Goldstein Award Winners This document produced by the National Institute of Justice in collaboration with the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services and the Police Executive Research Forum provides detailed reports of the best submissions to the annual award program that recognizes exemplary problem - oriented responses to various community problems. A similar publication is available for the award winners from subsequent years. The documents are also available at www.ojp.usdoj.gov /nij. • Not Rocket Science? Problem - Solving and Crime Reduction, by Tim Read and Nick Tilley (Home Office Crime Reduction Research Series, 2000). Identifies and describes the factors that make problem - solving effective or ineffective as it is being practiced in police forces in England and Wales. • Opportunity Makes the Thief Practical Theory for Crime Prevention, by Marcus Felson and Ronald V. Clarke (Home Office Police Research Series, Paper No. 98, 1998). Explains how crime theories such as routine activity theory, rational choice theory and crime pattern theory have practical implications for the police in their efforts to prevent crime. • Problem- Oriented Policing, by Herman Goldstein (McGraw -Hill, 1990, and Temple University Press, 1990). Explains the principles and methods of problem- oriented policing, provides examples of it in practice, and discusses how a police agency can implement the concept. Recommended Readings 155 • Problem- Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years, by Michael S. Scott (U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 2000). Describes how the most critical elements of Herman Goldstein's problem- oriented policing model have developed in practice over its 20 -year history, and proposes future directions for problem- oriented policing. The report is also available at www.cops.usdoj.gov. • Problem - Solving: Problem- Oriented Policing in Newport News, by John E. Eck and William Spelman (Police Executive Research Forum, 1987). Explains the rationale behind problem- oriented policing and the problem - solving process, and provides examples of effective problem - solving in one agency. • Problem - Solving Tips: A Guide to Reducing Crime and Disorder Through Problem - Solving Partnerships by Karin Schmerler, Matt Perkins, Scott Phillips, Tammy Rinehart and Meg Townsend. (U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 1998) (also available at wwwcops.usdoj.gov). Provides a brief introduction to problem - solving, basic information on the SARA model and detailed suggestions about the problem - solving process. • Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case Studies, Second Edition, edited by Ronald V. Clarke (Harrow and Heston, 1997). Explains the principles and methods of situational crime prevention, and presents over 20 case studies of effective crime prevention initiatives. 56 I Panhandling • Tackling Crime and Other Public- Safety Problems: Case Studies in Problem - Solving, by Rana Sampson and Michael S. Scott (U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 2000) (also available at wwwcops.usdoj.gov). Presents case studies of effective police problem - solving on 18 types of crime and disorder problems. • Using Analysis for Problem - Solving: A Guidebook for Law Enforcement, by Timothy S. Bynum (U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, 2001). Provides an introduction for police to analyzing problems within the context of problem- oriented policing. • Using Research: A Primer for Law Enforcement Managers, Second Edition, by John E. Eck and Nancy G. LaVigne (Police Executive Research Forum, 1994). Explains many of the basics of research as it applies to police management and problem - solving. Other Guides in This Series 1 57 Other Guides in This Series Problem - Oriented Guides for Police series: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. Assaults in and Around Bars. Michael S. Scott. 2001. Street Prostitution. Michael S. Scott. 2001. Speeding in Residential Areas. Michael S. Scott. 2001. Drug Dealing in Privately Owned Apartment Complexes. Rana Sampson. 2001. False Burglar Alarms. Rana Sampson. 2001. Disorderly Youth in Public Places. Michael S. Scott. 2001. Loud Car Stereos. Michael S. Scott. 2001. Robbery at Automated Teller Machines. Michael S. Scott. 2001. Graffiti. Deborah Lamm Weisel. 2002. Thefts of and From Cars in Parking Facilities. Ronald V. Clarke. 2002. Shoplifting. Ronald V. Clarke. 2002. Bullying in Schools. Rana Sampson. 2002. Panhandling. Michael S. Scott. 2002. Rave Parties. Michael S. Scott. 2002. Burglary of Retail Establishments. Ronald V. Clarke. 2002. Clandestine Drug Labs. Michael S. Scott. 2002. Acquaintance Rape of College Students. Rana Sampson. 2002. Burglary of Single - Family Houses. Deborah Lamm Weisel 2002. Misuse of 911. Rana Sampson. 2002. Companion guide to the Problem- Oriented Guides for Police serif • Assessing Responses to Problems: An Introductory Guid Police Problem - Solvers. John E. Eck. 2002. 58 I Panhandling Other Related COPS Office Publications • Using Analysis for Problem - Solving: A Guidebook for Law Enforcement. Timothy S. Bynum. 2001. • Problem- Oriented Policing: Reflections on the First 20 Years. Michael S. Scott. 2001. • Tackling Crime and Other Public- Safety Problems: Case Studies in Problem - Solving. Rana Sampson and Michael S. Scott. 2000. • Community Policing, Community Justice, and Restorative Justice: Exploring the Links for the Delivery of a Balanced Approach to Public Safety. Caroline G. Nicholl. 1999. • Toolbox for Implementing Restorative Justice and Advancing Community Policing. Caroline G. Nicholl. 2000. • Problem - Solving Tips: A Guide to Reducing Crime and Disorder Through Problem - Solving Partnerships. Karin Schmerler, Matt Perkins, Scott Phillips, Tammy Rinehart and Meg Townsend. 1998. For more information about the Problem - Oriented Guides for Police series I and other COPS Office publications, please call the Department of Justice Response Center at 1- 800 - 421 -6770 or check our website at FOR MORE INFORMATION: U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services 1100 Vermont Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20530 To obtain details on COPS programs, call the U.S. Department of Justice Response Center at 1.800.421.6770 Visit the COPS internet web site at the address listed below. e012011407 Created Date: January 29, 2002 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: February 23, 2010 City Manager Sign -off: Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation AGENDA ITEM TITLE : Property Tax GOVERNING LEGISLATION: State Law & County Property Tax Processing Deadlines PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Council adopted an ordinance for the 2010 property tax levy, late last year. The levy included an estimated amount that would be paid by new construction ($188,934) and an estimated amount based on City growth ($110,566) for a total increase of $299,500 or 2.9 %. BACKGROUND: There has been discussion at council meetings regarding the anticipated amount of property tax revenue for 2010. Council has asked if the increase based on city growth in 2010 property tax can be reduced. OPTIONS: It is too late to amend our property tax levy for 2010. However, the City could agree to set aside the growth portion of the 2010 levy ($110,566) when it is received from Spokane County, and use it to reduce the 2011 property tax levy. A council motion directing staff to set these dollars aside would provide direction for staff. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: If the City Council would like to reduce property taxes, a motion can be brought back at a future council meeting, directing staff to set aside $110,566 in 2010 property tax receipts. BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: This proposed action will reduce property tax revenue in the General Fund and fund balance carried over into future years by $110,566. STAFF CONTACT: Finance & Admin. Services Director, Ken Thompson CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: February 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: Surplus Triangular Parcel 4362 adjacent to 16608 E. Broadway — Broadway Avenue Reconstruction — Moore to Flora Project ( #0088) GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Spokane Valley Municipal Code Section 3.40.070 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Authorized Mayor to sign Fuel Tax Grant Distribution Agreement with the Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) for the design and construction of the Broadway Avenue Reconstruction — Moore to Flora Project on January 22, 2008; Adopted the 2010 -2015 Six Year TIP, Resolution 09 -009 on June 16, 2009 which included the Broadway Avenue Reconstruction — Moore to Flora Project BACKGROUND: While acquiring right -of -way (ROW) for the Broadway Avenue Reconstruction — Moore to Flora Project, ( 40088) a triangular piece of old railroad property was discovered that had not been properly transferred when adjacent property had subsequently been sold. As a result, the legal owner, Shelly White, an heir of the original owner, was unaware she owned the triangular piece until the City contacted her requesting purchase. See the attached exhibit, Surplus of Parcel 43B2 The City purchased the entire triangular parcel from Ms. White on December 14, 2009 as two separate parcels: a 771 SF parcel (43131) to be used as future Broadway Avenue ROW and the remainder 1,300 SF parcel (43132). The ten foot strip of ROW on the north edge of the property required by the street improvement project leaves a remainder too small for any future city use. The City is also purchasing ROW and drainage easements from J. Brent McKinley the owner of the adjoining property at 16608 E. Broadway. Public Works staff believes the triangular piece of old railroad ROW (parcel 43132) has no value to the city as public ROW and proposes to trade this piece to Mr. McKinley to help offset the cost of ROW being purchased from Mr. McKinley for the road project. To complete this transaction in accordance with the city's Municipal Code, Council actions are required to surplus the triangular piece of property and approve trading it to Mr. McKinley. The approximate cost breakdown for the McKinley purchase involving the trade is as follows. These numbers are approximate and may change slightly as negotiations are finalized. ROW - 2,595 SF of RW Land @ $2.50 /SF $6,488 Utility Easement — 4,299.13 SF @ $1.25/SF $5,374 Swale Easement — 6,975 SF @ $2.50 /SF $17,438 Improvements — Fence $2,300 Trade Parcel 43132 - 1,300 SF of RW Land (a)- $2.50 /SF (Credit) <$3,250> Total estimated compensation $28,350 OPTIONS: Discussion only. RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Discussion only. BUDGET /FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Surplus and trade of this triangular parcel will help reduce the project ROW costs. STAFF CONTACT: Steve M. Worley, P.E. - Senior Capital Projects Engineer ATTACHMENTS: RCA Exhibit — Surplus of Parcel 43132; Draft Resolution 13 WWAYAVEN `'fir_ 1 38.15' /' 43B1, 771 S.F. f TO BE INCORPORATED INTO 4 77.73' BROADWAY R.O.W. PURCHASED FROM SHELLY WHITE I DEC. 14, 2009 I PARCEL 43B2, 1,300 S.F. TO BE SURPLUSED PURCHASED FROM SHELLY WHITE I DEC. 14, 2009 I } - - - -- 4- ! yT)C.YrIRE FEI: E 10' R.O.W. TAKE, 2,595 S.F. 15' DRAINAGE EASEMENT "A" A= 4,299.13 SQ. FT. I OWNER: J. BRENT MCKINLEY I 16608 BROADWAY AVE � 45134.0307 I - -A I LEGEND I I WHITE R.O.W. TAKE I I ® WHTIE SURPLUS PROPERTY I = MCKINLEY R.O.W. TAKE I MCCKINLEY DRAINAGE EASEMENTS 1 I I 50 25 0 50 100 SCALE FEET w 139.50' W I' C'iCn OF o 61 m e� ,,; RCA EXHIBIT SURPLUS OF PARCEL 4382 DRAFT CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. 10 -00* A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY, WASHINGTON, DECLARING REAL PROPERTY TO BE SURPLUS PURSUANT TO SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE (SVMC) SECTION 3.40.070(B); APPROVING THE TRADE OF REAL PROPERTY PURSUANT TO SVMC 3.40.070(D); AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE ALL DOCUMENTS NECESSARY TO CONVEY AND /OR SELL SAID REAL PROPERTY. WHEREAS, Spokane Valley Municipal Code (SVMC) 3.40.070(B) requires a declaration that real property be declared surplus by the Spokane Valley City Council prior to its disposal; and WHEREAS, the criteria for a declaration of surplus property is set forth in SVMC 3.40.070 includes the following: 1. The City has or anticipates no practical, efficient, or appropriate use for the property. 2. The purpose served by the property can be accomplished by use of a better, less costly, or more efficient alternative. 3. The purpose served by the property no longer exists as determined by a change of policy or practice. WHEREAS, upon such a declaration passed by resolution by the Spokane Valley City Council, the Finance Director is authorized to sell surplus property; and WHEREAS, department directors have been notified of the surplus nature of this property and no department other than the Public Works Department has any desire to acquire or use the proposed surplus property; and WHEREAS, a trade of real property is allowed pursuant to SVMC 3.40.070 (D) where, upon receipt of a report by the Finance Director, the City finds that the trade of real property would realize a greater benefit to the City than a sale for cash; and WHEREAS, approximately 1,330 square feet of real property was acquired as part of the acquisition of right -of -way for the Broadway Avenue Improvement Project No. 0088, commonly referred to as parcel 43132. The property was appraised by Skillings - Connolly. The City subsequently determined that additional right -of -way and utility and swale easement was required from an adjacent property owner. By trading the unneeded parcel 43B2, the City is able to reduce the cost of acquiring the necessary right -of -way and utility and swale easement from the adjacent property. All of the parcels of property involved have been appraised, and the City is receiving full value for the traded property. The specific costs and property descriptions are set forth in the report by the Project Manager, Senior Engineer, Public Works Director and Finance Director attached hereto; and WHEREAS, as a result of this trade the City would realize a greater benefit than would be derived for the cash sale of the property in question; and WHEREAS, pursuant to SVMC 3.40.070 (D) upon the declaration of surplus real property and where a benefit to the City is established, such a trade of real property is authorized; and Resolution 10 -00* Declaring Property Surplus, FIRAMM NOW THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington, as follows: Section 1. Declaration of Surplus The City of Spokane Valley City Council hereby declares that the real property identified as: That portion of the East Half of Tract 3 of VERA, as per plat recorded in Volume "O" of Plats, Page 30, records of Spokane County; being all that part of the 50 foot right of way of the Great Northern Railway Company (formerly the Spokane, Coeur d'Alene and Palouse Railway) lying within 25 feet on each side of the centerline of the main tract of the railway of said Railway Company as formerly located and constructed, but now removed and abandoned, lying east of Lennox Subdivision, according to plat recorded in Volume 24 of Plats, Pages 95 -96 records of Spokane County; EXCEPT the North 10.00 feet strip being parallel with the north line of said Tract 3; Situate in the City of Spokane Valley, County of Spokane, State of Washington. is hereby declared to be surplus in that the City has no practical, efficient or appropriate use for the property other than to trade it for property necessary for the completion of the Broadway Avenue Improvement Project No. 0088. Section 2: Authorization to Trade Real Property. The City Manager or designee is hereby authorized to trade the real property in question for the identified parcel of real property and that this trade will realize a greater benefit to the City than would be realized through a cash sale and further that this benefit is confirmed by the adequate appraisals completed by a qualified independent appraiser. Section 3. Authorization to sell /trade property The City Manager or designee is hereby authorized to execute any documents necessary to complete the trade of real property set forth above. Section 4. Effective Date This Resolution shall be effective upon adoption. Adopted this day of , 2010. ATTEST: City of Spokane Valley Thomas E. Towey, Mayor City Clerk, Christine Bainbridge Approved as to Form: Office of the City Attorney Resolution 10 -00* Declaring Property Surplus, Public Works Department S MY �� Capital Improvement Program p Va11ey „;o0 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 ♦Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.921.1000 ♦ Fax: 509.921.1008 ♦ cityhatt@spokanevatley.org Surplus Property Report To: Mike Jackson, City Council From: Craig Aldworth, P.E. - Project Manager Z I Steve Worley, P.E. — Senior Engineer (CIP) 1 . 1 4 Neil Kersten, - Public Works Director / ” v Ken Thompson, - Finance Director Date: February 18, 2010 Re: Broadway Improvement Project (Moore - Flora) CIP 0088 — ROW Trade While acquiring right -of -way (ROW) for the Broadway Avenue Reconstruction — Moore to Flora Project, ( #0088) a triangular piece of old railroad property was discovered that had not been properly transferred when adjacent property had subsequently been sold. See the attached Vicinity Map, Exhibit, Surplus of Parcel 4382, and Quit Claim Deed 637152B. As a result, the legal owner, Shelly White, an heir of the original owner, was unaware she owned the triangular piece until the City contacted her requesting purchase. Skillings- Connolly, the consultant ROW agent working for the City on the project appraised the White property at $2.50 /SF. See the attached Shelly White Administrative Offer Summary. The City purchased the entire triangular parcel from Ms. White on December 14, 2009 as two separate parcels: a 771 SF parcel (4361) to be used as future Broadway Avenue ROW for $1,950 and the remainder 1,300 SF parcel (43132) for $3,250. See the attached "132 Quit Claim Deed, "B2" ROW Exhibit A, and Exhibit B. The City is also purchasing ROW and drainage easements from J. Brent McKinley the owner of the adjoining property at 16608 E. Broadway. The attached Summary Appraisal Report for the McKinley ROW parcel 43A, prepared by Appraisal Solutions Northwest appraised the McKinley parcel at $2.50 /SF. The attached Real Property Appraisal Review for the McKinley property, conducted by Barrett Associates Real Estate concurred. Surplus Property Report Page 2 Public Works staff believes the triangular piece of old railroad ROW (parcel 43132) has no value to the city as public ROW and since it has the same appraised square foot value, proposes to trade this piece to Mr. McKinley to help offset the cost of ROW being purchased from Mr. McKinley for the road project. The approximate cost breakdown for the McKinley purchase involving the trade is as follows. These numbers are approximate and may change slightly as negotiations are finalized. ROW - 2,595 SF of RW Land @ $2.50 /SF $6,488 Utility Easement — 4,299.13 SF @ $1.25/SF $5,374 Swale Easement — 6,975 SF @ $2.50 /SF $17,438 Improvements — Fence $2,300 Trade Parcel 43132 - 1,300 SF of RW Land (5), $2.50 /SF (Credit) <$3,250> Total estimated compensation $28,350 To complete this transaction in accordance with the city's Municipal Code, Council actions are required to surplus the triangular piece of property and approve trading it to Mr. McKinley. Encl: Vicinity Map and the Exhibit, Surplus of Parcel 43B2 Quit Claim Deed 637152B. Shelly White Administrative Offer Summary. "B2" Quit Claim Deed, "B2" ROW Exhibit A and Exhibit B. Summary Appraisal Report for McKinley ROW parcel 43A, by Appraisal Solutions Northwest Real Property Appraisal Review of McKinley property 43A, by Barrett Associates Real Estate DRAFT ADVANCE AGENDA For Planning Discussion Purposes Only as of February 18,2010; 10:30 a.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 CONFIRMED: March 2, 2010, 6:00 p.m. Council Chambers [due date Mon, Feb 221 Joint Meeting Council and Spokane Valley Planning Commission Topic: Shoreline Masterplan [ *estimated meeting: 120 minutes] CONFIRMED: Monday, March 8, 2010, 1- 4 p.m. Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers Joint Meeting with Spokane County Board of County Commissioners [due date Mon March 11 Tentative Topics: Milwaukee Right -of -way March 9, 2010 Formal Meetine Format, 6:00 p.m. ]due date Mon, March 11 1. Consent Agenda: Claims, Payroll, Minutes (5 minutes) 2. First Reading Proposed Ordinance UDC Amendment CTA 08 -09 — Marty Palaniuk (10 minutes) 3. First Reading Proposed Ordinance UDC Amendment CTA 01 -10 — Karen Kendall (10 minutes) 4. Proposed Resolution Declaring Area Near 16608 E Broadway Surplus— Steve Worley (10 minutes) 5. Admin Report: Judge Vance Peterson & Virginia Rockwood, Dist Court (confirmed) (10 minutes) 6. Admin report Jail presentation — Lt Sparber confirmed (15 minutes) 7. Admin Report: Accomplishments Report — Mike Jackson (30 minutes) 8. Admin Report: Review of Land Use regulations — Mike Connelly/Kathy McClung (60 minutes) 9. Adult Entertainment Code Revision — Cary Driskell (10 minutes) 10. Admin Report: Fee resolution Amendments — Adult Entertainment Appeal Process - C.Driskell (10 min) 11. Admin Report: Proposed Amended 2010 Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) — Steve Worley (15 min) 12. Admin Report: Advance Agenda (5 minutes) 13. Info Only: Crosswalks Executive Session: [*estimated meeting: 190 minutes] March 13 -17, 2010: National League of Cities, Congressional City Conference, Washington, D.C. March 16, 2010 NO COUNCIL MEETING March 23, 2010, Formal Meetine Format, 6:00 p.m. [ due date Mon, March 151 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Proposed Amended 2010 TIP — Steve Worley (15 minutes) 2. Consent Agenda: Claims, Payroll, Minutes (5 minutes) 3. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance UDC Amendment CTA 08 -09 — Marty Palaniuk (15 minutes) 4. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance UDC Amendment CTA 01 -10 — Karen Kendall (15 minutes) 5. First Reading Proposed Ordinance Regarding Adult Entertainment — Cary Driskell (20 minutes) 6. Spokane Regional Transportation Council Draft Interlocal — Mike Jackson (30 minutes) 7. Admin Report: Council Broadcasting — Greg Bingaman/Morgan Koudelka (60 minutes) 8. Admin Report: Advance Agenda (5 minutes) 9. Info Only: Department Reports Executive Session [ *estimated meeting: 165 minutes] _CONFIRMED: Tuesday, March 30, 2010, 2:00 p.m: 4:30 p.m. Joint Meeting with City of Spokane Mayor and Council Tentative Topics: Animal Control March 30, 2010, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Code Enforcement Update — Kathy McClung 2. Energy Efficiency Block Grant Update — Mike Basinger 3. Advance Agenda Executive Session A ril 6, 2010, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Comp Plan Update — Greg McCormick 2. Advance Agenda Executive Session: Spokane Valley Council Chambers [due date Mon March 221 [due date Mon, March 22] (20 minutes) (20 minutes) [due date Mon, March 291 (15 minutes) (5 minutes) April 13, 2010 Formal Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. jdue date Mon, April 5] 1. Consent Agenda: Claims, Payroll, Minutes (5 minutes) 2. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance Adult Entertainment Appeal Process — Cary Driskell (10 minutes) 3. Proposed Amended Fee Resolution, Adult entertainment Appeal Process — Cary Driskell (10 minutes) 4. Proposed Resolution Adopting Amended 2010 TIP — Steve Worley (10 minutes) 5. Admin Report: Advance Agenda Executive Session: [*estimated meeting: minutes] April 20, 2010, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Advance Agenda Executive Session April 27. 2010. Format Meetine Format. 6:00 mm. 1. Consent Agenda: Claims, Payroll, Minutes 2. Admin Report: Advance Agenda 3. Info Only: Department Reports Executive Session May 4, 2010, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Six -Year 2011 -2016 Transp. Improvement Plan — Steve Worley 2. Advance Agenda Executive Session May 11, 2010 Formal Meetine Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. Consent Agenda: Claims, Payroll, Minutes 2. Admin Report: Advance Agenda Executive Session: May 18, 2010, Study Session Format, 6:00 mm. 1. Advance Agenda Executive Session [ due date Mon, April 191 [ due date Mon, April 191 (5 minutes) [due date Mon, April 26] (20 minutes) jdue date Mon, May 31 (5 minutes) [ *estimated meeting: minutes] [ due date Mon, May 101 [ *estimated meeting: minutes] May 25, 2010, Format Meeting Format, 6:00 p.m. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: Six -Year 2011 -2016 Transp. Improvement Plan 2. Consent Agenda: Claims, Payroll, Minutes 3. Admin. Report: Advance Agenda 4. Info Only: Department Reports Executive Session [ due date Mon. May 171 (10 minutes) (5 minutes) [*estimated meeting: minutes] June 1. 2010, Study Session Format, 6:00 p.m. [due date Mon, May 241 1. Advance Agenda (5 minutes) Executive Session [ *estimated meeting: minutes] June S, 2010 Formal Meetine 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 Executive Session [ *estimated meeting: minutes] OTHER PENDING AND /OR UPCOMING ISSUES/MEETINGS ADA Plan Affordable Housing Participation Alternative Analysis (contracts) Bidding Contracts (SVMC 3. — bidding exceptions) Budget 2011 (fall 20 10) Community Development Block Grant (Fall 20 10) Concurrency Council Remote Voting: Governance Manual East Gateway Monument Structure # Hotel/Motel Grant Proposals for 2011 (Nov 20 10) Jail Project tour Law Enforcement Contract ■ Lobbyist Presentation (Gordon, Thomas, Honeywell) Outside Agencies Presentation (August) Overweight/over size vehicle ordinance Planned Action Ordinance Retreat, summer (June, July ?) Sheriff Office Request, Emergency Mgmt Update ■ Solid Waste Board/Governance ■ Sprague Appleway Corridor Environ. Assessment Transportation Benefit District: (a). Establish ord.; (b) setpuhlic hearing; (c) di Transportation Impacts 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 S � o -Kane Valley 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 ♦Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.921.1000 ♦ Fax: 509.921.1008 ♦ cityhatt@spokanevalley.org Memorandum To: Dave Mercier, City Manager, Mike Jackson, Dep. City Manager From: Ken Thompson, Finance Director Date: February 16, 2010 Re Amended December Report December and January highlights in Finance included: Financial reports Reports showing a comparison of revenues and expenditures, to the December 2009 Amended Budget, are attached. This is an updated report as we close our accounting records for 2009. A comparison of sales tax receipts for 2008 and 2009 has been attached for your review as well. As previously reported, sales tax receipts are down 12% from 2008 receipts. Investment income will be $200,000 below our budget. Planning and Building fees will also be below our estimates. 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 significantly greater than our estimates which will help offset the revenue shortages identified above. Expenses for 2009 were mostly within budgeted amounts. The Real Estate Excise Tax #2 Fund (302) exceeded appropriations when transfers to construction accounts were greater than anticipated. The investment report is also attached for your review. Year end (2009) work W -2s and 1099s were mailed during January. We are near 1 Staff preparing 2009 financial records Staff has started the process to ready 2009 financial records Other tasks +A review of televising council meetings is undem +Full width pave back is being investigating +A property tax reduction is being examined +False alarm receipts are being processed via the Pu City of Spokane Valley Other Funds Budget Variance Report For the period ended December 31, 2009 8 14 3 16 3 3 3 4 14 8 8 7 7 3 7 18 14 3 16 3 3 3 4 14 18 9 10 13 13 3 02/17/2010 1:20 PM Amended Budget December YTD Unrealized Percent 2009 Revenues Revenues Revenue Realized Other Funds Revenues: Street Fund $ 7,492,000 $ 1,020,708 $ 5,179,854 2,312,146 69.14% Arterial Street Fund 591,000 - - 591,000 0.00% Trails and Paths 43,000 8,146 8,246 34,754 19.18% Hotel /Motel Fund 600,000 61,463 425,871 174,129 70.98% Civic Facilities Replacement 767,000 527 3,065 763,935 0.40% Debt Service - LTGO 03 710,000 - 606,173 103,828 85.38% Capital Projects Fund 5,948,000 103,936 559,447 5,388,553 9.41% Special Capital Projects Fund 2,980,000 103,556 560,805 2,419,195 18.82% Street Capital Projects 16,725,000 9,365,469 10,810,492 5,914,508 64.64% Mirabeau Point Project 370,000 382 2,655 367,345 0.72% Community Developmt Block Grnts 300,000 - - 300,000 0.00% Capital Grants Fund 2,006,000 323,125 1,437,772 568,228 71.67% Barker Bridge Reconstruction 7,977,000 3,170,010 6,901,901 1,075,099 86.52% Stormwater Mgmt Fund 3,440,000 188,184 1,747,310 1,692,690 50.79% Equip. Rental & Replacement 780,000 746 5,273 774,727 0.68% Risk Management 235,000 16 230,107 4,893 97.92% Reserves: Centerplace Operating 340,000 327 2,391 337,609 0.70% Service Level Stabilization 5,400,000 5,059 37,022 5,362,978 0.69% Winter Weather 500,000 355,000 355,000 145,000 71.00% Parks Capital 2,920,000 1,468,947 2,409,278 510,722 82.51% Civic Buildings 5,800,000 5,452 39,845 5,760,155 0.69% Total Other Funds Revenues: 65.924.004 L�I 6 1_._81 Q$2. $ 31,3 22 507 $ 34.601.493 47.51% Amended Budget December YTD Unrealized Percent 2009 Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Realized Other Funds Expenditures: Street Fund $ 7,492,000 664,106 4,471,650 $ 3,020,350 59.69% Arterial Street Fund 591,000 2,660 310,704 280,296 52.57% Trails and Paths 43,000 - - 43,000 0.00% Hotel /Motel Fund 600,000 188,351 462,165 137,835 77.03% Civic Facilities Replacement 767,000 - - 767,000 0.00% Debt Service LTGO 03 710,000 - 606,077 103,923 85.36% Capital Projects Fund 5,948,000 201,427 1,242,477 4,705,523 20.89% Special Capital Projects Fund 2,980,000 2,892,571 3,272,652 (292,652) 109.82% Street Capital Projects 16,725,000 3,869,575 10,939,176 5,785,824 65.41% Mirabeau Point Project 370,000 363,722 363,722 6,278 98.30% Community Developmt Block Grnts 300,000 - - 300,000 0.00% Capital Grants Fund 2,006,000 81,527 1,429,907 576,093 71.28% Barker Bridge Reconstruction 7,977,000 1,817,847 6,917,733 1,059,267 86.72% Stormwater Mgmt Fund 3,440,000 887,419 1,861,234 1,578,766 54.11% Equip. Rental & Replacemnt 780,000 - - 780,000 0.00% Risk Management 235,000 7,251 234,748 252 99.89% Reserves: Centerplace Operating 340,000 - - 340,000 0.00% Service Level Stabilization 5,400,000 5,400,000 0.00% Winter Weather 500,000 - - 500,000 0.00% Parks Capital 2,920,000 408,580 2,408,562 511,438 82.49% Civic Facilities Capital 5,800,000 - 3,363 5,796,637 0.06% Total Other Funds Expenditures: $ 65.924.000 S 11.385.036 34.524.171 31.399.829 52.37% 8 14 3 16 3 3 3 4 14 8 8 7 7 3 7 18 14 3 16 3 3 3 4 14 18 9 10 13 13 3 02/17/2010 1:20 PM City of Spokane Valley General Fund Budget Variance Report For the Period Ended December 31, 2009 at February 16, 2010 General Fund Revenues: Begining Fund Balance Property Tax Sales Tax Gambling Tax Franchise Fees /Business Licenses State Shared Revenues Planning & Building Fees Fines and Forfeitures Recreation & Centerplace Fees Investment Interest Operating Transfers Total General Fund Revenues Amended Budget December YTD Unrealized Percent 2009 Revenues Revenues Revenue Realized $ 12,116,644 32,177 21,692,296 $ (9,575,652) 179.03% 10,675,000 903,093 10,475,751 199,249 98.13% 19,380,000 2,536,308 16,233,968 3,146,032 83.77% 525,000 214,659 645,019 (120,019) 122.86% 964,550 258,217 1,054,275 (89,725) 109.30% 1,257,550 457,987 1,775,506 (517,956) 141.19% 1,888,540 120,261 1,672,694 215,846 88.57% 1,359,710 297,417 1,788,434 (428,724) 131.53% 602,070 89,316 706,914 (104,844) 117.41% 434,991 39,197 249,211 185,780 57.29% 84,900 - 74,300 10,600 87.51% $ 49,288,955 4,916,455 56,368,368 $ (7,079,413) 114.36% 6 General Fund Expenditures: Legislative Branch Executive & Legislative Support Public Safety Operations & Administrative Svcs Public Works Planning & Community Dev. Library Services Parks & Recreation General Government Total General Fund Expenditures: Amended Budget December YTD Unrealized Percent 2009 Expenditures Expenditures Expenditures Realized 330,900 32,177 295,392 35,508 89.27% 1,033,321 134,430 969,508 63,813 93.82% 20,841,084 1,918,925 20,420,874 420,210 97.98% 1,776,142 144,310 1,566,530 209,612 88.20% 817,068 60,961 682,034 135,034 83.47% 3,588,839 320,477 3,099,323 489,516 86.36% 20,000 - 1,910 18,090 9.55% 2,812,040 195,754 2,323,115 488,925 82.61% 18,069,561 595,904 2,167,682 15,901,879 12.00% $ 49,288,955 $ 3,402,939 $ 31,526,369 $ 17,762,586 63.96% 17 5 18 02/17/2010 1:20 PM City of Spokane Valley Investment Report For the Month of Decemeber 2009 Balances by Fund 001 General Fund LGIP' Moiuntain West MM BB CD Total Investments Beginning $ 37,469,500.84 $ 52,563.82 $ 5,000,000.00 $ 42,522,064.66 Deposits 1,812,347.86 120 CenterPlace Operating Reserve $ 1,812,347.86 Withdrawls (2,300,000.00) 122 Winter Weather Reserve $ (2,300,000.00) Interest 10,217.95 89.07 - $ 10,307.02 Ending $ 36,992,066.65 $ 52,652.89 $ 5,000,000.00 $ 42,044,719.54 Balances by Fund 001 General Fund $ 21,416,599.02 101 Street Fund 1,589,963.32 102 Arterial Street - 103 Paths & Trails 21,577.18 105 Hotel /Motel 295,126.81 120 CenterPlace Operating Reserve 348,269.88 121 Service Level Stabilization Reserve 5,395,761.27 122 Winter Weather Reserve - 123 Civic Facilities Replacement 561,447.14 301 Capital Projects 1,513,832.16 302 Special Capital Projects 1,519,886.01 304 Mirabeau Point Project 407,251.88 309 Parks Capital Project 136,497.73 310 Civic Buildings Capital Projects 5,814,385.78 402 Stormwater Management 2,211,674.26 501 Equipment Rental & Replacement 795,675.62 502 Risk Management 16,771.48 $ 42,044,719.54 'Local Government Investment Pool City of Spokane Valley Sales Tax Receipts Month by Month Comparison Year to date Month Percentage Received 2008 2009 Change February $ 1,954,994.78 $ 1,690,170.61 - 13.55% March 1,280,030.02 1,245,885.86 -9.24% April 1,371,096.25 1,210,210.64 -9.98% May 1,609,424.93 1,297,589.85 - 12.42% June 1,406,783.92 1,254,330.03 - 12.12% July 1,568,261.82 1,312,964.99 - 12.83% August 1,725,557.35 1,494,486.56 - 12.92% September 1,562,049.26 1,381,203.54 - 12.75% October 1,549,521.92 1,393,353.36 - 12.46% November 1,541,787.16 1,417,465.22 - 12.02% December 1,469,375.54 1,314,434.56 - 11.90% January 2009 1,289,107.80 2010 1,221,873.05 - 11.43% $ 18,327,990.75 $ 16,233,968.27 - 11.43% FOOTNOTES 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Most costs are typically late in the year. Debt service paid twice each year Capital projects often take a number of years to plan, engineer, acquire right of way and construct. For Discovery Park Small amount of 05 library tax due district. Budgeted amount is too high. Estimated, pending 09 review. Interest earnings. Beg. Bal. included which understates percent realized. For replacement of vehicles & computers. Required operating reserve, no expenditures planned for 2009. Revenue for 2010 events will be moved to 2010. Quarterly Payment to City. Final receipt due 1/31/10 Emergency use only. Fund being phased out Most of this fund spent in late 08 In reserve for replacement of buildings Down 11.43% from prior year Includes projected balances at 12- 31 -09, which understates percent realized 02/1712010 1:20 PM MEMO TO: Mike Jackson, Acting City Manager FROM: Rick VanLeuven, Chief of Police DATE: February 15, 2010 RE: Monthly Report January 2010 January 2010• January 2009: CAD incidents: 4,835 CAD incidents: 4,660 Reports taken: 1,600 Reports taken: 1,468 Traffic stops: 1,711 Traffic stops: 1,414 Traffic reports: 296 Traffic reports: 244 CAD incidents indicate calls for service as well as self - initiated officer contacts. Hot spot maps are attached showing December residential burglaries, commercial burglaries, traffic collision hot spots and vehicle prowling hot spots, along with December 2009 and January 2010 stolen vehicle hot spots. Also attached are nine bar graphs for 2008, 2009 and January 2010: commercial burglary, garage burglary, residential burglary, forgery, malicious mischief, stolen vehicles, theft, vehicle prowling, and property crimes comparisons for 2006 through 2009. ADMINISTRATIVE: Chief VanLeuven and his wife attended Central Valley SCOPE'S Annual Holiday party mid - month. With the month of December being so busy for everyone, a holiday party in January gives everyone the opportunity to attend and spend quality time catching up with each other. An All Officers Meeting was held in January at the Sheriff's Training Center. This is an annual meeting sponsored by the Fire Department and attended by their officers. Chief VanLeuven and Lt. Rose attended to discuss common public safety issues. The Board of County Commissioners recognized Spokane Valley Police Officer Jack Rosenthal of the Traffic Unit, presenting him with the Public Service Award 2009. Jack is a true asset to our organization and is dedicated to our mission. FBI Leeda Training was given at the Sheriffs Training Center again this year and Chief VanLeuven as well as Sheriff Knezovich and Chief Kirkpatrick participated in a panel discussion on how to deal with a variety of issues and be successful as a law enforcement executive. There were approximately 60 persons attending the training from all over the northwest. Chief VanLeuven attended the INLELG Meeting at the Spokane International Airport at the end of the month. Chief VanLeuven was on call a total of nine days for the month of January. In an effort to reduce the number of days the chief is covering on -call for lieutenants, a rotation schedule has been put into place beginning February, which gives each person on the schedule a week of on -call. Page 1 National Drug Endangered Children (DEC) recognized Esther Larsen in their January 2010 newsletter. Esther currently works in the Spokane County Sheriffs Office where she manages contracts and grants pertaining to criminal justice and related community projects. She also serves as the Project Director for the Spokane County Drug Endangered Children Project and has been instrumental in establishing the Washington Alliance for Drug Endangered Children. Esther has been instrumental to the work of National DEC and the DEC movement. In 2009, she served on the National DEC Annual Conference Advisory Committee as the State Host. She worked tirelessly and passionately to help make our 6 Annual Conference, held in September in beautiful Spokane, a resounding success. She is also a Washington State Leader contact, a member of the Criminal Justice Working group, and serves on the DEC Leaders Meeting Planning Committee. Esther earned her JD from the University of Southern California Law School and a BS in Biology and a BA in Chemistry from the University of New Mexico. She is a member of the Washington State Bar and Idaho State Bar, and has worked for 30 years in both the private and public sectors in the areas of law, land use planning, and public administration. She has also been a research biochemist, taught university classes, served as a planning consultant, and maintained a hobby fanning and timber operation in Nine Mile Falls. The new statewide sex offender website, Offender Watch, allows the public access to information regarding registered sex offenders. It also has a law enforcement component that can be used for investigative purposes. Recently in one county, a home burglary also resulted in assault and rape. A description of the perpetrator was sent to law enforcement agencies in the area along with a sketch drawing. The county RSO coordinator entered the description and radius into Offender Watch. Twenty -five people were listed. She then matched the photos to the drawing and identified one person. This information was sent to the detective on the case. The victim was able to identify this person in both a photo and person line up. He was a level 1 registered sex offender and was not on the original list of possible suspects. To access the Offender Watch public site for Spokane County, go to http : / /www.spokanecounty.org/Sheriff and select Sex Offender Watch. Members of the community can register their address to receive a notification when a sex offender moves within a certain radius, i.e., two miles, of their address. In addition, victims can register their email to receive notifications when a particular sex offender moves from one address to another. COMMUNITY ORIENTED POLICING: S.C.O.P.E. Director Rick Scott attended a number of functions in January to include the following: Webinar on sexting concerns with our children; Greater Spokane Substance Abuse Council Coalition meeting; "Darkness to Light" training on Sexual Abuse Awareness with our children; Presentation at EAC from Victim Service Center. - Lutheran Community Service; attended lunch meeting at Redeemer Lutheran Church; Spokane Safe Kids meeting; Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) meeting; and Central Valley S.C.O.P.E. Holiday event. Rick Scott also reported the four S.C.O.P.E. stations in the City of Spokane Valley contributed the following number of volunteer hours for the entire year: 2009 Volunteer Hours aer station: Central Valley ------------------ - - - - -- 9,437 hrs. Edgecliff------------------------- - - - - -- 1 8,430 hrs. Trentwood ----------------------- - - - - -- 4,337 firs. Universitv ------------------------ - - - - -- 5 .929.5 hrs. Total 2009 Hours: 28,133.50 hrs (An increase of 2,406 hours from 2008) Page 2 Using the National formula for calculating the City of Spokane Valley S.C.O.P.E. Volunteers hourly value for 2009: 2009 SV SCOPE Volunteer hours 28,133.50 x $20.25/hr = $569,703.38 The benefits received by the City of Spokane Valley and the Spokane Valley Police Department from the efforts and time contributed by these volunteers is immeasurable. We are truly grateful for this wonderful group of people. January 2010 Volunteers Hours ner station: The total S.C.O.P.E. Volunteer hours have been steadily increasing. The four Spokane Valley stations had an increase of 73 hours in Jan. 2010 over those in Jan. 2009. CV S.C.O.P.E ----------- - - - - -- 615.5 hrs. Edgecliff S.C.O.P.E. ---- - - - - -- 458.0 hrs. Trentwood S.C.O.P.E. - - - - - -- 326.0 hrs. University S.C.O.P.E. -- - - - - -- 477.0 hrs. Total SV September 1,876.5 hrs. ♦ S.C.O.P.E. Incident Response Team (SIRT) volunteers contributed 32 on -scene hours (including travel time) in January, 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 552 hours. ♦ Abandoned vehicles tagged by S.C.O.P.E. volunteers for impoundment in the Spokane Valley in December totaled 35 and in January 32, with 7 and 13, respectively, vehicles eventually cited and towed. Thirteen hulks were processed in December and nine hulks processed in January. During the month of January, a total of 90 vehicles were processed. Page 3 S.C.O.P.E. DISABLED PARKING ACTIVITY REPORT JANUARY - DECEMBER 2010 City of Spokane Valley # of Vol. # of Hrs # of Disabled Infractions Issued # of Warnings Issued # of Non - Disabled Infractions Issued January 9 360 63 93 2 February March April May June July August September October November December Total 9 360 63 93 2 Spokane County # of Vol. # of Hrs # of Disabled Infractions Issued # of Warnings Issued # of Non - Disabled Infractions Issued January 6 47 1 23 0 February March April May June July August September October November December Total 6 47 1 23 0 Page 4 OPERATIONS: Valley Thief Nabbed Again - For the second time in a week, a male suspect was arrested for theft by Spokane Valley Police. Officers were called to the Jackpot Food Mart around midnight in early January by a clerk who watched as the longtime criminal suspect pocketed a can of beer and left the store without paying. When confronted by the clerk, the suspect pulled out the can of beer and tossed it at the employee. He then left walking east on Sprague. In a similar incident earlier in the week, SVPD Officer Mike McNees was "Johnny on the spot" and located and detained the suspect at Sprague and Park. After the clerk identified the suspect, Officer Nathan Bohanek drove him to the Spokane County Jail and booked him for Third -Degree Theft and Fourth -Degree Assault. In the prior week's incident, the same male suspect stole a wallet from a Spokane Valley Library client and was spotted by McNees as he fled across Sprague. He was booked for Second -Degree Theft, a felony, for that transgression. Explosives Removed from Valley Apartment - Explosives disposal technicians and major crimes detectives spent more than four hours in early January removing a half -pound of a "highly volatile, highly unstable" homemade explosive from a residence at an apartment on North McDonald Road. Information was received over New Year's weekend that the suspect was making the compound in his apartment. Investigation into the matter began in earnest Monday morning and by late afternoon detectives had interviewed the suspect and confirmed the existence of the explosive. The resident was arrested on an outstanding Civil Bench Warrant as well as Unlawful Manufacture/Possession of an Incendiary Device, and booked into jail. Once the suspect was removed from the apartment, adjoining apartments were evacuated and McDonald Road was closed from Broadway to Alki. The Spokane City /County Explosives Disposal Unit (EDU) was called in and used a robot to remotely remove the explosive from the apartment. The substance was placed in a bomb containment sphere and transported to a nearby county gravel pit where it was detonated. The roadway was re- opened to traffic shortly after 9 p.m. and residents allowed back into their apartments. SCOPE Special Incident Response Teams (SIRT) conducted the traffic control on behalf of Spokane Valley Police and the sheriff s office. False Alarm Reduction Program went into effect on January 1 2010. We continue to receive registrations from alarm owners in the Spokane Valley and are experiencing fewer questions regarding the need for the program. Teens Arrested for Shooting at Kayaker - A pair of Spokane Valley teens was arrested Sunday afternoon after they used a pellet gun to shoot a 50- year -old man kayaking on the Spokane River. Deputy Tom Walker and others were called to the 16000 block of East Indiana in the late afternoon after the two 17- year -old suspects were caught and held by the two kayakers and a neighbor in the area. The victim told Walker that he and the other man had been on the river at the Flora Rapids when the he was hit in the back with a pellet. The pellet caused no injury. When the two began paddling to shore, the two teen boys took off running. The kayakers chased and caught them when the suspects tried to hide rather than continue running. The neighbor said he had watched the two boys shooting at the kayakers from his kitchen window. When the kayakers began chasing the boys, he went up to the end of Flora Road to head them off. Walker's investigation revealed that teens had fired four or five pellets at the kayakers before hitting the one man. He arrested both suspects for Aiming/Discharging a Deadly Weapon and Fourth -Degree Assault, and released each to their parents. • Woman Falls For Secret Shopper Scam - Despite it sounding "too good to be true," a Spokane Valley woman fell victim to a secret shopper scam and ended up being the unwitting accomplice in a counterfeit check fraud. The 42 -year -old victim called Crime Check to report that she had been given Page 5 a $2,960 check to be a Secret Shopper. A man from Mystery Shopper Company told her to deposit the check in her bank and then withdraw $250 in a week. She was to return the overage to him. However, her bank caught the counterfeit check three days later and alerted the victim to the scam. The fraud is operated entirely by e-mail from an Internet site. This type of fraud is a common way for theft suspects to enlist unwary accomplices to cash phony checks. Internet sales sites such as Craig's List and E -bay, as well as classified ads in newspapers and shopping flyers, are fertile grounds for suspects who offer sellers a (counterfeit) check for more than they are asking, then ask that the overage be returned to them. Anytime you receive a check for more than the agreed upon amount and are asked to return the overage, consider walking away from the deal. It may not be a deal at all. Teens Arrested For Paint Graffiti - A 17- year -old boy and his 15- year -old partner were arrested after officers determined they had vandalized several Spokane Valley businesses with spray paint. Officers Dale Wells and Mark Brownell were talking in the Spokane Valley Precinct parking lot at approximately 2 a.m. when they saw two young males riding bikes through the White Elephant parking lot to the west. Knowing the business was closed, they drove over to look for the two. Officers located the boys. The 17- year -old had a can of blue spray paint sticking out of a pants pocket and the 15- year -old had thrown away his can of black paint when he saw the officers approaching. Investigation revealed that the two had spray - painted graffiti on the walls of a strip mall located on East Sprague, on Players and Spectators, on the Trading Company grocery, and on Auto Zone. A vacant furniture store next to Auto Zone also had fresh graffiti on the wall. Officer Wells booked the 17- year -old for four counts of Third - Degree Malicious Mischief. The 15- year -old was in possession of an illegal knife at the time of his arrest and was booked for two counts of Third - Degree Malicious Mischief and a single count of Possession of a Dangerous Weapon. An uncle and two cousins were booked into the Spokane County Jail and Juvenile Detention Center after they were captured as they ran from the scene of a residential burglary in the 11000 block of East Fourth. Officers were called to the home about 3:45 a.m. by a 19- year -old resident who said a man had entered his home through an unlocked mud room doorway. As Officer Dale Wells drove into the area, he spotted a 19- year -old running from the scene. Officer Mark Brownell picked up the chase and pulled alongside the fleeing suspect who surrendered when ordered to the ground. Meanwhile, Wells was on foot in the area and saw a second suspect jog out of a back yard. The man ran to and entered a mini -van with California plates. After only seconds, the man jumped out of the van and ran south on Pierce. He was last seen running through backyards. As they moved into a yard, Wells spotted the suspect moving behind a BBQ. They ordered him to the ground and Wells and Officer Juan Rodriguez took him into custody. The third suspect, a 16- year -old, was found hiding beneath a car by Corporal Shannon McCrillis. At the conclusion of the investigation, the first suspect was booked on a felony count of Residential Burglary and misdemeanor count of Minor in Possession of Alcohol (by consumption). The second suspect was booked on misdemeanor counts of Vehicle Prowling and Obstruction of a Police Investigation. The 16- year -old was arrested for Minor in Possession of Alcohol (by consumption). Page 6 2009 DECEMBER CRIME REPORT To date: Yearly totals: Jan -10 Jan -09 2010 2009 2009 2008 1 2007 2006 1 2005 2004 BURGLARY 80 49 80 49 725 753 584 714 744 997 FORGERY 33 44 33 44 297 354 365 334 464 465 MALICIOUS MISCHIEF 85 83 85 83 1245 893 1,265 1,122 904 1,224 NON - CRIMINAL 77 86 77 86 892 944 839 811 749 916 PROPERTY OTHER 74 80 74 80 933 828 890 982 1,1541 1,665 RECOVERED VEHICLES 21 14 21 14 1871 319 343 403 333 390 STOLEN VEHICLES 37 18 37 18 298 496 478 711 603 577 THEFT 182 156 182 156 2162 1,846 1,881 1,888 2,256 2,853 UIOBC 0 0 0 0 4 4 8 11 8 10 VEHICLE OTHER 01 1 1 0 1 5 7 3 3 5 40 VEHICLE PROWLING 129 1101 129 1101 920 10691 682 937 958 1,382 TOTAL PROPERTY CRIMES 718 641 718 6411 7,668 7,5131 7,338 7,916 8,178 10,519 ASSAULT 95 80 95 801 927 8691 853 846 894 880 DOA/SUICIDE 21 14 21 141 210 269 221 167 159 164 DOMESTIC VIOLENCE 96 100 96 1001 1226 1063 874 736 762 755 HOMICIDE 0 01 0 0 3 3 1 5 11 5 KIDNAP 01 0 0 0 21 16 23 22 35 24 MENTAL 311 25 31 25 310 360 350 425 425 386 MID 10 8 10 8 115 95 83 88 97 106 PERSONS OTHER 184 142 184 142 1621 1,354 1,337 1,159 1,256 1,624 ROBBERY 6 12 6 12 75 71 60 58 56 58 TELEPHONE HARASSMENT 11 1qj 11 19 159 95 73 83 92 190 TOTAL MAJOR CRIMES 454 400 454 400 4,667 4,195 3,875 3,589 3,777 4,192 ADULT RAPE 31 4 3 4 35 441 43 29 39 37 CHILD ABUSE 11 8 11 8 159 148 104 78 101 126 CUSTODIAL INTERFERENCE 11 10 11 10 157 86 92 105 88 205 SEX REGISTRATION F 0 0 0 0 2 3 4 3 6 4 INDECENT LIBERTIES 2 1 2 1 10 11 18 15 9 21 CHILD MOLESTATION 1 3 1 3 35 66 46 69 67 77 CHILD RAPE 0 3 0 3 35 39 31 62 351 30 RUNAWAY 22 38 22 3811 440 369 295 309 3111 437 SEX OTHER 181 21 18 2111 211 179 194 203 1811 162 STALKING 01 2 0 2 15 21 17 17 27 35 SUSPICIOUS PERSON 14 19 14 19 175 142 152 177 244 341 TOTAL SEX CRIMES 82 109 82 109 1271 1,1081 996 1,067 1,108 1,475 DRUG 50 74 50 74 670 838 807 665 891 999 ISU OTHER 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 TOTAL ISU 50 74 50 74 671 838 808 665 891 1,000 TOTAL TRAFFIC REPORTS 2961 244 296 244 3,183 3,811 3,800 3,345 2,403 2,776 TOTAL REPORTS RECEIVED 1,600 1,468 1,600 1,468 17,460 17,465 16,817 16,357 19,962 Spokane Valley Commercial Burglary 112007 ■ 2008 ■ 2009 M2010 Spokane Valley Forgery 02007 ■ 2008 ■2009 ®2010 50 JAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Spokane Valley Garage Burglary 25 20 15 10 ■2007 ■2008 ■2009 ■2010 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Spokane Valley Malicious Mischief 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 N E2007 ■ 2008 ■2009 ■ 2010 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Spokane Valley Property Crimes Comparisons (2010 is January Only) 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 Commercial Residential Forgery Malicious Stolen Vehicle Theft Vehicle Prowling Burglary Burglary Mischief Spokane Valley Residential Burglary .e] 50 40 74N iZi7 10 02007 ■2008 ■2009 M2010 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Spokane Valley Stolen Vehicles ME 70 .e] 50 40 30 all 10 1@2007 ■2008 ■2009 ■2010 JAN FEES MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC Spokane Valley Theft 02007 ■2008 ■2009 02010 140 120 100 Mf -I 40 mij 0 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC S � "okane Valley PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT MONTHLY REPORT January 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. • Landscaping Services — Spokane ProCare. • 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 ' • Status of the process can be monitored at: http:1 /www,spokaneriyermet/ http : / /www ecy wa go /nro rams /wa /tmdl /sool <aneriver /dissolved a yq n /status html http' / /www sp okane county orq/ utilities/ WaterReclamatieti /cont8nt,aspx7C�2224 and http'// www,sookanoriverparkner_s.com/ CENTRAL VALLEY SCHOOL DISTRICT • Neil is a member of the Capital Facilities Planning Committee to assist the district in the development of a 6 -year and 25 -year long range bond plan. The committee is currently meeting on a weekly basis on Wednesday evenings. The Committee will continue through April of 2010. 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 committee is currently working with Russ Menke, Director, to explore possible system alternatives for future evaluation by the Board. 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. nnHntarl Fahriiary 1R 9n1n CAPITAL PROJECTS BRIDGE PROJECTS o Barker Road Bridge Project (0003) Project on winter shut -down until February 15; non - critical path items will continue until then. Utilities are being installed this week and next and the sewer will be installed next week. o 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. ROAD CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS • Pines /Mansfield (0005) Contract with Inland Asphalt is done but still have work to do with Union Pacific. Will start closing out middle of February. • Sprague /Evergreen PCCP Intersection Project (0102) Closing out project. Retainage scheduled to be released soon. • Sprague/McDonald PCCP Intersection Project (0104) Closing out project. Retainage scheduled to be released soon. • Blake Road Repair (0132) Still need to pay final retainage. Poe has submittals on behalf of Cat's Eye to give us and then we will closeout. STREET PRESERVATION PROJECTS Sprague have 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. Coordinating schedule with Sprague /Sullivan PCC Intersection project. The work is planned to be done at night. ROAD DESIGN 44 Avenue Pathway - Woodruff Rd. to Sands Rd. (0054) Preparing final design; target bid date, April for construction this spring or summer. Broadway Ave Safety Improvement — Park Rd to Pines Rd (0063) Century West was selected to design this project which should begin late January; still negotiating scope & fee. a Sprague /Sullivan PCCP Intersection (0065) Held public meeting for "Sullivan Corridor" projects on January 21, 2010. Scheduled to go out to bid in April; will begin construction June 21 and will take 3 weeks. undated February 18. 2010 0 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. o Park Rd — Broadway Ave to Indiana Ave — (0069) DESIGN ONLY Survey is complete; working on scope for minor work. (30% design) ADA Improvements 2009 (0127) Drawings 80% complete. Currently scheduled for bid in April and construction in May /June 2010. SEWER PROJECTS o 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 1. Valleyview Sewer Project (0107) North Valleyview Stormwater (tied into the Valleyview Sewer Project) (0111) Minor paving issues to deal with in the spring. o Rotchford Acres Sewer Project (0108) Paving complete. Clement Sewer Project (0109) Paving complete. West Farms Sewer Project (0128) County design 90% complete. Project is scheduled to bid in February; out to bid 2/10 -bid opening 2/24. • South Green Acres Sewer Project (0129) Phase 3 (north of Mission) —County design 90% complete. Project is scheduled to bid in March. Out to bid 2 weeks behind West Farms. Phase 4 (south of Mission) — County design 20% complete. Project is scheduled to bid in June. • Corbin Sewer Project (0130) County design 50% complete. Project is scheduled to bid in April. o Cronk Sewer Project (0131) County design 50% complete. Project is scheduled to bid in April. White Birch Sewer Project Century West design for County 80% complete. Project to be bid under Broadway (Moore to Flora). undated February 18. 2010 PARIS PROJECTS ® Valley Mission Park Upgrade (0076) Punchlist items remaining. Tied up in dispute resolution. Discovery Playground (0086) Project on winter shut down. Rock climbing wall is all done. Grand opening set for May 13. STORMWATER PROJECTS Stormwater Decant Facility — to be programmed with 2011 -2017 Stormwater Plan. 2008 Problematic Flood Areas Project Design done; specs in draft form. Anticipate construction in Spring /Summer 2010. small works bid this fall /winter of 13 projects for 1. Robinhood Street, 1300 — 1400 Block: add capture, catchbasins, and expand UIC for under - designed area. 2. Herald Street, 8th to 9 th Ave.: add capture, catchbasins, and expand existing UIC. 3. Oberlin Street, South of 11 Avenue: additional stormwater capture and swale. 4. 10 Avenue, Little John Ct. to Mariam St: additional stormwater capture, manhole structure 5. University and 16 NE Corner: replace (2) existing UIC's, provide overflow to 16 Ave system. 6. 43 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. 8 th and Woodlawn: increase intercept of stormwater before existing drywell 13. 5700 E. 8 new intercept and swale with drywell. 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 Il 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. 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 0 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. updated February 18. 2010 Street Master Plan /Pavement Management Plan Need to update Council on Pavement Management Plan O Sullivan Road SB Bridge over Spokane River Replacement (Planning) Call for bridge projects anticipated April 2010. TRAFFIC G Argonne Corridor Improvements (0060) Selected DKS Associates as the most qualified consultant for this project. Beginning scope /fee discussions. m 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. • Signal LEDS ($65,000) This project will complete the installation of LEDs in the City's signals. STREET & STORMWATER MAINTENANCE ACTIVITY The following is a summary of Public Works /Contractor maintenance activities in the City of Spokane Valley for January 2010: Winter Street and Stormwater Maintenance Items: o Poe is providing pothole patching. 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 o Winter operations in progress undated February 18. 2010 Stormwater: 0 2009 County Sewer Projects — Met with County staff to discuss flow bypass due to paving errors in several areas of the Ponderosa Sewer projects. 0 2010 County Sewer Projects — Started reviewing County sewer plans for 2010 — suggested ditching efforts in the West Farms and South Green Acres areas. Working on details for ditches and researching existing problems and complaints in those areas. o Sweeping & Structure Cleaning Study-. Contacted a consultant to possibly assist with this study. Consultant has submitted a proposed scope of work. o 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 in the next two years. Evaluating various options and opportunities to best expend the grant dollars and completing work on previous grant. o 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. o 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. 0 16 and Shamrock Drainage — Drafted a historical outline of this problem from the Ridgemont Estates No. 3, 2n and 1S 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. o SW Evaluation Form — Developed a form to help evaluate stormwater problems and give a relative basis for priority ranking. Started evaluating stormwater problems and ranking them to further develop a stormwater improvement program. o 11 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 project alternatives will be developed to improve this site. 0 2009 Stormwater Fee Assessor Rolls Update — Completed update to the Assessor Rolls for Stormwater Fee adjustments. updated February 18, 2010 Spoka e Valley" January -10 0003 0005 0005 2010 PROJEG 15 _11 TIB /CMAQ w. Knutson Apr -08 . _- 100% 97% 11/30/09 $ 6,350,000 0063 Broadway Ave. Safety Improvements - Park Rd to Pines Rd TO Kipp N/A 70 Estimated 9/1/10 $ 932,850 0065 Project Proposed Design Construction Construction Total Project # Road Projects Fund;-- Manv Bid DnRe Com Co r C om 20% 0% . cam_.. i. o ^' RD 304,500 0088 Broadway Ave. - Moore to Flora (PE, RW) o lete 0et0on 11 317.000 0003 0005 0005 barker Road Bridge Kepiacernem - oai Ke Ru. aI JPONanc 11-1 Pines /Mansfield Project- Wilbur to Pines, to 1 -90 _11 TIB /CMAQ w. Knutson Apr -08 . _- 100% 97% 11/30/09 $ 6,350,000 0063 Broadway Ave. Safety Improvements - Park Rd to Pines Rd TO Kipp N/A 0% 0% 9/1/10 $ 932,850 0065 Sprague Sullivan PCCP Intersection Project STP(U) Aldworth Jan -09 50% 0% 7/21/10 $ 1,677,000 0069 Park Road Phase 2 - Broadway to Indiana (PE only) STP(U) Knutson TBD 20% 0% 1111/09 $ 304,500 0088 Broadway Ave. - Moore to Flora (PE, RW) TO Aldworth Feb -10 67% 0% 10115/10 $ 2,198,000 0112 Indiana Avenue Extension Project (3600 ft east of Sullivan Rd to Flora Rd) TO Aldworth Feb -09 50% 0% 10/1/10 $ 1,881,000 0113 Indiana Sullivan PCCP Intersection Project STA Aldworth Jan -09 0% 0% 10/1/11 $ 1,342,000 0114 Broadway Sullivan PCCP Intersection Project STA Aldworth Jan -10 100% 0% 10/1/10 $ 1,230,000 0127 ADA Improvements 2009 CDBG Aldworth Jan -10 95% 0% 7/1/10 $ 110,000 0132 Blake Road Repair Project City Aldworth 14- Oct -09 100% 99% 11/6/09 $ 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 Econ. Stim. Arlt Apr -09 100% 99% 5/1/10 $ 3,898,000 0115 Sprague Ave Resurfacing Phase II - Evergreen to Sullivan Econ. Stim. Arlt May -10 95% 0% 10/1/10 $ 1,944,000 Parks Projects 0086 Discovery Playground Parks /State Worley May -09 100% 85% 4/31/2010 $ 1,676,000 PW Report Jan 2010 Construction Projects.xlsx 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% 1111/09 $ 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 90% 0% 11/1/10 TBD 0129 South Greenacres Ph 3 - Paveback - Flora to Barker, 1 -90 to Spokane River City Arlt Mar -10 75% 0% 11/1/10 TBD 0129 South Greenacres Ph 4 - Paveback - Flora to Barker, 1 -90 to Spokane River City Arlt Jun -10 20% 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 May -09 100% 85% 4/31/2010 $ 1,676,000 PW Report Jan 2010 Construction Projects.xlsx 2010 PROJECTS Stormwater Projects Stormwater Decant Facility (08/09) - On Hold 2008 Problematic Flood Areas Project City Jenkins N/A 0% 0% TBD TBD City Clary N/A 100% 0% 10/31/09 TBD Other Projects % % I Estimated 0054 44th Avenue Pathway - Woodruff to Sands (PE) STP(E) Aldworth Project Proposed Design Construction I Construction Total Project # Road Projects Fundin Manager Did Date Comnlete Com lete Com letion Cost Stormwater Projects Stormwater Decant Facility (08/09) - On Hold 2008 Problematic Flood Areas Project City Jenkins N/A 0% 0% TBD TBD City Clary N/A 100% 0% 10/31/09 TBD Other Projects 0054 44th Avenue Pathway - Woodruff to Sands (PE) STP(E) Aldworth Nov -09 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 PW Report Jan 2010 Construction Projects.xlsx PW Report Jan 2010 Construction Projects.xlsx Projects in Closeout Phase Estimated 0016 Appleway Avenue Reconstruction - Tschirley to Hodges Project Proposed Design Construction Construction Total Project # Ro ad Projects Fundin Manager Bid Date Com lete Com lete Completion Cost PW Report Jan 2010 Construction Projects.xlsx Projects in Closeout Phase 0016 Appleway Avenue Reconstruction - Tschirley to Hodges STP(U) Arlt Sep -07 100% 100% 12/1/08 $ 6,099,568 0062 Sprague /Appleway /Dishman ITS - Sprague /Appleway /Dishman CMAQ Knutson N/A 100% 100% 9/30/09 $ 830,700 0066 Broadway Ave. Rehab Phase 2 - Fancher to Thierman (PE) STP(U) Aldworth June 100% 100% 9/1/09 $ 500,000 0067 Broadway /Fancher PCC Intersection - Broadway and Fancher STP(U) Aldworth Feb -09 100% 100% 5/29/09 $ 1,295,000 0068 Broadway Ave. Grind /Overlay- 1 -90 to Park Rd. Aldworth Aug -08 100% 100% 11/1/08 $ 351,000 0071 Signal Controller Upgrade CMAQ Knutson N/A 100% 100% 8/1/09 $ 258,400 0073 Park Rd Swimming Pool Upgrade - Park Rd. Parks West Mar -08 100% 100% 615/09 $ 1,017,361 0074 Terrace View Swimming Pool Upgrade - 24th and Terrace View Parks West Mar -08 100% 100% 6/5/09 $ 1,314,337 0075 Valley Mission Swimming Pool Upgrade - Mission Ave. Parks West Mar -08 100% 100% 6/5/09 $ 1,122,994 0076 Valley Mission Park Upgrade - Mission Ave. Parks West Mar -09 100% 100% 6/15/09 $ 372,000 0077 Sprague /Conklin Signal - Sprague and Conklin Developers Arlt N/A 100% 100% 5/1/09 $ 300,000 0092 Sprague / Bowdish PCC Intersection - Sprague and Bowdish STA Aldworth May -08 100% 100% 11/1/08 $ 892,000 0098 Sprague ADA Improvements CDBG Aldworth Feb -09 100% 100% 6/30/09 $ 53,261 0100 16th Ave and Bettman Rd & Drainage Improvements City Aldworth Mar -09 100% 100% 9/1/09 $ 116,563 0102 Evergreen /Sprague PCCP Intersection Project STA Aldworth May -09 100% 100% 10/1/09 $ 653,232 0104 McDonald /Sprague PCCP Intersection Project STA Aldworth May -09 100% 100% 10/1/09 $ 610,987 0103 Pines /Sprague PCCP Intersection Project STA Aldworth Apr -09 100% 100% 10/1/09 $ 806,093 0105 24th and Adams Sidewalk Vera Aldworth Feb -09 100% 100% 8/31/09 $ 50,000 0108 Rotchford Acres - Paveback - Sullivan to Steen, 16th to 10th City Arlt Apr -09 100% 100% 11/1/09 $ 387,817 Valleyview Drainage Improvements City Arlt N/A 100% 100% 10/31/09 $ 30,732 West Ponderosa Drainage Improvements City Arlt Mar -09 100% 100% 9/1/09 $ 172,248 Total $ 17,031,313 PW Report Jan 2010 Construction Projects.xlsx Spokane County Library District Spokane Valley Library Services and District Support Report to the City of Spokane Valley 4 1 h Quarter 2009 Customer use measures Continuing the trend of the first three quarters of 2009, SCLD's Spokane Valley area libraries ended the year very positively, consistent with the District as a whole. Library materials circulation was up 10 %, door count 6 %, reference inquiries 7 %, and computer bookings 9 %. Spokane Valley and Argonne's numbers were particularly strong. As noted in previous reports, the drop in program attendance reflects the fact that staff didn't visit schools to promote the Summer Reading Program. Since there's been only a 2% increase in registered borrowers, it appears that existing customers are just using their libraries more. Selected 4th Quarter 2009 Year -to -Date Statistics Registered Customers by Branch of Registration Circulation Door count Reference In uiries Program Attendance Computer Boo kin s - YTD 2009 YTD to 2008 YTD 2009 YTD to 2008 YTD 2009 YTD to 2008 YTD 2009 YTD to 2008 YTD 2009 YTD to 2008 SCLD 2,344,950 10% 1,346,756 6% 252,911 3% 49,659 -10% 258,268 10% S o Valley 585,365 9% 318,049 6% 87,442 12% 16,609 -9% 80,355 8% Argonne 163,635 12% 98,596 10%1 17,106 -1% 2,259 -22% 25,085 14% Otis Orch. 88,921 97o 56,197 3% 11,810 -10% 2,442 -26% 7,682 5% Subtotal 837,921 10% 472,842 6% 116,358 7% 21,310 -13% 113,122 9% % SCLD 35.7% - 35.1% - 46.0% - 1 42.9% - 43.8% - Registered Customers by Branch of Registration 3rd quarter activity highlights at Greater Spokane Valley branches Spokane Valley Library SCLD staffed a table at East Valley School District's Ready for Kindergarten program where we provided program information and handed out library card applications; the Friends held their Fall book sale and made an estimated $1,200; youth services manager Mary Ellen Braks met with the 5th grade teachers and school librarians at Sunrise Elementary school where we'll be doing presentations Page 1 of 5 2009 YTD % of SCLD YTD Change from 2008 SCLD 114,792 - 3% S o Valley 36,305 32% 2% Argonne 10,379 9% 4% Otis 4,699 4% -3% Subtotal 1 51,383 45% 2% 3rd quarter activity highlights at Greater Spokane Valley branches Spokane Valley Library SCLD staffed a table at East Valley School District's Ready for Kindergarten program where we provided program information and handed out library card applications; the Friends held their Fall book sale and made an estimated $1,200; youth services manager Mary Ellen Braks met with the 5th grade teachers and school librarians at Sunrise Elementary school where we'll be doing presentations Page 1 of 5 for the students and teachers on our databases in addition to field trips to the Spokane Valley Library for a tour and instruction on how to use our catalog under a Supporting Student Success Grant based on the social studies curriculum. Spokane Valley continued to have more than its share of customer incidents during the 4th Quarter including a second floor customer being approached by undercover officers and taken away in handcuffs; a woman with two young children and a dog claiming to be a service animal who was asked to leave after it began barking and then growling as people approached it; a woman who collapsed and was transported to the hospital after being stabilized by EMTs; a 911 call to request assistance in removing an intoxicated, belligerent customer; vandalism in the basement men's restroom that progressed from spilled liquid soap to broken wall tiles; a wallet theft (with the perpetrator quickly apprehended nearby); and a confrontation between a man and two disabled customers who regularly use the library without incident. Argonne Library Friends collected donations and held their first 4 -hour book sale in October, earning just short of $340; interesting customer interactions included one who called to demand that someone sit at "his' computer because he was going to be late for his booking by about 15 minutes; a Holiday Open House, with the help of the Friends, attracted more than 30 people who enjoyed making crafts and eating cookies; artwork from Seth Woodard Elementary and the West Valley City School was displayed. Otis Orchards Library A pumpkin decorating party was held by the Friends and there were more participants (around 60) than ever seen for that event; in addition to hosting pumpkin decorating for all ages on Halloween, the Friends had an impromptu book sale that was very successful; staff began to connect with the East Valley School District about setting up a community garden; 25 kids participated in the Christmas -tree bookmark table craft; a customer objected to a collection of nativity scenes in the display case and asked that they be removed as he feels they dori t belong in a library. DISTRICT -WIDF Lu, Customer use measures 2009 was statistically another banner year. Included in the strongest measures are a 6% door count increase; 10% circulation increase (that includes a 97% increase for downloadable audiobooks);10% software station booking increase; 14% more meeting room bookings; and 20% more website user sessions. As noted previously, the drop in program attendance relates to not doing the summer reading program school visits that were previously included and the drop in database numbers was caused by a change in vendor reporting. Adult services Programming. October was all about Spokane Is Reading, culminating with the two author events: 149 people attended the afternoon event at North Spokane, and over 300 came to hear Garth Stein speak at the Masonic Center. SNAP presented a series of three programs on finance, credit, and money management at the North Spokane Library. Our 13 computer classes had a total attendance of 77. The book clubbers read together at Spokane Valley, Moran Prairie, Deer Park, and North Spokane, with winter/ spring schedules finalized for all four locations. Community: We visited an average of 45 adult facilities in each month. There were two successful community blood drives held at Moran Prairie Library, one in October and other in December. An overview of online business resources was presented to the Deer Park Chamber of Commerce at their monthly lunch meeting. Page 2 of 5 Youth services Programming: October's Teen Read Week was celebrated with Anime programs at several branches. In addition to the early literacy focus in Storytime, at least once a month they incorporate an activity from the Mother Goose Science kits. After School Specials continued the science theme with crime solving techniques in October, colors in November, and measuring in December. Letters were sent to all Spokane area high school English teachers inviting them to participate in the upcoming Big Read of To Kill a Mockingbird; five responded and will receive a classroom set of To Kill a Mockingbird. Community: Youth services managers conducted two trainings with their Spokane Public Library counterpart for staff and area libraries on incorporating math and science concepts into storytimes as part of the Washington State Library's grant for Mother Goose Science. Staff visited an average of 23 childcare facilities each month, presenting up to 47 Storytime programs. Board of Trustees action, October - December • With regard to the 2010 budget — Held the public hearing on authorized revenue sources — Approved 2010 organizational memberships — Adopted resolutions establishing the levy limit for 2010 property tax collections; authorizing a property tax levy increase; providing an estimate of property taxes to be levied; and adopting the 2010 budget • Approved 2009 classification and compensation study recommendations • Approved revisions to the Rules of Customer Conduct Policy, and reaffirmed the Volunteer Program and Facility Use for Partisan Political Purposes Policies. • Approved a contract with DeVries Business Systems for interbranch courier services • Approved an interlocal agreement with the City of Spokane concerning mitigation of the impact of the Greenfield Estates Annexation • Provided direction on future state audit frequency • Established dates for first quarter 2010 workshops on 2011 -2014 budget projections and library facilities master planning 2010 budget The $10,314,213 2010 General Operating Fund budget once again this year maintains service levels, including the hours, staffing, materials, and bandwidth funding added after our 2006 levy lid lift. However, in 2011 and ensuing years we may be hard- pressed to continue service level maintenance without considering options for securing additional funding. Spam Spam is a huge issue for business and government, including SCLD. Over the past 12 months, approximately 4.3 million messages were received by our e -mail server. Of that number only approximately 270,000 weren't spam; 4,030,000 —93.7% —of e-mail with an scld.org address was Spam. Thanks to our appropriately named Barracuda software, SCLD staff didn't have to deal with any of it. DVD & popular music circulation One of our 2008 Balanced Scorecard tactics was to modify DVD /CD selection criteria to include more popular titles, with the measures including a 15% increase in circulation of targeted materials. Recent statistics show that having modified the criteria (what we buy and how many copies), the year -to -date circulation increase for DVDs and CDs over the same period last year is 27.45 %. Page 3 of 5 Trustee changes Trustee Frank Payne's second term ended December 31, after over nine years of service to the District and its residents. Daniel Davis, a Glenrose area resident, was appointed to SCLD's Board by the Board of County Commissioners at its December 8 meeting. His trustee orientation will begin January 6 with an administrative overview and will continue on three Fridays during the month. SCLD and Facebook SCLD's Facebook was launched December, our first foray into social networking. Designated staff is authorized to post to the page and a task force has written Social Media Guidelines for this and any other social media we choose to use. Washington Secretary of State's visit Washington's Secretary of State, Sam Reed, his deputy, and his communications director visited the Moran Prairie and Cheney Libraries on the afternoon of October 22. Trustees Frank Payne and Tim Hattenberg were on hand to greet them at Moran, along with several staff. They were impressed with our facilities as well as our services — one of them asked if all our libraries were as new and attractive. Mr. Wirt presented Mr. Reed with a copy of our Spokane Is Reading selection and an SCLD book bag. 2010 non - resident library card fee Each October the coming year's non - resident library card fee is calculated, using the formula included in Resolution 99 -12. Based on 2009's total property tax revenue, city contract fees in lieu of property taxes, leasehold excise tax and timber tax revenue, and total District households in 2009, 2010's fee will remain at the current $100 per household. Collection Services • Ordered 5,177 titles and 18,269 copies during the fourth quarter; the net increase, year -to -date, in the print /nonprint collection was 16,711 • 87,481 items were added for the year, breaking the old mark of 82,864 items added in 2000, which was a year that bond funds were also included • Book display themes were: "Spokane Is Reading," "What's Cooking ?" and "'Red' any Good Books Latelyr • Youth selection librarian Pat Stainbrook was invited to serve on the national Newbery Medal committee with her two -year committee appointment beginning in 2010. • Canceled an online subscription because of the high cost per click- through resulting from low usage. Communications Community relations and public information activities included a new "Go Greer' website feature and in -branch promotion; publicity planning for the 2010 joint summer reading program with Spokane Public Library; meeting with EWU Get Lit! coordinator to discuss future Big Read grants and potential library support. In media relations and publicity, distributed the Spokane is Reading release and The Big Read announcement; worked on the outreach piece and Cheney Free Press profile, both of which ran in December. • For Spokane Is Reading, did final event planning and staffed both events. Human Resources • Recruited for 8 positions with three filled; there was 1 retirement, three resignations, no promotions,1 transfer, and 2 position reclassifications Page 4 of 5 • Staff attended a two day Public Records Officer Training and Certification class, a Healthy Worksite S and a one -day FMLA master class. • Conducted two "Strategic Interviewing" workshops for managers and supervisors; planning is underway with EWU's professional education department for future classes for managers and supervisors in remote supervision and leadership. Information Technology • The new UPS (uninterruptable power supply) in the server room was turned on and put into use. • Website development work included the new teen page, redesigned SCLD employment section, a "Go Green" feature was activated and supplementary information page created, and Facebook set up was completed and went live on Dec. 31St. • SCLD hosted a State Library meeting for libraries in the region to discuss the broadband stimulus grants which had been submitted and plans for round 2. • On the staff intranet, the new SharePoint servers are ready to go and software was received, setting the stage for upcoming major changes in the intranet. • Holds pickup notices are now running five times each day to give customers faster notification. Finance, Facilities, & Purchasing • In finance, work on the 2010 budget was completed; otherwise operations were normal. • In facilities maintenance, solicited additional quotes for the reception area remodeling project that began December 21 (target completion date of January 15); the District's ten facilities were prepared for winter weather and snow removal crews lined up, but plowing was minim in contrast to the last two years. • In purchasing, each branch completed an end -of -the -year inventory of the items available for sale to the public (flash drives, tote bags, and ear buds) for purposes of 2009 financial reporting. • New postage meters and scales were installed. • Courier service proposals were reviewed and the 2010 contract awarded to DeVries Business Systems at a cost of approximately $5,000 per year lower than the current contractors proposal. 02/12/10 mjw Page 5 of 5 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: February 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: Transportation Benefit Districts — informational update GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.73 PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Discussion at winter retreat January 12, 2008; administrative report January 15, 2008; administrative report February 12, 2008; Council discussion about infrastructure funding options, instruction to staff to proceed with drafting legislation allowing for establishment of a transportation benefit district; April 8, 2008 discussion and update on formation of TBD, discuss draft ordinance; April 15, 2008; administrative update June 10, 2008; July 1, 2008 to update Council on proposed language change to the Spokane Regional Transportation Council's (SRTC) 2007 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (MTP) regarding use of TBD funds for maintenance of existing City road system; July 29, 2008 administrative report and update; December 2, 2008. BACKGROUND: Staff has provided a substantial amount of information in the past two years regarding the ability to use a transportation benefit district for funding street capital projects and for maintenance of the existing road system as well. The Council asked staff to present information on utilizing a TBD after the Legislature amended RCW 36.73 to allow imposition of vehicle tab fees as a funding source. Staff previously provided information and a draft ordinance for discussion by the Council. The information contained in this memorandum is based upon a review of RCW 36.73, a joint informational memorandum from AWC and WSAC (Washington State Association of Counties), and numerous discussions with Ashley Probart of AWC and Julie Murray of the WSAC. A. Introduction - A TBD is a quasi - municipal corporation and independent taxing district created for the sole purpose of acquiring, constructing, improving, providing, and funding transportation improvements within a defined district, or area. A district can be created by either a county or a city, or a combination of cities, counties, port districts or transit districts. If more than one jurisdiction is involved, an interlocal agreement is required. If the TBD is entirely within one jurisdiction, the legislative body of that jurisdiction comprises the TBD governing board. If more than one jurisdiction is included in the district, then each of the jurisdictions must have at least five members on the governing board, with at least one elected person from each jurisdiction on the governing body. B. Adoption mechanism - The creation of a TBD is done following a public hearing and through adoption of an ordinance which includes the following: a description of the boundary of the district, a statement that it is in the public's interest to form, a description of the improvements to be done by the TBD, and a statement of the proposed taxes /fees /charges that the TBD will impose to raise revenue for the improvements. C. TBD funding limits — Subject to voter approval - There are four funding options available that are subject to voter approval: 1. Imposition of property tax — a 1 -year excess levy or an excess levy for capital purposes; 2. Up to 0.2% sales and use tax which may not exceed a 10 year period without voter reauthorization; 3. Up to $100 annual vehicle fee per vehicle registered in the district (but see below). The fee is collected at the time of vehicle tab renewal and has additional restrictions relating to use for ferry service. If a county creates a TBD to impose up to a $20 fee, it must first attempt to impose a countywide fee to be shared with cities by interlocal agreement. 60% of the cities representing 75% of the incorporated population must approve the interlocal agreement for it to become effective. If such an interlocal agreement cannot be reached, then the county is authorized to create a TBD and impose the fee, but only in the unincorporated portion of the county; and 4. Vehicle tolls on specified roads. Not subject to voter approval - There are two options that are not subject to voter approval, but which are subject to additional conditions. Please note that while a vote is not required, a city may still choose to put it to vote. 1. Annual vehicle fee up to $20 per vehicle registered in the district. 2. Transportation impact fees on commercial and industrial buildings. Residential buildings are excluded. In addition, a city must provide a credit for a commercial or industrial transportation impact if the city has already imposed a transportation impact fee. In other words, no double dipping on impact fees. D. Proiects that are "quali yin transportation improvements" — For a project to qualify for TBD funding, it must meet several criteria. A TBD exists solely for the purpose of acquiring, constructing, improving, providing, and funding "transportation improvements" within the district. The ordinance adopting the TBD must identify the transportation improvements that would be subject to TBD. To be a "qualifying transportation improvement" within the contemplation of RCW 36.73, it must meet the following: 1. The improvement must be located within the boundary of the TBD; 2. The improvement is necessitated by existing or reasonably foreseeable congestion levels; 3. The improvement is contained in a state or regional transportation plan; 4. When selecting the improvement, the TBD governing board must consider the following criteria, to the extent practicable: - reduced risk of transportation facility failure and improved safety; - improved travel time; - improved air quality; - increases in daily and peak period trip capacity; - improved modal connectivity; - improved freight mobility; - cost - effectiveness of the investment; - optimal performance of the system through time; and - other criteria as adopted by the governing body. It is also important to remember that the statutory definition of a "transportation improvement" under RCW 336.93.015(3) is quite broad, and includes state, regional, and local transportation facilities. Examples include: - new or existing highways of statewide significance; - principal arterials of regional significance; - high capacity transportation; - public transportation; - transportation demand management; or - other transportation projects and programs of regional or statewide significance as defined or amended into the respective regional or statewide transportation plan) While TBDs have traditionally (although rarely) been used for street capital projects, the recent amendments in 2007 provided jurisdictions the opportunity to use TBD funds for maintenance of the existing street system. Such use would fall under "other transportation projects and programs," and would have to be provided for in either the state transportation plan or the Spokane Regional Transportation Council's current Metropolitan Transportation Plan. When the changes to the TBD statutes were originally made in 2007, staff looked at the 2007 MTP to determine whether the language met the requirements for specificity in calling out street maintenance. There was a difference of opinion as to whether the existing language was sufficient, so SRTC was approached about amending the MTP. Staff proposed the following changes in Section 6, page 11: Local Option Vehicle Registration Fee. This local option considers the imposition of an Lip to $100.00 (the maximum allowed under RCW 36.73) annual vehicle registration fee for vehicles registered in Spokane County. The funds can be used for projects or programs that support local road construction, rehabilitation, an4 maintenance, preservation, or the operation of local transportation systems. These funds can also be used for state highways, bridszes, regional arterials, high capacity transportation, public transportation, and transportation demand management purposes. For the purposes of this analysis, SRTC compiled the actual vehicle registrations in Spokane County from established forecasts to 2030 using a rolling average historical growth rate. The premise being that a rolling 20 -year average will have moderate peaks and valleys in growth, while at the same time be more responsive than a trend line projection of historical data...... SRTC adopted these amendments to its MTP word - for -word on November 6, 2008. Staff is of the opinion that with these changes, the City can legally use TBD revenue to fund on -going maintenance of its existing streets so long as that use is clearly spelled out in the ordinance adopting the authority by the City. A proposed draft ordinance is attached to this RCA for review and consideration. E. Is the formation of a TBD subject to a referendum vote Pursuant to RCW 35A.11.090, there are a number of actions which are exempt from referendum. It may be that formation of a TBD by the City is expressly statutorily exempt under RCW 35A.11.090, but it is not certain. There are additional means by which a legislative action is determined exempt. Here, the authority to form a TBD is expressly set forth in RCW 36.73.020, and is granted to "the legislative authority of a county or city." As such, the power to establish or de- establish is reserved exclusively to the city council. If the authority was for "the people of a city," or "a city," then it most likely would be subject to referendum. As such, the formation of a TBD is not subject to referendum. F. Administration of the TBD — 1. In the event of proposed major changes to the plan adopted by the TBD Board, the TBD must develop a material change policy to address the delivery of the improvement or the ability to finance the plan. The policy must include a public hearing to solicit comments on how the cost changes should be resolved should anticipated costs exceed its original cost by more than 20 %. 2. A TBD must issue an annual report indicating the status of transportation improvement costs, expenditures, revenues, and construction schedules to the public and to newspapers of record located in the TBD. 3. If the TBD proposes functions or transportation improvements that are outside those specified in the original notice of hearing establishing the TBD, the TBD must go through the notice, public hearing, and ordinance process again. OPTIONS: RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: STAFF CONTACT: Cary Driskell, Deputy City Attorney ATTACHMENTS: 1. RCW 36.73 2. Washington Dept. of Licensing document showing affected vehicles. Chapter 36.73 RCW Transportation benefit districts 36.73.010 Intent. 36.7$,015 Definitions. 36.73.020 Establishment of district by county or city - Participation by other jurisdictions. 36,73,030 Establishment of district by city. 36.73,040 General powers of district. 36.73.050 Establishment of district -- Public hearing - Ordinance. 36.73,060 Authority to levy property tax. 36.73.065 Taxes, fees, charges, tolls. 36.73.070 Authority to issue general obligation bonds, revenue bonds. 36.73.080 Local improvement districts authorized -- Special assessments -- Bonds. 36.73.090 Printing of bonds. 36.73.100 Use of bond proceeds. 36.73.110 Acceptance and use of gifts and grants. 36.73.120 Imposition of fees on building construction or land development. 36.73.130 Power of eminent domain. 36.73.140 Authority to contract for street and highway improvements. 36.73.150 Department of transportation, counties, cities, and other jurisdictions may fund transportation improvements. 36.73.160 Transportation improvement projects -- Material change policy -- Annual report. 36.73.170 Completion of transportation improvement -- Termination of district operations -- Termination of taxes, fees, charges, and tolls -- Dissolution of district. 36.73.900 Liberal construction. Notes: Roads and bridges, service districts: Chapter 36.83 RCN. 36.73.010 Intent. The legislature finds that the citizens of the state can benefit by cooperation of the public and private sectors in addressing transportation needs. This cooperation can be fostered through enhanced capability for cities, towns, and counties to make and fund transportation improvements necessitated by economic development and to improve the performance of the transportation system. It is the intent of the legislature to encourage joint efforts by the state, local governments, and the private sector to respond to the need for those transportation improvements on state highways, county roads, and city streets. This goal can be better achieved by allowing cities, towns, and counties to establish transportation benefit districts in order to respond to the special transportation needs and economic opportunities resulting from private sector development for the public good. The legislature also seeks to facilitate the equitable participation of private developers whose developments may generate the need for those improvements in the improvement costs. [2005 c 336 § 2; 1987 c 327 § 1.1 30.73,016 Definitlons. The definitions in this section apply throughout this chapter unless the context clearly requires otherwise. (1) "District" means a transportation benefit district created under this chapter. (2) "City" means a city or town. (3) "Transportation improvement' means a project contained in the transportation plan of the state or a regional transportation planning organization. A project may include investment in new or existing highways of statewide significance, principal arterials of regional significance, high- capacity transportation, public transportation, and other transportation projects and programs of regional or statewide significance including transportation demand management. Projects may also include the operation, preservation, and maintenance of these facilities or programs. [2006 c 311 § 24; 2005 c 336 § 1.1 36.73.020 Establishment of district by county or city — Participation by other jurisdictions. (1) The legislative authority of a county or city may establish a transportation benefit district within the county or city area or within the area specified in subsection (2) of this section, for the purpose of acquiring, constructing, improving, providing, and funding a transportation improvement within the district that is consistent with any existing state, regional, and local transportation plans and necessitated by existing or reasonably foreseeable congestion levels. The transportation improvements shall be owned by the county of jurisdiction if located in an unincorporated area, by the city of jurisdiction if located in an incorporated area, or by the state in cases where the transportation improvement is or becomes a state highway. However, if deemed appropriate by the governing body of the transportation benefit district, a transportation improvement may be owned by a participating port district or transit district, unless otherwise prohibited by law. Transportation improvements shall be administered and maintained as other public streets, roads, highways, and transportation improvements. To the extent practicable, the district shall consider the following criteria when selecting transportation improvements: (a) Reduced risk of transportation facility failure and improved safety; (b) Improved travel time; (c) Improved air quality; (d) Increases in daily and peak period trip capacity; (e) Improved modal connectivity; (f) Improved freight mobility; (g) Cost - effectiveness of the investment; (h) Optimal performance of the system through time; and (i) Other criteria, as adopted by the governing body. (2) Subject to subsection (6) of this section, the district may include area within more than one county, city, port district, county transportation authority, or public transportation benefit area, if the legislative authority of each participating jurisdiction has agreed to the inclusion as provided in an interlocal agreement adopted pursuant to chapter 39.34 RCW. However, the boundaries of the district need not include all territory within the boundaries of the participating jurisdictions comprising the district. (3) The members of the legislative authority proposing to establish the district, acting ex officio and independently, shall constitute the governing body of the district: PROVIDED, That where a district includes area within more than one jurisdiction under subsection (2) of this section, the district shall be governed under an interlocal agreement adopted pursuant to chapter 39.34 RCW. However, the governing body shall be composed of at least five members including at least one elected official from the legislative authority of each participating jurisdiction. (4) The treasurer of the jurisdiction proposing to establish the district shall act as the ex officio treasurer of the district, unless an interlocal agreement states otherwise. (5) The electors of the district shall all be registered voters residing within the district. (6) Prior to December 1, 2007, the authority under this section, regarding the establishment of or the participation in a district, shall not apply to: (a) Counties with a population greater than one million five hundred thousand persons and any adjoining counties with a population greater than five hundred thousand persons; (b) Cities with any area within the counties under (a) of this subsection; and (c) Other jurisdictions with any area within the counties under (a) of this subsection. [2006 c 311 § 25; 2005 c 336 § 3; 1989 c 53 § 1; 1987 c 327 § 2.] Notes: Transportation benefit district tax authority: RCW 82.47.020. 36.73.030 Establishment of district by city. See RCW 35.21.225. 36.73.040 General powers of district. (1) A transportation benefit district is a quasi - municipal corporation, an independent taxing "authority" within the meaning of Article VII, section 1 of the state Constitution, and a "taxing district' within the meaning of Article VII, section 2 of the state Constitution. (2) A transportation benefit district constitutes a body corporate and possesses all the usual powers of a corporation for public purposes as well as all other powers that may now or hereafter be specifically conferred by statute, including, but not limited to, the authority to hire employees, staff, and services, to enter into contracts, to acquire, hold, and dispose of real and personal property, and to sue and be sued. Public works contract limits applicable to the jurisdiction that established the district apply to the district. (3) To carry out the purposes of this chapter, and subject to the provisions of RCW 36.73.065 a district is authorized to impose the following taxes, fees, charges, and tolls (a) A sales and use tax in accordance with RCW 82.14.0455; (b) A vehicle fee in accordance with RCW 82.80.140; (c) A fee or charge in accordance with RCW 63 73.120 However, if a county or city within the district area is levying a fee or charge for a transportation improvement, the fee or charge shall be credited against the amount of the fee or charge imposed by the district. Developments consisting of less than twenty residences are exempt from the fee or charge under RCW 36.73,120 and (d) Vehicle tolls on state routes or federal highways, city streets, or county roads, within the boundaries of the district, unless otherwise prohibited by law. The department of transportation shall administer the collection of vehicle tolls authorized on state routes or federal highways, unless otherwise specified in law or by contract, and the state transportation commission, or its successor, may approve, set, and impose the tolls in amounts sufficient to implement the district's transportation improvement finance plan. The district shall administer the collection of vehicle tolls authorized on city streets or county roads, and shall set and impose, only with approval of the transportation commission, or its successor, the tolls in amounts sufficient to implement the district's transportation improvement plan. 12005 c 336 § 4; 1989 c 53 § 3; 1987 c 327 § 4.] 36.73.050 Establishment of district — Public hearing — Ordinance. (1) The legislative authorities proposing to establish a district, or to modify the boundaries of an existing district, or to dissolve an existing district shall conduct a hearing at the time and place specified in a notice published at least once, not less than ten days before the hearing, in a newspaper of general circulation within the proposed district. Subject to the provisions of RCW 36.73.170 the legislative authorities shall make provision for a district to be automatically dissolved when all indebtedness of the district has been retired and anticipated responsibilities have been satisfied. This notice shall be in addition to any other notice required by law to be published. The notice shall, where applicable, specify the functions or activities proposed to be provided or funded, or the additional functions or activities proposed to be provided or funded, by the district. Additional notice of the hearing may be given by mail, by posting within the proposed district, or in any manner the legislative authorities deem necessary to notify affected persons. All hearings shall be public and the legislative authorities shall hear objections from any person affected by the formation, modification of the boundaries, or dissolution of the district. (2)(a) Following the hearing held pursuant to subsection (1) of this section, the legislative authorities may establish a district, modify the boundaries or functions of an existing district, or dissolve an existing district, if the legislative authorities find the action to be in the public interest and adopt an ordinance providing for the action. (b) The ordinance establishing a district shall specify the functions and transportation improvements described under RCW 36.73.015 to be exercised or funded and establish the boundaries of the district. Subject to the provisions of RCW 36.73.160 functions or transportation improvements proposed to be provided or funded by the district may not be expanded beyond those specified in the notice of hearing, unless additional notices are made, further hearings on the expansion are held, and further determinations are made that it is in the public interest to so expand the functions or transportation improvements proposed to be provided or funded. [2007 c 329 § 3; 2005 c 336 § 5; 1987 c 327 § 5.1 36.73.060 Authorlty to lovy property tax, (1) A district may levy an ad valorem property tax in excess of the one percent limitation upon the property within the district for a one -year period whenever authorized by the voters of the district pursuant to RCW 84.52.052 and Article VII, section 2(a) of the state Constitution. (2) A district may provide for the retirement of voter - approved general obligation bonds, issued for capital purposes only, by levying bond retirement ad valorem property tax levies in excess of the one percent limitation whenever authorized by the voters of the district pursuant to Article VII, section 2(b) of the state Constitution and RCW 84.52.056. [2005 c 336 § 6; 1987 c 327 § 6.] 36.73.065 Taxes, fees, charges, tolls. (1) Except as provided in subsection (4) of this section, taxes, fees, charges, and tolls may not be imposed by a district without approval of a majority of the voters in the district voting on a proposition at a general or special election. The proposition must include a specific description of the transportation improvement or improvements proposed by the district and the proposed taxes, fees, charges, and the range of tolls imposed by the district to raise revenue to fund the improvement or improvements. (2) Voter approval under this section shall be accorded substantial weight regarding the validity of a transportation improvement as defined in RCW 36.73.015 (3) A district may not increase any taxes, fees, charges, or range of tolls imposed under this chapter once the taxes, fees, charges, or tolls take effect, unless authorized by the district voters pursuant to RCW 36.73.160 (4)(a) A district that includes all the territory within the boundaries of the jurisdiction, or jurisdictions, establishing the district may impose by a majority vote of the governing board of the district the following fees and charges: (i) Up to twenty dollars of the vehicle fee authorized in RCW 82.80.140; or (ii) A fee or charge in accordance with RCW 36.73.120 (b) The vehicle fee authorized in (a) of this subsection may only be imposed for a passenger -only ferry transportation improvement if the vehicle fee is first approved by a majority of the voters within the jurisdiction of the district. (c)(i) A district solely comprised of a city or cities shall not impose the fees or charges identified in (a) of this subsection within one hundred eighty days after July 22, 2007, unless the county in which the city or cities reside, by resolution, declares that it will not impose the fees or charges identified in (a) of this subsection within the one hundred eighty -day period; or (ii) A district solely comprised of a city or cities identified in RCW 36.73.020 shall not impose the fees or charges until after May 22, 2008, unless the county in which the city or cities reside, by resolution, declares that it will not impose the fees or charges identified in (a) of this subsection through May 22, 2008. (5) If the interlocal agreement in RCW 82.80.140(2)(a) cannot be reached, a district that includes only the unincorporated territory of a county may impose by a majority vote of the governing body of the district up to twenty dollars of the vehicle fee authorized in RCW 82.80.140. [2007 c 329 § 1; 2005 c 336 § 17.] 36.'3.070 Authority to Issue general obligation bonds, revenue bonds. (1) To carry out the purposes of this chapter and notwithstanding RCW 39.36.020(1), a district may issue general obligation bonds, not to exceed an amount, together with any other outstanding nonvoter - approved general obligation indebtedness, equal to one and one -half percent of the value of taxable property within the district, as the term "value of taxable property" is defined in RCW 39.36.015. A district may additionally issue general obligation bonds for capital purposes only, together with any outstanding general obligation indebtedness, not to exceed an amount equal to five percent of the value of the taxable property within the district, as the term "value of taxable property" is defined in RCW 39.36.015, when authorized by the voters of the district pursuant to Article VIII, section 6 of the state Constitution, and may also provide for the retirement thereof by excess property tax levies as provided in RCW 36.73.060 The district may, if applicable, submit a single proposition to the voters that, if approved, authorizes both the issuance of the bonds and the bond retirement property tax levies. (2) General obligation bonds with a maturity in excess of forty years shall not be issued. The governing body of the district shall by resolution determine for each general obligation bond issue the amount, date, terms, conditions, denominations, maximum fixed or variable interest rate or rates, maturity or maturities, redemption rights, registration privileges, manner of execution, manner of sale, callable provisions, if any, covenants, and form, including registration as to principal and interest, registration as to principal only, or bearer. Registration may include, but not be limited to: (a) A book entry system of recording the ownership of a bond whether or not physical bonds are issued; or (b) recording the ownership of a bond together with the requirement that the transfer of ownership may only be effected by the surrender of the old bond and either the reissuance of the old bond or the issuance of a new bond to the new owner. Facsimile signatures may be used on the bonds and any coupons. Refunding general obligation bonds may be issued in the same manner as general obligation bonds are issued. (3) Whenever general obligation bonds are issued to fund specific projects or enterprises that generate revenues, charges, user fees, or special assessments, the district may specifically pledge all or a portion of the revenues, charges, user fees, or special assessments to refund the general obligation bonds. The district may also pledge any other revenues that may be available to the district. (4) In addition to general obligation bonds, a district may issue revenue bonds to be issued and sold in accordance with chapter 39.46 RCW. [2005 c 336 § 7; 1987 c 327 § 7.] 36.73.080 Local improvement districts authorized — Special assessments — Bonds. (1) A district may form a local improvement district to provide any transportation improvement it has the authority to provide, impose special assessments on all property specially benefited by the transportation improvements, and issue special assessment bonds or revenue bonds to fund the costs of the transportation improvement. Local improvement districts shall be created and administered, and assessments shall be made and collected, in the manner and to the extent provided by law to cities and towns pursuant to chapters 35.43, 35.44, 35.49, 35.50, 35.51, 35.53, and 35.54 RCW. However, the duties devolving upon the city or town treasurer under these chapters shall be imposed upon the district treasurer for the purposes of this section. A local improvement district may only be formed under this section pursuant to the petition method under RCW 35.43.120 and 35.43.125. (2) The governing body of a district shall by resolution establish for each special assessment bond issue the amount, date, terms, conditions, denominations, maximum fixed or variable interest rate or rates, maturity or maturities, redemption rights, registration privileges, if any, covenants, and form, including registration as to principal and interest, registration as to principal only, or bearer. Registration may include, but not be limited to: (a) A book entry system of recording the ownership of a bond whether or not physical bonds are issued; or (b) recording the ownership of a bond together with the requirement that the transfer of ownership may only be effected by the surrender of the old bond and either the reissuance of the old bond or the issuance of a new bond to the new owner. Facsimile signatures may be used on the bonds and any coupons. The maximum term of any special assessment bonds shall not exceed thirty years beyond the date of issue. Special assessment bonds issued pursuant to this section shall not be an indebtedness of the district issuing the bonds, and the interest and principal on the bonds shall only be payable from special assessments made for the improvement for which the bonds were issued and any local improvement guaranty fund that the district has created. The owner or bearer of a special assessment bond or any interest coupon issued pursuant to this section shall not have any claim against the district arising from the bond or coupon except for the payment from special assessments made for the improvement for which the bonds were issued and any local improvement guaranty fund the district has created. The district issuing the special assessment bonds is not liable to the owner or bearer of any special assessment bond or any interest coupon issued pursuant to this section for any loss occurring in the lawful operation of its local improvement guaranty fund. The substance of the limitations included in this subsection (2) shall be plainly printed, written, or engraved on each special assessment bond issued pursuant to this section. (3) Assessments shall reflect any credits given by a district for real property or property right donations made pursuant to RCW 47.14.030. (4) The governing body may establish, administer, and pay money into a local improvement guaranty fund, in the manner and to the extent provided by law to cities and towns under chapter 35.54 RCW, to guarantee special assessment bonds issued by the district. [2005 c 336 § 8; 1987 c 327 § 8.] 36.73.090 Printing of bonds. Where physical bonds are issued pursuant to RCW 36.73.070 or 36.73,080 the bonds shall be printed, engraved, or lithographed on good bond paper and the manual or facsimile signatures of both the treasurer and chairperson of the governing body shall be included on each bond. [1987 c 327 § 9.1 36.73.100 Use of bond proceeds. (1) The proceeds of any bond issued pursuant to RCW 36.73.070 or 36.73.080 may be used to pay costs incurred on a bond issue related to the sale and issuance of the bonds. These costs include payments for fiscal and legal expenses, obtaining bond ratings, printing, engraving, advertising, and other similar activities. (2) In addition, proceeds of bonds used to fund capital projects may be used to pay the necessary and related engineering, architectural, planning, and inspection costs. 12005 c 336 § 9; 1987 c 327 § 10.1 36.73.110 Acceptance and use of gifts and grants. A district may accept and expend or use gifts, grants, and donations. [2005 c 336 § 10; 1987 c 327 § 11.] 36.73.120 Imposition of fees on building construction or land development. (1) Subject to the provisions in RCW 36.73.065 a district may impose a fee or charge on the construction or reconstruction of commercial buildings, industrial buildings, or on any other commercial or industrial building or building space or appurtenance, or on the development, subdivision, classification, or reclassification of land for commercial purposes, only if done in accordance with chapter 39.92 RCW. (2) Any fee or charge imposed under this section shall be used exclusively for transportation improvements constructed by a district. The fees or charges imposed must be reasonably necessary as a result of the impact of development, construction, or classification or reclassification of land on identified transportation needs. (3) If a county or city within the district area is levying a fee or charge for a transportation improvement, the fee or charge shall be credited against the amount of the fee or charge imposed by the district. [2007 c 329 § 4; 2005 c 336 § 11; 1988 c 179 § 7; 1987 c 327 § 12.1 3 6.73.130 Power of eminent domain. A district may exercise the power of eminent domain to obtain property for its authorized purposes in the same manner as authorized for the city or county legislative authority that established the district. [2005 c 336 § 12; 1987 c 327 § 13.) 36.73.140 Authority to contract for street and highway improvements. A district has the same powers as a county or city to contract for street, road, or state highway improvement projects and to enter into reimbursement contracts provided for in chapter 35.72 RCW. [2005 c 336 § 13; 1987 c 327 § 14.1 36.73.150 Department of transportation, counties, cities, and other jurisdictions may fund transportation improvements. The department of transportation, counties, cities, and other jurisdictions may give funds to districts for the purposes of financing transportation improvements under this chapter. [2005 c 336 § 14; 1987 c 327 § 15.] 36.73.160 Transportation Improvement projects — Material change policy -- Annual report. (1) The district governing body shall develop a material change policy to address major plan changes that affect project delivery or the ability to finance the plan. The policy must at least address material changes to cost, scope, and schedule, the level of change that will require governing body involvement, and how the governing body will address those changes. At a minimum, in the event that a transportation improvement cost exceeds its original cost by more than twenty percent as identified in a district's original finance plan, the governing body shall hold a public hearing to solicit comment from the public regarding how the cost change should be resolved. (2) A district shall issue an annual report, indicating the status of transportation improvement costs, transportation improvement expenditures, revenues, and construction schedules, to the public and to newspapers of record in the district. [2005 c 336 § 18.] 36.73.170 Completion of transportation Improvement — Termination of district operations — Termination of taxes, fees, charges, and tolls — Dissolution of district. Within thirty days of the completion of the construction of the transportation improvement or series of improvements authorized by a district, the district shall terminate day -to -day operations and exist solely as a limited entity that oversees the collection of revenue and the payment of debt service or financing still in effect, if any and to carry out the requirements of RCW 36.73.160 The district shall accordingly adjust downward its employees, administration, and overhead expenses. Any taxes, fees, charges, or tolls imposed by the district terminate when the financing or debt service on the transportation improvement or series of improvements constructed is completed and paid and notice is provided to the departments administering the taxes. Any excess revenues collected must be disbursed to the participating jurisdictions of the district in proportion to their population, using population estimates prepared by the office of financial management. The district shall dissolve itself and cease to exist thirty days after the financing or debt service on the transportation improvement, or series of improvements, constructed is completed and paid. If there is no debt outstanding, then the district shall dissolve within thirty days from completion of construction of the transportation improvement or series of improvements authorized by the district. Notice of dissolution must be published in newspapers of general circulation within the district at least three times in a period of thirty days. Creditors must file claims for payment of claims due within thirty days of the last published notice or the claim is extinguished. [2005 c 336 § 19.1 36.73.900 Liberal construction. The rule of strict construction does not apply to this chapter, and this chapter shall be liberally construed to permit the accomplishment of its purposes. [1987 c 327 § 16.] WA State Licensing: Local tr ortation benefit district fees Local transportation benefit district fees A law passed in 2007 allows city or county governments to create local transportation benefit districts and impose a local vehicle registration fee to fund local transportation projects. How a transportation benefit district works Once a local transportation benefit district is set up, the district's board of directors may vote to charge a local vehicle licensing fee due when a vehicle owner buys new tabs. . The transportation benefit district board has the authority to impose a fee of up to $20 per vehicle without voter approval. o , A transportation benefit district may impose a vehicle renewal fee of up to $100 per vehicle or seek other sources of funding if approved by voters. Vehicles subject to fees • Passenger vehicles • Trucks that weigh 6,000 pounds or less • Motorcycles • Commercial passenger vehicles and trucks that weigh 6,000 pounds or less • Combination trucks that weigh 6,000 pounds or less • Tow trucks • House moving dollies • Trucks used exclusively for hauling logs that weigh 6,000 pounds or less • Taxicabs • For -hire or stage vehicles with 6 seats or less • For -hire or stage vehicles with 7 or more seats that weigh 6,000 pounds or less • Private use trailers over 2,000 pounds • Motorcycle trailers Travel trailers Fixed load vehicles that weigh 6,000 pounds or less Mobile homes licensed as vehicles Exempt vehicles • All farm vehicles • Campers • Off -road vehicles • Snowmobiles C Mopeds Personal use trailers with a single axle and less than 2,000 pounds scale weight Page 1 of 2 htfn- / /unvw &I wa vnv /vPhinlPrPaicfratinri /lncalfee.c himi /�1 /�MQ VV1 OLULU L1L.UUSliLg. 1,0001 Ll'O ^ "lPU1LML1U11 UGllG11L UISUIUL 1GGS .Cap G Ul G i f Commercial trailers o Combination trailers Trailers used exclusively for hauling logs Horseless carriage, collector, or restored -plate vehicles © Converter gear © Government vehicles Private school vehicles Vehicles properly registered to disabled American veterans Districts and fees No cities or counties are currently charging local transportation benefit district fees. Eligible vehicles The fl Transportation Benefit District Eligibility Report provides useful estimations to help cities and counties interested in setting up a transportation benefit district. The report includes: • Information about transportation benefit district laws. • A list of the types of vehicles subject to transportation benefit district fees. • Estimated data showing the number of vehicles eligible for the $20 fee in fiscal year 2008 — sorted by zip code, city, or county. If you need more information after viewing the report, call us at (360) 902 -3606 or send an email to KMathis @dol.wa.gov http:// www. dol. wa. gov/ vehicteregistration /localfees.html 3/21/2008 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action Meeting Date: February 23, 2019 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 42.30.1 10(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: