2011, 02-08 Regular Meeting AGENDA
SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL/REGULAR MEETING
FORMAL MEETING FORMAT
Tuesday,February 8,2011 6:00 p.m.
Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers
11707 E Sprague Avenue
Council Requests Please Silence Your Cell Phones During Council Meeting
CALL TO ORDER:
INVOCATION: Pastor Manuel Denning, Fountain Ministries
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
ROLL CALL:
APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS:
COMMITTEE,BOARD,LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS:
MAYOR'S REPORT:
Proclamations: (1)Kiwanis Children's Cancer Cure Month
(2) Central Valley School District Future Business Leaders of America
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 W/VOUCHER NUMBERS: TOTAL AMOUNT
08/06/2010 20728-20759 $87,091.25
09/13/2010 3303-3305 $56,274.03
01/21/2011 21924-21984; 119110198 (2010 expenses) $1,646,737.61
01/21/2011 21985-21997 $160,806.68
01/24/2011 3422-3425 $56,907.77
01/24/2011 21998-22002 $14,707.24
01/25/2011 22003-22004 $1,664.60
01/28/2011 22005-22043 $74,681.41
01/28/2011 22044-22071 $94,423.20
01/28/2011 22072-22077 $54,768.87
01/31/2011 5202-5213 $2,791.00
GRAND TOTAL $2,250,853.66
Council Agenda 02-08-2011 Regular Meeting Page 1 of 2
b. Approval of Payroll for Period Ending January 31, 2011: $350,970.15
c. Approval of City Council Study Session Meeting Minutes of January 18, 2011
d. Approval of City Council Formal Format Meeting Minutes of January 25, 2011
e. Approval of City Council Study Session Meeting Minutes of February 1, 2011
NEW BUSINESS:
2. First Reading Proposed Ordinance Regulating E-Cigarettes—Cary Driskell [public comment]
3. Motion Consideration: Approval of Memorandum of Understanding for 2011 Paveback Program —
Steve Worley [public comment]
4. Motion Consideration: Mayoral Appointments—Mayor Towey [public comment]
PUBLIC COMMENTS: This is an opportunity for the public to speak on any subject not on the agenda
for action. When you come to the podium, please state your name and address for the record and limit
remarks to three minutes.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS:
5. Comprehensive Emergency Mgmt Plan(CEMP) —Rick VanLeuven, Lisa Jameson
6. 2011 New Freedom Call for Projects (SRTC/STA)— Steve Worley
7. Advance Agenda—Mayor Towey
INFORMATION ONLY: (will not be reported or discussed)
8. Greater Spokane, Inc. Quarterly Report
EXECUTIVE SESSION:
9. Potential Land Acquisition [(RCW 42.30.110(1)(b)]
ADJOURNMENT
General Meeting Schedule(meeting schedule is always subject to change)
Regular Council meetings are generally held every Tuesday beginning at 6:00 p.m.
The Formal meeting formats are generally held the 2nd and 4th Tuesdays. Formal meeting have time
allocated for general public comments as well as comments after each action item.
The Study Session formats (the less formal meeting) are generally held the 1st, 3rd and sometimes 5th
Tuesdays. Study Session formats DO NOT have time allocated for general public comments; but if action
items are included, comments are permitted after those specific action items.
NOTICE: Individuals planning to attend the meeting who require special assistance to accommodate
physical, hearing, or other impairments, please contact the City Clerk at (509) 921-1000 as soon as
possible so that arrangements may be made.
Council Agenda 02-08-2011 Regular Meeting Page 2 of 2
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: 02-08- 2011 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
08/06/2010 20728-20759 $87,091.25
09/13/2010 3303-3305 $56,274.03
01/21/2011 21924-21984; 119110198 (2010 expenses) $1,646,737.61
01/21/2011 21985-21997 $160,806.68
01/24/2011 3422-3425 $56,907.77
01/24/2011 21998-22002 $14,707.24
01/25/2011 22003-22004 $1,664.60
01/28/2011 22005-22043 $74,681.41
01/28/2011 22044-22071 $94,42320
01/28/2011 22072-22077 $54,768.87
01/31/2011 5202-5213 $2,791.00
GRAND TOTAL $2,250,853.66
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION:
Approve claims for vouchers as listed above.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS:
STAFF CONTACT: Ken Thompson, Finance Director
ATTACHMENTS Voucher Lists
vchlist
0810612010 2:09:42PM
Voucher List
Spokane Valley
Page: 1
Bank code: apbank
Voucher
Date Vendor
20728 8/6/2010 000762 ARTISTIC DRAPERIES INC
20729 8/6/2010 000918 BLUE RIBBON LINEN SUPPLY INC
20730 8/6/2010 001169 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
20731 8/6/2010 000109 COFFEE SYSTEMS INC
Invoice
11190
9137514
S0084360
July 2010
3820:058534
20732 8/6/2010 000326 CONSOLIDATED IRRIGATION#19 July 2010
July 2010
20733 8/6/2010 001194 DEPT OF ECOLOGY
20734 8/6/2010 002382 DREVES, PATRICK
20735 8/6/2010 000829 EAGLE ICE-A-RENA
20736 8/6/2010 000246 EAST SPOKANE WATER DIST#1
20737 8/6/2010 002413 HAYES, CHRISTINE
20738 8/6/2010 002196 HOLTEN, MELISSA
20739 8/6/2010 000715 HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS
PO#
Description/Account
2011-WAR046507
July 2010
July 2010
July 2010
JULY 2010
Expense
Expenses
8929 and 8612
MINI BLINDS FOR CENTERPLACE
Total:
LINEN SUPPLY AT CENTERPLACE
LINEN SUPPLY AT CENTERPLACE
Total:
PETTY CASH:8220,8222,8223
Total :
Total :
Total:
Total:
TENNIS LESSONS
Total:
SERVICE COMPONENT FEE
UTILITIES: PW
UTILTIES: PARKS
STORMWATER PERMIT
42558 SUMMER DAY CAMP FIELD TRIP
Total:
UTILITIES: PUBLIC WORKS
UTILITIES:PARKS
EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT
EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT
Total :
Total :
Total :
SUPPLIES:COUNCIL AND CP
Amount
293A9
293.49
294.53
21.77
316.30/
1t38
11.38'
32.61
32.61
490.59
721.63
1,212.22/
11,153.40
11,153.40/
368.00
368.00"
252.18
252.18!
.
973991.75 16
1,964.91
1212.00 00
40.35
40.35/
114.77
Page: 1
whilst
08/06/2010 2:09:42PM
Voucher List Page: 2
Spokane Valley
Bank code: apbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount
20739 8/6/2010 000715 000715 HSBC BUSINESS SOLUTIONS (Continued)
Total : 114.77
20740 8/6/2010 000022 INLAND BUSINESS PRODUCTS, INC. 57554 EMPLOYEE PHOTO ID'S 23.91
Total: 23.91 —
20741 8/6/2010 000070 INLAND POWER&LIGHT CO JULY 2010 UTILITIES:PW 516.82
Total: 516.82
20742 8/6/2010 001635 ISS FACILITY/EVENT SERVICES 23472 EVENT SVCS: CENTERRPLACE 236.40
Total: 236.40
20743 8/6/2010 000635 KUHTA,SCOTT Expenses EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 24.23
Total: 24.23-
20744 8/6/2010 000523 LASER QUEST 014072210 42559 SUMMER DAY CAMP FIELD TRIP 760.00
Total : 760,00
20745 8/6/2010 000252 LOWE'S BUSINESS ACCOUNT JULY 2010 OPERATING SUPPLIES: CP 113.61
Total : 113.61
20746 8/6/2010 000132 MODERN ELECTRIC WATER CO July 2010 UTILITIES: PARKS 4,892.60
Total: 4,892.60'
20747 8/6/2010 001860 PLATT 8016183 BATTERIES FOR CENTERPLACE 30.91
Total: 30.91
20748 8/6/2010 000415 ROSAUERS 669501 SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE 8.21
Total : 8.21
20749 8/6/2010 000709 SENSKE LAWN&TREE CARE INC. 3751764 42553 2010 EMERG TRAFFIC CONTROL 5 530.46
3959444 42553 2010 EMERG TRAFFIC CONTROL 5 84.79/
Total : 615.25
20750 8/6/2010 000935 SERVICE PAPER CO 110333890 SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE 66.92
300471021 SUPPLIES AT CENTERPLACE 318.37
300471149 SUPPLIES FOR CENTERPLACE 608.00
Total: 993.29
20751 8/6/2010 000324 SPOKANE CO WATER DIST#3 July 2010 WATER CHARGES:PW 71.50
Page: 2
vchlist
08106/20/0 2:09:42PM
Voucher List Page: 3
Spokane Valley
Bank code: apbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount
20751 8/6/2010 000324 SPOKANE CO WATER DIST#3 (Continued)
JULY 2010 WATER CHARGES: PARKS 306.08
Total : 377.58
20752 8/6/2010 000406 SPOKANE REGIONAL CVB 2349 LODGING TAX REIMBURSEMENT:P 39,071.00
Total : 39,071.00
20753 8/6/2010 001281 SPOKANE VALLEY ARTS COUNCIL July 21,2010 1ST REIMBURSEMENT:OUTSIDE A 4,338.05
Total : 4,338.05
20754 8/6/2010 000477 TURBAK, MIKE Expense EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 9.50
Total: 9.50
20755 8/6/2010 000295 VALLEYFEST 1296 LODGING TAX REIMBURSEMENT 2 14,900.00/
Total: 14,900.00
20756 8/6/2010 000167 VERA WATER&POWER July 2010 UTILITIES:JULY 2009 2,915.94
Total: 2,915.94�
20757 8/6/2010 002291 WACE July 2010 REGISTRATION FOR WACE CONFE 250.00
Total: 250.00 Y
20758 8/6/2010 000038 WASTE MANAGEMENT OF SPOKANE 2767720-2681-7 WASTE MGMT: CENTERPLACE 733.28
2767721-2681-5 WASTE MANAGEMENT:PRECINCT 285.27
2767722-2681-3 WASTE MGMT:MAIM'FACILITY 173.79
Total : 1,192.34
20759 8/6/2010 000255 WFOA 8764 REGISTRATION FOR CLASS:SAYD 50.00
Total: 50.00/
32 Vouchers for bank code: apbank Bank total• 87,091.25
32 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers: 87,091.25
Page: 3
v'chlist
08/06/2010 2:09:42PM
Voucher List Page: 4
Spokane Valley
Bank code : apbank
Voucher bate Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount
T,the undersigned, do certify under penalty of pezjury,
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
T am authorized to .uthenticate and certify said claim.
ector
ayor
Council Member/ Date
Date
r/O 2-014
ate
Page: 4
vchlist
09/13/2010 3:56:14PM
Voucher List Page: 1
Spokane Valley
Bank code: apbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice PO# Description/Account Amount
3303 9/20/2010 000048 VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS,401A PL Ben34957 401A:Payment 25,953.84
Total: 25,953.84
3304 9/20/2010 000682 EFTPS Ben34959 FEDERAL TAXES:Payment 26,691.79
Total: 26,691.79
3305 9/20/2010 000145 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS,4'. Ben34961 457 DEFERRED COMPENSATION:F 3,628.40
Total: 3,628A0
3 Vouchers for bank code: apbank Bank total : 56,274.03
3 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers: 56,274.03
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
c /la 4)
Date
Page: 1
vchlist
01/21/2011 8:28:14AM
Voucher List
Spokane Valley
1.0
Page: 1
Bank code:
Voucher
21924
21925
21926
21927
21928
21929
21930
21931
21932
21933
21934
apbank
Date Vendor
1/21/2011 000958 AAA SWEEPING, LLC
1/21/2011 001715 AMERICAN RED CROSS
1/21/2011 001816 BENTHIN&ASSOCIATES
1/21/2011 000796 BUDINGER&ASSOC INC
Invoice
45433
45434
11005149
1730
P10312-3
P10379-2
1/21/2011 00254-4 CAR QUEST AUTO PARTS STORES DECEMBER 2010
1/21/2011 000863 CENTURY WEST ENG CORP
1/21/2011 000957 COBALT TRUCK EQUIPMENT
232164
232165
27520
27611
1/21/2011 002469 COMMUNITY MINDED ENTERPRISES 3480
1/21/2011 000508 CONOCOPHILLIPS FLEET
1/21/2011 001926 DAVENPORT,SARAH
1/21/2011 000683 DAVID EVANS&ASSOCIATES
24836742
EXPENSES
300601
Fund/Dept
402.402.000
402.402.000
001.018.016
307.307.088
303.303.113
303.303.113
101.042.000
001.032.000
303.303.063
101.042.000
101.042.000
001.011.000
001.058.057
001,018.014
101.042.000
Description/Account
2010 AAA VACTORING CONTRACT
2010 STREET SWEEPING CONTRA
Total:
FAICPR/AED CLASS
Amount
Total :
0088 ON CALL PROFESSIONAL SEI
Total :
0113 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGAT
0113 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGAT
Total:
SHOP MAINT TOOLS AND EQUIPM!
Total:
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CINTR)
10-011 DESIGN ROW CIP 0063
Total:
SUPPLIES
SUPPLES
Total:
DECEMBER BROADCASTING SERI,
Total :
DECEMBER 2010: FLEET FUEL.BILI
Total :
DECEMBER MILEAGE:S. DAVENPC
Total :
AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL
Total:
213.68
2,614.13
2,827.81
630.00
630.00
991.00
991.00
2,100.43
10,988.80
13,089.23
221.94
221.94
5,737.51
3,597.80
9,335.31
45.93
387.89
433.82
3,000.00
3,000.00
2,481.96
2,481.96
27.50
27.50
3,227.50
3,227.50
Page: 1
vchlist
01/21/2011 8:28:14AM
Voucher List Page: 2
Spokane Valley
Bank code: apbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount
21935 1/21/2011 000165 DEPT OF RETIREMENT SYSTEMS 841945 001.058.055 RETIREMENT CONTRIBUTIONS 160.73
Total: 160.73
21936 1/21/2011 000409 DEPT OF REVENUE 4T1-1 QTR 001.076.301 LEASEHOLD EXCISE TAX RETURN 2,036A2
Total: 2,036.42
21937 1/21/2011 000999 EASTERN WA ATTORNEY SVC, INC 45207 001.013.015 LEGAL SERVICES 40.00
Total : 40.00
21938 1/21/2011 002157 ELJAY OIL COMPANY 4175998 101.042.000 DECEMBER OIL PRODUCTS FOR P 3,720.67
Total : 3,720.67
21939 1/21/2011 000746 EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DEPT 217156-00 2 502.502.000 4TH QTR 2010 3,890.10
Total : 3,890.10
21940 1/21/2011 002075 ENVIROTECH SERVICES DECEMBER 2010 101.042.000 ICE SLICER 17,897.64
Total: 17,897.64
21941 1/21/2011 001232 FASTENAL CO PURCHASING IDLEW72181 101.042.000 SUPPLIES 121.50
Total : 121.50
21942 1/21/2011 001253 GORDON THOMAS HONEYWELL Dec 10 1042 001.011.000 LOBBYIST SERVICES 3,254.58
Total : 3,254.58
21943 1/21/2011 002235 GRAFOS, DEAN EXPENSES 001.011.000 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT 14.24
Total: 14.24
21944 1/21/2011 000002 H&H BUSINESS SYSTEMS INC. Decemner 2010 001.058.057 COPIER COST 1,294.26
Total: 1,294.26
21945 1/21/2011 002520 HUSKY INTERNATIONAL TRUCKS DECEMBER 2010 101.042.000 SHOP MAINT SUPPLIES:TRUCK Pi 669.68
Total: 669.68
21946 1/21/2011 002384 1MS INFRASTRUCTURE MGMT. 11510-3 101.042.000 PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN 657.10
Total : 657.10
21947 1/21/2011 002518 INLAND PACIFIC HOSE&FITINGS DECEMBER 2010 101.042.000 SUPPLIES: PW 147.98
Total : 147.98
Page: 2
vchlist
0112112011 8:28:14AM
Voucher List
Spokane Valley
Page: 3
Bank code: apbank
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice
21948 1/21/2011 002238 INTERSTATE BATTERIES
21949 1/21/2011 000864 JUB ENGINEERS, INC.
21950 1/21/2011 002466 KENWORTH SALES
21951 1/21/2011 002522 KOEGEN EDWARDS LLP
21952 1/21/2011 000993 LES SCHWAB TIRE CENTER
21953 1/21/2011 002552 MOM CONSTRUCTION, INC.
21954 1/21/2011 002259 MENKE JACKSON BEYER EHILS
21955 1/21/2011 000258 MICROFLEX INC.
21956 1/21/2011 002388 MJM GRAND INC
21957 1/21/2011 002203 NAPA AUTO PARTS
990101474
0068145
0068146
DECEMBER 2010
1369
1370
1371
1372
1373
1374
1375
821993
8721834
1798
511
00019688
Pay App 5
DECEMBER 2010
Fund/Dept
101.042.000
Description/Account
Amount
101.042.000
101.042.000
BATTERIES
Total:
PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT PLAN
TIP DATA MAINTENANCE AND UPC
Total:
101.042.000 SUPPLIES FOR WINTER MAINT FA(
Total:
001.013.000
001.013.000
001.013.000
001.013.000
001.013.000
001.013.000
001.013.000
101.042.000
101.042.000
101.042.000
001.013.000
001.090.000
307.307.088
101.042.000
PROFESSIONAL SVCS
PROFESSIONAL SVCS
PROFESSIONAL SVCS
PROFESSIONAL SVCS
PROFESSIONAL SVCS
PROFESSIONAL SVCS
PROFESSIONAL SVCS
Total:
TIRE REPAIR:LIC 43760D-PLOW T
TIRE REPAIR: LIC#A7302D-PLOW
Total:
ON-CALL ROAD GRADERS FOR SN
Total:
SPOKANE VALLEY/MONTGOMERY
Total:
TAXTOOLS SOFTWARE RENTAL DI
Total :
0088 BROADWAY MOORE TO FLOE
Total :
SHOP MAINT TOOLS AND EQUIPMI
Total :
470.85
470.85
3,446.64
5,780.95
9,227.59
1,192.27
1,192.27
1,254.90
826.70
858.40
318.70
126.10
425.00
250.00
4,059.80
36.09
40.44
76.53
4,375.00
4,375.00
398.93
398,93
343.83
343.83
9,624.63
9,624.63
91.72
91.72
Page: 3
vchlist
01/2112011 8:28:14AM
Voucher List
Spokane Valley
Page: 4
Bank code:
Voucher
21958
21959
21960
21961
21962
21963
21964
21965
21966
21967
21968
21969
apbank
Date Vendor
Invoice
1/21/2011 000662 NATL BARRICADE&SIGN CO
1/21/2011 001233 NORTHWEST FENCE COMPANY
1/21/2011 000652 OFFICE DEPOT INC.
71277
0017684-IN
513915388001
544310185001
1/21/2011 000307 OFFICE OF THE STATE TREASURER DECEMBER 2010
1/21/2011 000119 PLESE PRINTING 1330047822
1/21/2011 001089 POE ASPHALT PAVING, INC. 43407
43417
58969
7024
DEC 2010
VLY1012
50306447
DECEMBER 2010
1/21/2011 002531 SIX ROBBLEES INC
1/21/2011 001892 SKILLINGS CONNOLLY INC
1/21/2011 000779 SOUTHARD, BRAD
1/21/2011 000172 SPOKANE CO ENGINEER
1/21/2011 000090 SPOKANE CO INFO SYSTEMS
1/21/2011 000308 SPOKANE CO PROSECUTING ATTY
Fund/Dept
001.058.057
101.042.000
001.032.000
001.032.000
001.016.000
001.076.000
101.042.000
101.042.000
101.042.000
303.303.112
101.042.000
101.042.000
001.018.013
001.016.000
Description/Account
Amount
BLDG SAFETY EQUIPMENT
POST REPLACEMENT
OFFICE SUPPLIES:PW
SUPPLIES
STATE REMITTANCE
BUSINESS CARDS
Total :
Total :
Total:
Total
Total :
2010 STREET&STORMWATER MA
WINTER MAINTENANCE SERVICES
Total:
SHOP MAINT SUPPLIES
Total:
ON CALL ACQUISITION&APPRAIS.
Total :
2010 DEAD ANIMAL REMOVAL
Total :
COUNTY SERVICES
COUNTY IT SUPPORT
Total:
Total:
CRIME VICTIMS COMP FUND
Total :
86.96
86.96
565.24
565.24
1.15
27.99
29.14
60,715.79
60,715.79
104.97
104.97
42.75
40,432.45
40,475.20
130.39
130.39
2,389.66
2,389.66
3,250.00
3,250,00
38,794.98
38,794.98
16,970.71
16,970.71
856.35
856.35
Page: 4
vchlist
01/21/2011 8:28:14AM
Voucher List
Spokane Valley
Page: 5
Bank code: apbank
Voucher
Date Vendor
21970 1/21/2011 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER
21971 1/21/2011 002540 SPOKANE HOUSE OF HOSE INC.
21972 1/21/2011 000093 SPOKESMAN-REVIEW
21973 1/21/2011 002135 SPRAY CENTER ELECTRONICS, INC
21974 1/21/2011 000065 STAPLES ADVANTAGE
21975 1/21/2011 000257 STATE AUDITOR'S OFFICE
21976 1/21/2011 000081 STATE OF WASHINGTON
21977 1/21/2011 000419 SUMMIT LAW GROUP
21978 1/21/2011 000335 TIRE-RAMA
Invoice
11001955
40300058
40300059
40300060
40300061
40300062
40300062
51500477
51500495
51500505
DECEMBER 2010
222664
237242
42365
205443
8017418436
L86761
4TH QTR 2010
49413
8080008301
Fund/Dept
101.042.000
303.303.129
303.303.129
303,303.131
303.303.130
303.303.128
001.058.057
001.016.000
001.016.000
101.042.000
101.042.000
001.013.000
001.018.016
001.013.000
101.042.000
001.058.057
001.090.000
001.076.302
001.018.016
001.058.057
Description/Account
CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION
0129 S GREENACRES STEP COUN'
0129 S GREENACRES STEP COUN'
0131 CRONK STEP COUNTY MOU
0130 CORBIN STEP COUNTY MOU
0128 WEST FARMS STEP COUNTY
0128 WEST FARMS STEP COUNTY
DECEMBER 2010:JAIL HOUSING
DECEMBER 2010 GEIGER HOUSINI
DECEMBER 2010:WORK CREW
Total:
SHOP MAINT SUPPLIES
ADVERTISING
ADVERTISING
ADVERTISING
SHOP MAINT SUPPLIES
Total:
Total :
Total :
OFFICE SUPPLIES: DECEMBER 20'
Total :
AUDITORS
Total :
RETAILING&OTHER ACTIVITIES:C
Total :
PROFESSIONAL SERVICE
Total :
40203D:TIRES MOUNTED/OIL CHI
Total :
Amount
146.30
76,859.70
164,837.14
306,938.04
230,851.59
388,376.73
51,237.72
35,678.74
34,315.00
1,661.96
1,290,902.92
939.56
939.56
1,271.31
502.80
1,704.03
3,478.14
98.82
98.82
626.90
626.90
1,152.40
1,152.40
547.82
547.82
171.50
171.50
97.32
97.32
Page: 5
vch l ist
01/21/2011 8:28:14AM
Voucher List
Spokane Valley
Page: 6
Bank code: apbank
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice
21979 1/21/2011 001108 TRAFFIC PARTS
21980 1/21/2011 000717 TRANSPO GROUP, INC.
21981 1/21/2011 002188 VALLEY BEST-WAY BLDG SUPPLY
21982 1/21/2011 000136 WA DEPT OF INFO SERVICES
21983 1/21/2011 002521 WASHINGTON RIGGING&SUPPLY
21984 1/21/2011 000676 WEST
324097
13362
13647
806406
2010120193
2010-4022
822008529
119110198 1/19/2011 002244 AOT PUBLIC SAFETY CORPORATION SPKVLY-13
62 Vouchers for bank code: apbank
62 Vouchers in this report
Fund/Dept Description/Account
101.042.136 EZBRC-1TS-346-NNN-NNS TRI-BOL
Total:
101.042.133 0133 SPRAGUE ITS CONSULTANT,
101,042.133 0133 SPRAGUE ITS CONSULTANT,
Total:
101.042.000 SUPPLIES
Total:
001.032.000 AUTOCAD CIVIL 3D 2011 SUB FOR
Total:
101.042.000 SHOP MAINT SUPPLIES
001.013.000 LEGAL SUBSCRIPTION
Total:
Total:
001.016.000 CRY WOLF CHARGES: DECEMBER
Total:
Bank total :
Total vouchers:
Amount
1,083.78
1,083.78
24,646.65
47,277.67
71,924.32
1.01
1.01
6,346.42
6,346.42
148.33
148.33
615.57
615.57
4,201.29
4,201.29
1,646,737,61
1,646,737.61
Page:
vchlist
01/2112011 4:07:08 PM
Voucher List
Spokane Valley
Page: 1
Bank code: apbank
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice
21985
1/21/2011 000030 AVISTA
21986 1/21/2011 001606 BANNER BANK
21987
21988
21989
21990
21991
21992
21993
1/21/2011 001169 CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
1/21/2011 000011 GREATER SPOKANE VALLEY
1/21/2011 001635 ISS FACILITY/EVENT SERVICES
1/21/2011 001684 MARKETING SOLUTIONS NW
1/21/2011 000132 MODERN ELECTRIC WATER CO
Final 2010 Billing
Final Billing 2010
0618
0620
0638
4375
4458
4720
6527
8861
December 2010
Dec 2010
24411
CP 1118111 MEdia
Final Billing 2010
1/21/2011 001035 NETWORK DESIGN&MANAGEMENT 19236
1/21/2011 000709 SENSKE LAWN&TREE CARE INC. 3405449
3405497
3674897
3864292
4111046
FundlDept
001.076.300
101,042.000
Description/Account
UTILITIES: PARKS MASTER AVISTT
UTILITIES: PW MASTER AVISTA
Total:
001.011.000 2010 FINAL: 0618
001.011.000 2010 FINAL:0620
001.011.000 2010 FINAL:0638
001.011.000 2010 FINAL:4375
00t013.000 2010 FINAL:4458
001.013.015 2010 FINAL:4720
001.058.056 FINAL 2010:6527
001.076.305 FINAL 2010:8861
001.018.016 PETTY CASH:9051
Total:
Total:
001.090.000 OUTSIDE AGENCIES GRANT 2010
Total:
001,076.305 NOVEMBER 2010
001.076.305 ADVERTISING:CENTERPLACE
Total:
101.042.000 UTILITIES: PW
001.090.000 DECEMBER 2010:SYSTEM MAINTE
Total:
Total:
001.016.000
001,016.000
001.076.300
001.076.300
001.016.000
Total:
CONTRACT MAINTENANCE: PRECI
CONTRACT MAINT: PRECINCT
CONTRACT MAINTENANCE:CP&F
CONTRACT MAINT: DISCOVERY PL
CONTRACT MAINTENANCE: PRECI
Amount
9,991.24
24,33228
34,323.52
881.20
135.00
135.00
135.00
819.07
2,616.23
1,022.99
246.07
5,990.56
4.12
4.12
11,352.62
11,352.62
7,136.00
7,136.00
2,446.00
2,446.00
8,976.31
8,976.31
5,480.00
5,480.00
217.40
108.70
44,562.40
2,394.61
73.92
Page: 1
vchlist
01/21/2011 4:07:08PM
Voucher List Page: 2
Spokane Valley
Bank code : apbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount
21993 1/21/2011 000709 000709 SENSKE LAWN&TREE CARE 1NC. (Continued) Total: 47,357.03
21994 1/21/2011 000406 SPOKANE REGIONAL CVB NOV/DEC 2010 105.105.001 LODGING TAX REIMBURSEMENT: P 32,389A9
Total : 32,389.49
21995 1/21/2011 002185 URS CORPORATION 4550164 001.058.056 PROFESSIONAL SVCS:SHORELINI 2,800.00
Total : 2,800.00
21996 1/21/2011 000038 WASTE MANAGEMENT OF SPOKANE 0052529-1518-5 101.042.000 WASTE MGMT: PW DEC 2010 1,750.45
Total : 1,750.45
21997 1/21/2011 000676 WEST 822135365 001.013.000 LEGAL SUBSCRIPTION 800.58
Total : 800.58
13 Vouchers for bank code: apbank Bank total : 160,806.68
13 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers: 160,806.68
I,the undersigned,do certify under penalty of perjury,
that the materials have been fumished,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
am authorized to authenticate and certify said claim.
Finance Director Date
Mayor Date
Council Member Date
Page: 2
vchlist Voucher List Page: 1
01/24/2011 8:49:03AM Spokane Valley
Bank code: apbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount
3422 1/20/2011 000048 VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS,401A PLAN Ben36600 001.231.14. 401A Payment 21,464.91
Total: 21,464.91
3423 1/20/2011 000682 EFTPS Ben36602 001.231.11, FEDERAL TAXES:Payment 29,791.66
Total: 29,791.66
3424 1/20/2011 000145 VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AGENTS,457 PL Ben36604 001.231,18. 457 DEFERRED COMPENSATION:Payn 4,624.53
Total: 4,624.53
3425 1/20/2011 000162 VANTAGE TRANSFER AGENTS,401A EXEC P Ben36606 001,231.14. 401 EXEC PLAN: Payment 1,026.67
Total: 1,026.67
4 Vouchers for bank code: apbank Bank total: 56,907.77
4 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers: 56,907.77
1,the undersigned,do certify under penalty of perjury,
that the materials have been fumished,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
1 am authorized to authenticate and certify said claim.
Finance Director Date
Mayor Date
Council Member Date
Page: 1
vchlist
01/24/2011 10:09:55AM
Voucher List Page: 1
Spokane Valley
Bank code: apbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount
21998 1/24/2011 002577 FISHER,DONALD L.AND CONNIE G. C1P NO 0112 303.303.112 ROW ACQUISITIONS/INDIANA AVE 5,45t58
Total: 5,451.58
21999 1/24/2011 000388 IRVIN WATER DIST.#6 Jan.2011 001.076.300 UTILITIES: PARKS 166.00
Total : 166.00
22000 1/24/2011 000668 SPOKANE CO TREASURER CIP NO.0112 303.303.112 PYMT PARCEL 45124.0203:TAXES 7,248.42
Total: 7,248.42
22001 1/24/2011 000323 SPOKANE CO UTILITIES JANUARY 2011 001.076.302 SPOKANE COUNTY SEWER 1,751.24
Total: 1,751.24
22002 1/24/2011 000391 SPOKANE VALLEY FIRE DIST.#1 REGISTRATION 001.011.000 SVFD DINNER:B GOTHMANN 45.00
REGISTRATION 001.011.000 SVFD DINNER:MAYOR TOWEY 45.00
Total: 90.00
5 Vouchers for bank code: apbank Bank total : 14,707.24
5 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers: 14,707.24
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 said claim.
Finance Director Date
Mayor Date
Council Member Date
Page: 1
vchlist
01/25/2011 2:04:37PM
Voucher List
Spokane Valley
Page: 1
Bank code: apbank
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice
22003 1/25/2011 000365 DEPT OF LICENSING
22004 1/25/2011 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER
2 Vouchers for bank code: apbank
2 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 certffy said claim.
Finance Director Date
Mayor Date
Council Member Date
LICENSING FEES
CIP No. 0112
Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount
101.042.000 LICENSING FEES FOR 1998 INTL P 1,534.60
Total : 1,534.60
303.303.112 RECORDING FEES FOR ROW ACQ 130.00
Total: 130.00
Bank total : 1,664.60
Total vouchers: 1,664.60
Page: 1
vchlist
01/28/2011 10:43:02AM
Voucher List Page:
Spokane Valley
Bank code: apbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount
22005 1/28/2011 001081 ALSCO LSP0906348 001.090.000 FLOOR MATS FOR THE CITY HALL 27.21
Total: 27.21
22006 1/28/2011 000135 APA 067348-101107 001.058.050 2011 APA ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP: 1 313.00
076184-101107 001.058.055 2011 APA ANNUAL MAMBERSHIP:I 360.00
096840-101107 001.058.056 2011 APA ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP:I 370.00
100486-101107 001.058.056 2011 APA ANNUAL MEMBERSHIP:; 411.00
Total: 1,454.00
22007 1/28/2011 001310 ARROW CONCRETE&ASPHALT 83829 101.042.000 DEICER CRYSTALS AND COLD PA1 215.88
Total : 215.88
22008 1/28/2011 000277 AWC 2011 Memebrship Fees 001.018.016 2011 DRUP&ALCOHOL MEMBERS 230.00
Total: 230.00
22009 1/28/2011 002562 CD'A METALS 278253 101.042.000 SUPPLIESLPW 35.70
278539 101.042.000 SUPPLIES: PW 128.21
Total : 1 63.91
22010 1/28/2011 002572 CINTAS CORPORATOIN 606644036 101.042.000 COVERALLS:PW 47.28
606645052 101.042.000 SUPPLIES FOR MAINT.SHOP 63.05
606646035 101.042.000 COVERALLS: PW 62.67
Total: 173.00
22011 1/28/2011 000571 CODE PUBLISHING CO 37115 001.013.000 MUNICIPAL CODE UPDATE 114,98
Total: 114.98
22012 1/28/2011 001888 COMCAST JANUARY 2011 101,042.000 HIGH SPEED INTERNET:MAINT FA 64.90
JANUARY 2011 001.090.000 HIGH SPEED INTERNET:CITY HALT 108.95
Total: 173.85
22013 1/28/2011 000508 CONOCOPHILL1PS FLEET 870166725011 101.042.000 NOVEMBER 2010:FLEET FUEL BILI 1,441.27
Total: 1,441.27
22014 1/28/2011 002579 CUSTOM SPRAY SERVICES, INC 007481 101.042.000 CALCUIM CHLORIDE DE-ICE 491.76
Total: 491.76
Page: 1
vchlist
01/28/2011 10:43:02AM
Voucher List Page: 2
Spokane Valley
Bank code: apbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount
22015 1/28/2011 000665 DEPT OF GENERAL ADMIN RENEWAL 001.090.000 2 YR-MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL 4,000.00
Total: 4,000.00
22016 1/28/2011 000999 EASTERN WA ATTORNEY SVC, INC 46074 001.013.000 LEGAL SERVICES 40.00
46086 001.013.000 LEGAL SERVICES 40.00
Total: 80.00
22017 1/28/2011 002213 ED KA MANUFACTURING INC. 9841 101.042.000 SNOW PLOW SPRINGS 2,350.04
Total: 2,350,04
22018 1/28/2011 002075 ENVIROTECH SERVICES CD201106218-D 101,042.000 ICE SLICER 4,721.66
Total: 4,721.66
22019 1/28/2011 000106 FEDEX 7-360-43656 101.042.000 SHIPPING CHARGES: PW 38.48
Total : 38.48
22020 1/28/2011 001447 FREE PRESS PUBLISHING INC 35627 001.058.056 LEGAL PUBLICATION 68.00
35673 001.058.056 LEGAL PUBLICATION 28.05
Total : 96.05
22021 1/28/2011 000179 GFOA 300131583 001.018.014 BOOK ORDER 105.78
Total: 105.78
22022 1/28/2011 002518 INLAND PACIFIC HOSE&FITINGS 447064 101.042.000 SUPPLIES:PW 203.27
447271 101.042.000 SUPPLIES:PW 145.92
447347 101.042.000 SUPPLIES:PW 141.82
Total: 491.01
22023 1/28/2011 000696 MITEL NETWORKS, INC 92755463 001.076.305 NEW PHONE FOR CHRIS AT CENT[ 221,20
Total: 221.20
22024 1/28/2011 000662 NAIL BARRICADE&SIGN CO 71354 101.042.000 TRAFFIC ADVISOR 673,94
Total: 673.94
22025 1/28/2011 001035 NETWORK DESIGN&MANAGEMENT 11792 001.090.000 RENEWAL—BARRACUDA MESSAE 2,512.84
Total: 2,512.84
22026 1/28/2011 002556 NORTHWEST WEATHERNET INC 2009-7156 101.042.000 WEATHERNET SERVICE-$325.00 I 325.00
Page: 2
vchlist
01/28/2011 10:43:02AM
Voucher List Page: 3
Spokane Valley
Bank code: apbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount
22026 1/28/2011 002556 002556 NORTHWEST WFATHERNET INC (Continued) Total : 325.00
22027 1/28/2011 000652 OFFICE DEPOT INC. 546568173001 001.018.014 OFFICE SUPPLIES:FINANCE 63.26
547814367001 001.018.013 OFFICE SUPPLIES: BING 144.56
Total : 207.82
22028 1/28/2011 002243 ORBITCOM 00417509 001.090.000 EITHERNET:JANUARY 2011 590.00
Total : 590.00
22029 1/28/2011 000881 OXARC R030525 101.042.000 SUPPLIES: PW 67.15
Total: 67.15
22030 1/28/2011 002424 PITNEY BOWES GLOBAL 1428301-JA11 001.090.000 JAN 2011: POSTAGE METER RENT, 275.00
Total : 275.00
22031 1/28/2011 000322 QWEST JANUARY 2011 001.076.302 JANUARY 2011: PHONE SERIVCE 471.16
Total: 471.16
22032 1/28/2011 002578 REBUILDING&HARDFACING INC 43448 101.042.000 SNOWPLOW BLADES 3,124.04
Total: 3,124.04
22033 1/28/2011 000601 RERC RENEWAL 001.058.056 FALL 2010/SPRING 2011 SUBSCRIF 50.00
Total: 50.00
22034 1/28/2011 001957 SKYLINE CONTRACTORS INC RETAINAGE RELEASE 309.223.40. VALLEY MISSION IMP---RETAINAG 10,058.88
Total: 10,058.88
22035 1/28/2011 001140 SPECIAL ASPHALT PRODUCTS C053019 101.042.000 STREET PATCH MIX 872.26
0053020 101.042.000 STREET PATCH MIX 2,502.75
Total: 3,375.01
22036 1/28/2011 000459 SPOKANE CO TITLE CO 150931 307.307.088 OWNER'S POLOCY ADJUSTMENT 157.62
150942 307.307.088 OWNER'S POLICY ADJUSTMENT 61.96
Total : 219.58
22037 1/28/2011 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER . 9020100016 001.090.000 2010 VOTER REGISTRATION COST 7,735.81
Total : 7,735.81
Page: 3
vchlist
01/28/2011 10:43:02AM
Voucher List Page: 4
Spokane Valley
Bank code: apbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount
22038 1/28/2011 000468 TRANSOFT SOLUTIONS INC. 64162 001.032.000 TURN MAP RENEWAL NETWORKLi 1,675.00
Total: 1,675.00
22039 1/28/2011 002158 WILBUR-ELLIS COMPANY 5134504 101.042.000 MELTDOWN AP: PW 9,297.16
Total : 9,297.16
22040 1/28/2011 000310 WSAMA 80919 001.013.000 2011 WSAMA MEMBERSHIP 30.00
Total: 30.00
22041 1/28/2011 002103 WSDOT SURPLUS PROGRAMS 5050 101.042.000 1998 MODEL#2574 4X2 TRUCK#6( 16,900.00
Total: 16,900.00
22042 1/28/2011 000089 XO COMMUNICATIONS 0240631504 001.090.000 INTERNET/DATA LINES:JANUARY: 274.67
Total: 274.67
22043 1/28/2011 001885 ZAYO BANDWIDTH LLC January 2011 001.090.000 DARK FIBER LEASE 228.27
Total : 228.27
39 Vouchers for bank code: apbank Bank total : 74,681.41
39 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers: 74,681.41
Page: 4
vch l ist
01/28/2011 1:56:20PM
Voucher List
Spokane Valley
Page: 1
Bank code: apbank
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice
Fund/Dept Description/Account
Amount
22044 1/28/2011 000150 ALLIED FIRE&SECURITY
22045 1/28/2011 000918 BLUE RIBBON LINEN SUPPLY INC
22046
22047
22048
22049
22050
1/28/2011 000572 CARTER, CAROL
1/28/2011 000571 CODE PUBLISHING CO
1/28/2011 000109 COFFEE SYSTEMS INC
1/28/2011 000326 CONSOLIDATED IRRIGATION#19
1/28/2011 001249 DISCOUNT SCHOOL SUPPLY
22051 1/28/2011 000795 EARTHWORKS RECYCLING, INC.
22052 1/28/2011 001635 ISS FACILITY/EVENT SERVICES
22053 1/28/2011 000252 LOWE'S BUSINESS ACCOUNT
22054 1/28/2011 001133 PATRIOT FIRE PROTECTION, INC.
IVC1011068
RCB1044147
9185423
9187619
9189828
59185923
Expenses
37160
3820:070341
January 2011
P25370200102
26601
24652
January 2011
238328
001.076.305 LOCKS AND KEYS FOR CENTERPL
001.076.305 QUARTERLY MONITORING: CENTE
Total :
001.076.305 LINEN SUPPLY: CP
001.076.305 LINEN SUPPLY: CENTERPLACE
001.076.305 LINEN SUPPLY&SERVICE AT CEN
001.076.305 LINEN SUPPLY: CENTERPLACE
Total:
001.076.305 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT
Total:
001.013.000 MUNICIPAL CODE UPDATE
001.076.305 COFFEE SUPPLIES: CENTERPLACI
Total:
001.076.305 UTILITIES: PARKS
001.076.301 SUMMER CAMP&PARK PROGRAM
Total:
Total :
Total :
18.56
112.50
131.06
156.95
158.28
198.83
62.21
576.27
50.07
50,07
88.97
88.97
27.18
27.18
61.88
61.88
357.98
357.98
001.076.305 RECYCLING COLLECTION 27.50
001.076.305 JANUARY 2011 7,136.00
001.076.305 OPERATING SUPPLIES:CP 71.61
001.016.000 ANNUAL INSPECTION/SPRINK SYS 184.79
Total :
Total :
Total :
27.50
7,136.00
7t61
Page: 1
vchlist Voucher List
01/28/2011 1:56:20PM Spokane Valley
Page: 2
Bank code: apbank
Voucher
Date Vendor Invoice
Fund/Dept
Description/Account
22054 1/28/2011 001133 001133 PATRIOT FIRE PROTECTION, INC. (Continued)
22055 1/28/2011 002580 S&S DESIGN
22056 1/28/2011 000709 SENSKE LAWN&TREE CARE INC.
22057
22058
22059
22060
22061
22062
22063
22064
1/28/2011 000935 SERVICE PAPER CO
1/28/2011 000324 SPOKANE CO WATER DIST#3
1/28/2011 001992 SPOKANE HOTEL MOTEL ASSOC
1/28/2011 000420 SPOKANE REGIONAL HEALTH DIST
Total :
34568 001.076.305 SUPPLIES:CHAIR COVERS:CENT
Total :
4116385
4118141
4118142
4120035
4120977
4125380
110432657
JAN 2011
965
4th Qtr 2010
1/28/2011 000404 SPOKANE VALLEY HERITAGE MUSEUM 2011
1/28/2011 000202 SRCAA 538
1/28/2011 002110 TARGET MEDIA N.W. PUBLISHING 40949
1/28/2011 002306 TERRELL, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, MIC 550
556
001.016.000
101.042.000
101.042.000
101.042.000
001.016.000
001.016.000
CONTRACT MAINTENANCE: PRECI
2011 EMERGENCY TRAFFIC CONTI
2011 EMERGENCY TRAFFIC CONTI
2011 EMERGENCY TRAFFIC CONTI
CONTRACT MAINTENANCE: PRECI
CONTRACT MAINTENANCE: PRECI
Total:
001.076.305 SUPPLIES:CENTERPLACE
101.042.000 WATER CHARGES: PW
Total:
Total :
001.076.305 MEMBERSHIP ANNUAL DUES:CP
Total :
001.076.300 4TH QTR 2010:WATER TESTING
Total :
001.090.000 OUTSIDE AGENCIES REIMBURSEN
Total :
001.090.000 1ST QTR 2011
001.018.013 PRINTING: HOT TOPIC
Total :
309.309.079
309.309.144
Total :
GREENACRES PARK PHASE I DES
TERRACE VIEW SHELTER ARCHIT
Total:
Amount
184.79
625.00
625.00
652.20
169.57
169.58
211.97
434.80
217.40
1,855.52
1,257.38
1,257.38
74.86
74.86
250.00
250.00
642.00
642.00
1,961.09
1,961.09
28,735.25
28,735.25
705.66
705.66
44,571.95
1,697.50
46,269.45
Page: 2
vchlist
01128/2011 1:56:20PM
Voucher List
Spokane Valley
Page: 3
Bank code: apbank
Voucher
Date Vendor
Invoice
22065 1/28/2011 002581 THE SALESMAN'S GUIDE
22066 1/28/2011 000167 VERA WATER&POWER
22067 1/28/2011 000140 WALT'S MAILING SERVICE
14237531
0000160
Jan 2011
22068 1/28/2011 000038 WASTE MANAGEMENT OF SPOKANE 2871086-2681-6
2871087-2681-4
2871088-2681-2
22069 1/28/2011 001792 WHITEHEAD,JOHN
22070 112812011 001409 WORLD CLASS COMMUNICATIONS
22071 1/28/2011 002279 WSASC
28 Vouchers for bank code: apbank
28 Vouchers in this report
Expenses
110111292
January 2011
Fund/Dept Description/Account
001.076.305 BOOKS/PLANNERS FOR CENTERF
Total :
001.076.300 CURBSTOP/SREET BOX:TERRACE
Total :
101.042.000 PUBLIC INFO MAILER:SULLIVAN R
Total :
001.076.305 WASTE MGMT:CENTERPLACE
001.016.000 WASTE MGMT: PRECINCT
101.042.000 WASTE MGMT: PW
001.018.016 EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT
Total :
Total :
001.076.305 ANSWERING SERVICE FOR CENTE
Total:
001.076.304 CONFERENCE REG: KAREN CLAM
Total :
Bank total :
Amount
620.00
620.00
778.76
778.76
436.47
436.47
735.49
285.27
173.79
1,194.55
226.90
226.90
32.00
32.00
45.00
45.00
94,423.20
Total vouchers: 94,423.20
Page: 3
vchlist
01/28/2011 3:24:06PM
Voucher List Page: 1
Spokane Valley
Bank code: apbank
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount
22072 1/28/2011 000734 DEPT OF TRANSPORTATION RE-313-ATB10111058 101.042.000 STATE ROUTE ROADWAY MAINT 8,335.86
RE-313-ATB10111063 101.042.000 SIGNAL& ILLUMINATION MAIN 5,360.77
RE-313-ATB10111071 101.042.000 INTELLIGENT TRAFFIC SYSTEMS E 724.41
Total : 14,421.04
22073 1/28/2011 000252 LOWE'S BUSINESS ACCOUNT Final 2010 00t076.305 OPERATING SUPPLIES: CP 95.92
Total : 95.92
22074 1/28/2011 000193 NORTHWEST CHRISTIAN SCHOOL INC 4th Qtr 2010 CAM 001.090,000 4TH QTR 2010 CAM CHARGES 2,033.23
Total : 2,033.23
22075 1/28/2011 000001 SPOKANE CO TREASURER 925000060 001.016.000 JAG09 VALLEY: PROSECUTING AT 7,250.60
Total : 7,250.60
22076 1/28/2011 000451 SPOKANE REG SPORTS COMMISSION 4th Qtr 2010 105.105.002 LODGING TAX REIMBURSEMENT- 29,700.98
Total : 29,700.98
22077 1/28/2011 001464 TW TELECOM 03936815 001.090.000 INTERNET/DATA LINES/PHONE LIN 1,267.10
Total : 1,267.10
6 Vouchers for bank code: apbank Bank total : 54,768.87
6 Vouchers in this report Total vouchers: 54,768.87
Page: 1
vchlist
01/31/2011 12:10:33PM
Voucher List Page: 1
Spokane Valley
Bank code: pk-ref
Voucher Date Vendor Invoice Fund/Dept Description/Account Amount
5202 1/24/2011 001902 CENTRAL VALLEY CITIZENS REFUND 001.076.305 DAMAGE DEPOSIT REFUND:GREA 79.00
Total : 79.00
5203 1/24/2011 002588 DSHS REFUND 001.237.10. REFUND FOR CREDIT ON ACCOUN 100.00
Total : 100.00
5204 1/24/2011 002589 GENSCO TACOMA REFUND 001.237.10. REFUND FOR CREDIT ON ACCOUN 95.00
Total : 95.00
5205 1/24/2011 002590 JNS, INC REFUND 001 237.10. REFUND FOR CREDIT ON ACCOUN 52.00
Total: 52.00
5206 1/24/2011 002584 JOSQUIN,JILL REFUND 001.076.305 DAMAGE DEPOSIT REFUND: ROO11 42.00
Total: 42.00
5207 1/24/2011 002591 PEARSON REFUND 001.076.305 REFUND FOR CREDIT ON ACCOUN 309.00
Total: 309.00
5208 1/24/2011 002585 RODMAN, DON REFUND 001.237.10. REFUND FOR CREDIT ON ACCOUI` 52.00
Total: 52.00
5209 1/24/2011 002582 ROWE, RHONDA REFUND 001.076.305 CANCELLATION REFUND: ROOM 2 213.00
Total: 213.00
5210 1/24/2011 002583 SHPAK,PETER REFUND 001.076.305 CASNCELLATION REFUND:GREAT 1,310.00
Total: 1,310.00
5211 1/24/2011 002587 WA STATE TRANSPORTATION DEPT REFUND 001.076.305 REFUND FOR CREDIT ON ACCOUII 279.00
Total: 279.00
5212 1/24/2011 000982 WEST VALLEY HIGH SCHOOL REFUND 001.237.10. REFUND FOR CREDIT ON ACCOUII 210.00
Total: 210.00
5213 1/24/2011 002586 WSIADA REFUND 001.237.10. REFUND FOR CREDIT ON ACCOUII 50.00
Total : 50.00
12 Vouchers for bank code: pk-ref Bank total : 2,791.00
Page: 1
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: 02-08-11 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 January 31, 2011
GOVERNING LEGISLATION:
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN:
BACKGROUND:
OPTIONS:
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION:
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS:
STAFF CONTACT: Raba Nimri
ATTACHMENTS
Budget/Financial impacts:
Gross: $ 227,924.44
Benefits: $ 123,045.71
Total payroll $ 350,970.15
DRAFT
MINUTE S
SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
STUDY SESSION FORMAT
Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers
Spokane Valley,Washington
January 18,2011 6:00 p.m.
Attendance:
Councilmembers Staff
Tom Towey, Mayor Mike Jackson, City Manager
Gary Schimmels, Deputy Mayor Cary Driskell,Acting City Attorney
Rose Dempsey, Councilmember Ken Thompson,Finance Director
Bill Gothmann, Councilmember Neil Kersten, Public Works Director
Dean Grafos, Councilmember Kathy McClung, Community Development Dir.
Brenda Grassel, Councilmember Rick Van Leuven, Police Chief
Karen Kendall,Associate Planner
Absent: Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer
Bob McCaslin, Councilmember Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk
Mayor Towey called the meeting to order at 6 p.m. At the request of the Mayor, City Clerk Bainbridge
call roll. All Councilmembers were present except Councilmember McCaslin. It was moved by
Councilmember Grafos, seconded and unanimously agreed to excuse Councilmember McCaslin from
tonight's council meeting.
ACTION ITEMS
1. First Reading Proposed Emergency Ordinance Amending Comprehensive Plan and Map — Karen
Kendall
After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and
seconded to advance the Ordinance to a second reading. Filling in for Planner Kendall, Community
Development Director McClung explained that tonight's discussion concerns the proposal that was before
the Planning Commission to remove the City Center zoning designation from the Sprague/Appleway Plan
and from the Zoning Regulations, and she referenced the area in question as shown on the overhead map,
i.e. from Walnut on the west and Bowdish on the east, Main on the north and 4th Avenue on the South.
Ms. McClung said tonight is the first reading of the ordinance to remove the City Center Zone from the
Sprague/Appleway Plan and to replace it with a Mixed Use Avenue zone; she explained that this is
proposed as two ordinances: one to amend the Comprehensive Plan and Map by deleting the City Center
and replacing it with the Mixed Use Avenue designation and declaring an emergency as provided under
RCW 36.70A.130(2)(b), and the second ordinance amends the Spokane Valley Development Code to
remove all references to City Center and replace them with Mixed Use Avenue. Director McClung said
on December 9, 2010, the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding this proposal and they
recommended five to two to disapprove this proposal, and she mentioned the Planning Commission's
findings are included in this agenda packet. Director McClung said as council listens to public comment,
Council will later be required to make their own Findings for their decision if such decision differs from
that of the Planning Commission; and Director McClung offered her help to Council on that issue when
they are ready.
Mr. Connelly, Attorney with the law firm of Keogen Edwards, said he and members of his office drafted
the ordinance before Council tonight, that the ordinance attempted to incorporate the Findings that were
part of the record at any of the previous hearings, whether those hearings were before the Planning
Council Study Session Minutes January 18,2011 Page 1 of 21
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
Commission or the Council; and said he selected those findings which seemed to support the direction of
the council given at the last meeting, and were reflected in the record already reviewed. Mr. Connelly
said if there are additional findings, it is Council's task to make additions, deletions or changes if Council
feels the findings are in error. Mr. Connelly said he intentionally left blank on page four of the ordinance
under item #9, where it states that "The City Council does not accept the findings of the Planning
Commission for the following reasons" as after tonight's meeting and Council's further direction, he will
fill in those findings for the second reading of the ordinance. Mr. Connelly said he would also
recommend two changes; the first to add a finding at the beginning to incorporate all the "whereas"
recitals as findings, and to include a finding that specifies the alternative when discussing the emergency
nature of this ordinance, and he mentioned he had not included the date of the alternative process, which
would be part of the annual comprehensive plan process, and suggested putting in a date of April or May
that it is expected that process would be back before the Council. Mr. Connelly said the difference
between the two ordinances are the emergency provisions as the Comprehensive Plan must be adopted as
an emergency, and once that is done, the changes to the zoning map will mirror the changed
Comprehensive Plan. Mayor Towey invited public comments.
1. Diana Wilhite, PO Box 14932, Spokane Valley: she asked Council to reconsider throwing out the
concept of a city center; she said he heard many members of council say that they were elected on the
platform to get rid of the SARP, and said she understands many citizens have concerns with the zoning
and regulations in this part, but said she doesn't think "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" is the
way to go. She said she heard there was a proposal by Councilmember Gothmann to shrink the area that
was considered a city center in order to enable a particular property owner to do something, which would
have been a business, and said that we like businesses; and said she realizes council doesn't like the
restrictive zoning given to the city center, and she stated that perhaps the boundaries were too large. Ms.
Wilhite said when community meetings were held, people voiced their opinion that since we are no
longer a suburb of the City of Spokane but are a city ourselves, that they wanted to see a center or heart;
and she said people said they liked the idea of a city center. Ms. Wilhite said there is a piece of property
that can be re-developed in a way that can bring back enthusiasm and excitement to being in Spokane
Valley, and said she feels there are ways to do that without getting rid of the City Center. Ms. Wilhite
said that from this council's perspective, perhaps the zoning is too restrictive, but she said council can
change that; and said to throw out everything without a plan seems like council is not listening to people
who testified who said they want something there, and that they want to see some development. She said
she realizes the city does not do the development, but there are things the city can do; and said she feels
Council should be able to approach a developer, work with them, and help bring forward that vision of a
city center, and she reiterated her desire that council reconsider the prospect of making modifications and
try to keep alive the vision of the city center; and she encouraged Council to consider how they could
make changes that would benefit the businesses and the people of Spokane Valley.
2. Dee Dee Lober2, 18306 4th Avenue, Spokane Valley: said she does not agree with the emergency
amendment; and asked Council to reconsider this; said after reading about this and all the blockages put
in to the emergency and reasons for doing so, she said Council is guilty of adding to it by decreasing
property taxes; she said she would like to give back her 20 and said she doesn't need 2¢; and said what
she wants is a city center, and to have a city; she said she didn't vote for incorporation but once we did
become a city, she said she wants a good city and doesn't want Sprague Avenue to be something her
grandchildren inherit, and said it is ugly out there and they want it fixed. She said there is compromise;
that that is what politics is all about: compromise; and she suggested council do more compromising and
less straightforward thinking with blinders on.
3. Chuck Hafner, 2417 South Sunnybrook Lane, Spokane Valley: said after receiving many e-mails
from citizens of Spokane Valley, he felt it necessary to speak to council on the importance of approving
the emergency ordinance which allows mixed-use zoning. He said it seems the rhetoric has become in
Council Study Session Minutes January 18,2011 Page 2 of 21
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
some instances very negative, slanderous, uncivil and disappointing; and said he wanted to remind
everyone sitting here that the majority of the council are here at the request of the voters of Spokane
Valley; and said if they did not want positive change,the voters would have done so at the ballot box. He
offered the following concepts for Council's deliberation: the present zoning prohibits business growth,
is very restrictive as voiced by many business people, a mixed use zoning enables businesses to grow and
to allow the business community to meet the present and future needs of our community, the present city
center zoning stymies growth and development,just the reverse of what we want for our city. He said our
community wants a thriving business community and we must remember that a vibrant business corridor,
Sprague Avenue is the backbone of our success. He said a city hall does not bring business, a correct
zoning does. He said a city hall needs to be built in close to CenterPlace, and said we own about 50 acres
there. He said it is not fair to business and property owners to be so restrictive by zoning obstacles; and
said restrictions can be changed by approving an ordinance that meets our city's present and future needs
and said we can do it now. He said that statistical information indicates that one family needs at least
seven different services to have a good lifestyle, therefore as a city, we need to provide those services;
and said we need the ever-important business climate and appropriate zoning. Mr. Hafner continued by
explaining that the rezoning affects in a very positive manner, more than just one piece of property, he
said it includes many other businesses;that the business people welcome this change and they too want to
be part of our successful growth; he said many builders and developers have done to other municipalities
for their needs due to the strictness of our present zoning conditions and also with the difficult-to-obtain
building permit; and he said he has asked himself why. Mr. Hafner said this emergency ordinance is not
new to council; and in June 2009, a similar ordinance was passed by the city council; he said they passed
that to accommodate SARP. Again, he said business people, developers and residents highly recommend
the city center zoning be changed to mixed use. Further, Mr. Hafner said he and many others received an
e-mail written by Planning Commissioner John Carroll; and Mr. Hafner said he feels that is completely
out of order; as a Chair for the Planning Committee it would seem an appropriate civil statement might be
in order, but instead said they got one filled with venom, scare tactics and other demeaning verbiage; and
said if one feels so adamant regarding what is happening and being no negative, one might consider
resigning.
4. John Carroll, 1207 S. Rotchford Drive, Spokane Valley: he asked Council to reject this emergency
amendment to delete the city center designation from the comp plan; he said this emergency action is
contrary to the wishes of the citizens of Spokane Valley; he said some councilmembers assert that this
emergency action is necessary because a city center is no longer, or citizens are being hurt, or that this
action will increase the number of jobs available; but said Council has not offered any evidence or data to
support those claims. He said the designated city center came about as a result of more than 80
workshops,neighborhood meetings, studies, surveys, and public hearings held during 2003 through 2009;
and said the single outstanding result of those meetings is that the citizens of Spokane Valley want a city
center in order to establish an identity for our city; he said the members of this council who contend that
the city center is not wanted, have not presented any surveys, polls or data to support their position; nor
has any member presented any material or data to bolster the position that the citizens are being hurt by
the designated city center. He said the claim is that this emergency ordinance is about jobs hinging on a
request from a property owner who has a pending deal to sell a portion of his land located in the
designated city center, to a national used car dealer. Mr. Carroll rhetorically asked if another used car
dealer will generate jobs; and answered probably not. Mr. Carroll said when council considers there are
53 used car lots up and down Sprague, and 23%are inactive; and said what will likely happen because of
the presence of a large used car lot is the redistribution of the market share, which means some of our
locally owned businesses will be pushed out of business and their employees will join the ranks of the
unemployed. Further, he stated, this council without discussing the Planning Commission findings, is
rejecting this recommendation to deny the ordinance; he said the Planning Commission found that the
amendment was processed too quickly and without sufficient public input; that there wasn't sufficient
statistical information or survey of a community to gage citizen support; and said the city center provides
Council Study Session Minutes January 18,2011 Page 3 of 21
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
guidance and stability for future economic development and a city center is necessary for the long term
viability of Spokane Valley; and he said it is not in the public interest to move forward without a plan to
implement a city center. He said he questions why, and hopes others will question why, this council
would consider a single special interest above the interest of the majority of the Spokane [Valley]
citizens; and he questioned why this council has disregarded the documented preference of this
community, and he questioned why this council is ignoring the recommendations of the city staff and the
planning commission; and said the development of a city center will result in hundreds of new jobs and
millions of new dollars in our economy. He said our generation won't see the city center, but future
generations will. Finally, Mr. Carroll said he questioned why council is willing to trade our city's future
for a used car lot.
5. Mike Davidson, Ponderosa Area, Spokane Valley: said his wife is Marcia Sands, member of the
Planning Commission. Mr. Davidson said he hears a lot about the process of the Planning Commission
and knows they went through a lot of work on this. He said to see an emergency declaration for a used
car lot is ridiculous; he said in the ten years he's been here, that's a vacant lot, and he asked where is the
emergency. Mr. Davidson said there are vacant spaces all over and across the auto sales area that could
be used for another car lot, yet to move it out of that, again he questioned where the emergency is, and
said that is a misuse; he said the Planning Commission went through lots of public comment on
designation of areas and said Council can't usurp this by just one meeting; he said this is not right and
Council needs to listen to the people of Spokane Valley, and not just one or two constituents; he said he
realizes those constituents have a lot of money and vested interest in this area; but said he too has
business in this area and feels his word should carry as much weight as someone else's; and again asked
council not to do this on an emergency basis. He said if council wants to change something, he suggested
Council go through the regular process; that there is a process set up and he suggested council use it and
not usurp the people of this valley.
6. Mary Pollard, 17216 E. Baldwin Avenue, Spokane Valley: she said she heartily supports the
emergency ordinance rescinding the city center zoning and designation within the corridor that has held
many businesses hostage with an unfounded mandate in these precarious times; she lauded Council's
courage to make change that better fits the businesses and economy; and said people voted for a council
that care to reconsider the price those impacted have had to bear; and she thanked council for caring.
Further she stated that contrary to the rhetoric of some on the planning commission, there was never
overwhelming support for a city center by a valid type of survey; she said the first draft of the city's
comprehensive plan included alternative ways of planning the city, and said these alternatives were never
discussed. She said the city center idea was the only option for discussion; she said her neighborhood
carefully read the plan and asked about their actions; she said that Ms. Sukup stated that they were there
because planning was required to provide alternatives in the draft, and said that no explanation was given
as to why there was no discussion of any other model. She said from the start the city never flushed out
any other idea; and said planners showed a full-blown drawing of a visionary city center without any
alternatives for comparison; and said the outcome was predetermined. Ms. Pollard said planning staff
admitted that council was anxious for the process to end so they could get on with their plans; and said it
is indefensible to give credence to a con job that ran its course. She said many in her neighborhood noted
the glaring absence of background information in these meetings; she said her neighbor Mrs. White stated
it was insulting to garner opinions on complex issues without providing facts as to the harm, who it was
going to benefit,what the cost was going to be, and the overall impact of it; and said none of this was ever
provided. Ms. Pollard said they brought this up to Ms. Sukup who replied that while true, it wasn't
possible in the time frame of meetings to do this. Ms. Pollard asked who would take comments solicited
in a vacuum devoid of facts and figures as a mandate to build on; and said yet she hears ridiculous claims
that this was a public mandate, and she said nothing could be further from the truth; she said it was a
stacked deck, dog and pony show from the start based on conjecture. Ms. Pollard said the Growth
Management Act is blamed for many bad policies this community has had to endure;while GMA requires
Council Study Session Minutes January 18,2011 Page 4 of 21
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
cities to plan, it cannot be construed as a mandate to create a monopoly by zoning; and said this violates
anti-trust laws that prohibit monopolies and said cities are not exempt from these laws. She said Spokane
Valley only has the power given it by state law since we are under Dillon Rule. She said Judge Dillon in
1886 distrusted local government rules to grant them only those powers expressly granted by the state;
she said the city center was mandated using legal fiat; and said the record shows that 85% of public
comment was against this plan; she said it legally murky as to whether it would pass legal muster if
challenged, but said it was passed nonetheless knowing the high cost of litigation would discourage legal
challenge. She said businesses can't afford to lose their shirts to oppose the deep legal pockets the city
possesses; and said this created undue anguish many citizens have had to endure, facing tremendous
losses; and said this bully attitude earned Spokane Valley a reputation as a totalitarian type of government
due to its arbitrary practices. Ms. Pollard said it is time to acknowledge these existing uses and people as
a vibrant part of our future; she said she is grateful that council is restoring a common sense approach to
planning; and added that she is somewhat offended at John Carroll's behavior and public stance as a
planning commissioner; and said while he has given up personal time for many years to serve on the
planning commission,he cannot continue to be allowed to utilize his position on the planning commission
to publicly attack the city council during commission meetings in vitriolic displays of contempt for our
elected officials; she said this surly and disrespectful attitude should not be continued because it's likely
to damper public testimony. She said he is not an elected official and does not represent the community
as he would like to pretend; and said this behavior is unbefitting of any planning commissioner.
7. Arne Woodward, 2511 S. Best Road, Spokane Valley: he said this ordinance isn't about one single
piece of property but is about 225 acres designated as a city center. Mr. Woodward said he heard last
week from a gentleman at the council meeting who wanted to refinance and couldn't because of the
commercial designation of his residence; and said not only he couldn't get refinanced but if he was to try
to sell his house, the new buyers would not be able to get financing. He said he's been screaming about
this for a year, maybe a little more than a year at different times during these meetings and at planning
commission; and said everybody seems to think nonconforming doesn't affect your property, but he said
it certainly does and it does in many ways; and it affects real citizens. He said he would contend that
those who are as adamant about the city center could probably say he's just as adamant about his vision of
the city and the city center, which he said does not include Sprague and University; and said he would
contend that when the library failed in 2008 for $33 million to build a new library which was one of the
anchors of our city center, that was the first death nail to the city center at University and Sprague; and
said he thinks the second nail was probably when they elected the new council here which ran on a "kill
SARP' or"get rid of this abusive mandate and regulation"that the SARP put on us. Likewise he said,the
vision has not been articulated very well from the council; and said he would agree with a lot of the
citizens that perhaps they're not listening; he said there's been a lot of other noise; but said he believes
most of the council has the vision whether the city center is at Sprague and University or anywhere else in
the city, is a matter of all of us deciding to get behind that and do it. He said he thinks our city is such a
beautiful city that it would be a crime not to have the city center or city office buildings over on our 54-
acre piece of property called CenterPlace, anchored by two beautiful parks and a campus atmosphere. He
said he knows that is not the topic tonight, but contends we need to think about the fact that it doesn't
affect just one property, it's a lot of properties and a lot of businesses and the businesses out there are
scared and they don't often show up at these meetings because they elect people to come represent them
and to look out for their best needs; and he said that's all he's asking Council to do: to look out for the
best needs of our businesses and our citizens; and he said he's not sure the city center designation where
it's at is the right way.
8. Dick Behm, 9405 East Sprague Avenue, Spokane Valley: said he thoroughly disagrees with his good
friends Mary Pollard and Chuck Hafner, neither of whom have an investment on Sprague; he said he's
owned commercial property in Dishman since 1950, which is 61 years; and said council needs to talk to
the people who have an investment on Sprague Avenue and their ideas on how it affects them; he said
Council Study Session Minutes January 18,2011 Page 5 of 21
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
although he is not in the city center zone, he's in the mixed use zone and is just west of the boundary of
the city center zone. He said he has some concerns about this council and he read the following: "What is
a hypocrite. It is someone who makes statements that they don't really believe, or express attitudes or
qualities that they do not posses. Let me explain that. During the 2009 campaign for City Council, several
members of this council campaigned on the issue of down zoning of properties along Sprague Avenue by
the SARP plan. They claimed that some of the nonconforming uses and the new zoning created a lower
value to some or all of the properties on Sprague Avenue. They also claimed they weren't notified of the
many meetings that were held and the City was responsible for their not being aware of the change in
zoning. Not everyone nor did a majority of the property owners agree with them, but they continued to
beat that drum until people began to believe that story. It is the old story that if you tell a lie often enough
people will begin to think it's true. Now this council is doing what they criticized the previous council of
doing, and with much less public involvement. This council has not made any effort to have public
meetings or workshops with the property owners and citizens to discuss the elimination of the city center
zone. At the subarea plan meeting for the city center zone, there were very few concerns expressed over
the zoning and those that were, were addressed by the staff very quickly to everyone's satisfaction. No
one said the city center should be eliminated. A city center zone carried a premium value on the real
estate within that zoning. Over the years, it can do nothing but increase in value as our city grows, and
creates an identity for the City of Spokane Valley, which in the Clearwater Report, if you remember that
and said I know you've all read it, is the main thing that the citizens of Spokane valley wanted was an
identity for their city. Now this council, in complete disregard of the recommendations of the planning
commission and without making the effort of notifying every one of the over 200 property owners in the
city center zoning and telling them of the consequences of their property being downzoned to mixed use,
is now proceeding with an emergency ordinance to down zone their property. Is this not the same thing
the previous council was criticized for? This is an emergency? Where is the evidence and documentation
to show the emergency? The council turned down an alternative that would have allowed a used car lot.
Where or who are the developers or businesses that want to expand or build if only this wasn't zoned city
center? So now this council wants to down zone over 200 properties without giving those property
owners or citizens a chance to discuss the impact at a public workshop. So what is a hypocrite? Someone
who says the same thing or takes the same action as others they criticized. The insincerity and self-
righteousness of this city council is overwhelming. This council has taken the art of political hypocrisy to
the highest level."
9. Marcia Sands, 10618 E. Ferret Drive, Spokane Valley: she thanked council for all the effort and
work put into this; she said when council first started looking at SARP and having meetings to discuss
changes and how the people in each zone felt about it, she said she first thought it was a waste of time
since that had been done previously; but said there was some good input and she started to think that
wasn't such a bad thing and perhaps this is something to think about and look it. But then, she said,
council came up with this emergency plan amendment and like so many others, said she doesn't see the
emergency and doesn't see why we can't go through the process of doing this the right way and getting
input. She said it's great to see so many people here but we live in a city of 90,000 and we need more
input and more people to have a say. She said she thinks Mirabeau and CenterPlace are beautiful and
they would make great city centers except for the fact that the population is on Sprague, or near and
around Sprague; and if you put it way out there; who's going to be there? She said it's not someplace you
can walk to from your home; and the idea is to have a dense core and have the density be close in so
people can utilize the services that are there. She said it might be a valid thought to changing the size,
zoning it a little bit differently and doing some other things, but to change it and especially to change it
for just one property owner who had a lot of years to do whatever he wanted to with that property without
any zoning, is wrong. She said she thinks this is fiscally irresponsible because you are opening the city up
for lawsuits and that's not what council ran on. She asked Council to please consider not doing this
emergency amendment now and to go through the proper steps to do it right and everyone work together
Council Study Session Minutes January 18,2011 Page 6 of 21
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
collaboratively; and both sides stop the name-calling and work together to make Spokane Valley what it
can be.
10. Karla Kaley, KPS Management, 10516 E Main Avenue, Spokane Valley: she urged council to
take the recommendations of the planning commission and suspend council's support of the emergency
ordinance; she said it is fiscally irresponsible and is a run around a very important public process that she
feels is council's duty to support; she said she believes everyone in this room has the same goal of having
a healthy, viable city that meets the goals and quality of life and financial support for all of the members
that participate in this community and for the neighboring communities as well. She said that what
Council is proposing to do with this emergency ordinance is to eliminate the SARP which is the subarea
plan for Sprague/Appleway revitalization, and said the key word is revitalization; and said she has not
seen any statistics or data that support an emergency at this point, and said she knows of at least one
situation just last week where it would be in the negative if you take away the revitalization plan; there
will be persons who are trying to get state and federal support who will not get as many points for their
applications and grants because it is no longer a revitalization area; and said all hopes for a city center
will disappear along Sprague Avenue, Appleway or University or anywhere because Council has no
alternative plan. She said she understands we have a "crown jewel" here with CenterPlace, but
CenterPlace is not the center of the city, it is geographically isolated by a freeway and a railroad track,
and said from a planning standpoint that means death of most of the businesses and activities on the other
side when the physical and financial bulk of the city is on the other side of the tracks or the freeway. Ms.
Kaley further stated that it creates a geographic barrier for people who don't drive, and it limits access to
those city facilities council is proposing and said she is not saying anything negative about CenterPlace as
it is a lovely facility and has its own uses, but a city center is not; and said furthermore that it is not the
geographic center of the city. She said if council pursues this avenue,they are leaving the city in a state
of vulnerability; they are not offering an alternative plan or any kind of suggestions for quality growth or
for attracting businesses to our city. She said the plan was developed by a public process and was drafted
by experts in city planning, and asked, "who are we to unravel that?" Further, with considering an
emergency ordinance, she said it doesn't appear to be an emergency. She said the plan provides for a city
center, and without a city center there is no stability to attract new businesses, without a city center there
is less credibility as a city, it's hard to attract new businesses or retain the ones we have, and without
attracting new businesses, it's hard to get more money. She said when we created a new city we created a
very fat overhead; and said all the infrastructure of this city requires funding; and if we don't attract new
businesses or sustain those businesses we have, they will come back to the troth for more money. She
said we'll all part of that and said because we believe in a city, and said she believes in a city, we'll pay
our fair share, but the result will be increased taxes. She said we need new businesses or support new
economic growth. She challenged this council to show her as a community member what they have done
to attract new business, or what they have done for economic growth and development of the City of
Spokane Valley. She challenged Council to do what our federal counterparts are doing, which is to get
away from the campaign rhetoric and get down to the business of running our city. She said we need to
attract new businesses and said she's like to see a business plan for this city, and again asked, what is
council going to do? She said it cannot all sit on CenterPlace as CenterPlace can't support a whole city;
and said no matter what council has planned there, it won't function as a city center. She said the plan
provides for zoning and zoning gives stability for businesses. She said she'd like to propose one more
thing,that we support what she recommended previously with the planning commission,which was some
kind of public process that would involve stakeholder input from experts in the business community in at
least four categories: architecture, signs and setbacks, parking and streets, and economic development so
we can make modifications to the existing plan and make sure it does what it is intended to do.
11. Phillip Rudy,5647 N Fruithill,with a business at 720 N Argonne, Spokane Valley: he first asked
if the motion that Councilmember Schimmels made to advance the ordinance to the second reading, if
that second reading that would occur tonight or next week, and Mayor Towey said if approved, it would
Council Study Session Minutes January 18,2011 Page 7 of 21
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
be next Tuesday. Dr. Rudy said that six weeks into a six-month option to purchase some property in the
downtown Spokane,the seller announced that he was selling it to someone else,the property there was an
option; and said the reason he tells council that is his experience with big developers and big purchasers is
they probably have a second or an alternate plan in place and if CarMax is of that type, they probably
have something in reserve, so if that happens and that comes to light, and you pass your emergency
ordinance,the reasons for your emergency will melt like snow in a desert.
12. Sue Scott, 205 S Evergreen Road, Spokane Valley Ms Scott read the following statement: "It
should be remembered that the former council embedded SARP into the comp plan with an ordinance
declaring an `economic emergency' just before the November 09 elections. No warnings of potential
litigation were given at that time. It was, in fact, recommended as a device allowed by statute,that should
be taken advantage of to close any gaps that may exist, a precaution to ensure timely application and
compliance with the plan. In short to ensure that SARP remained intact even if the council didn't. It
should be noted that the staff recommendation supports the current emergency ordinance. I was fortunate
to attend the recent planning commission discussion on this issue. The open hostility and anger, expressed
by a faction on the panel over the results of the 2009 election, is not included in their official findings,but
does add perspective to their denial. This council has been diligent in responding to the public outcry
over the plan. It held the district-by-district meetings that should have been held before adoption:
meetings that answered questions and revealed the harmful details of the plan minus the hype. I applaud
this council for withstanding bad press and a campaign of innuendo and scorn. In hindsight, before
pouring all the time, energy and money into the location, it would have been better had several sites been
analyzed in terms of the criteria we now know is needed for a successful city center. Throwing good
money after bad will not change the fact that the components for a successful city center do not exist at
the U-City site. There's no freeway access,they were unable to negotiate a land purchase, no other civic
buildings, a willing developer,things like that. SARP is just too big. It tried to address and fix everything
and does nothing well. This council cannot be blamed for trying to stop what could best be described as a
"bull in a china shop"; SARP is trampling property rights and goring small businesses and landowners
with unwelcome rezoning and nonconformity issues, leaving an expensive trail of mandates, attorney's
fees and potential lawsuits in its wake. Above all, putting the city center district at U-city to rest is not
about dismantling the city. It's about making smart decisions based on facts that are in the best economic
interests of taxpayers and businesses alike. There are better ways to revitalize the corridor and there are
better sites for a city center. There is an alternate proposal that takes into consideration what we've
learned from the SARP experience. The city already owns land at Mirabeau that has far greater potential
for success as a city/civic center than the privately owned Sprague site. Its land the city already owns
with excellent freeway access. It has existing parks and existing civic buildings. It's by the river and
centennial trail. It's located near existing regional shopping, existing restaurants and existing lodging.
Last but not least,it does not require rezoning 100 parcels and creating miles of damaging nonconformity.
We don't have the luxury of waiting 20 to 30 years for the potential development of a city center at U-
City. Time is of the essence. I urge the council to support this emergency ordinance and allow
development that is clearly within the boundaries of what is acceptable on the corridor and could be a real
shot in the arm for that area as well as city coffers."
13. Steve Wine2er, 10021 E. Knox, Spokane Valley: he said that it has been stated that you have been
less than honest about what you are doing and essentially you are destroying the SARP. He said he was
very engaged and alert with the last election and that he remembers specifically that that was the platform
that those who were part of the shift change with the council, specifically ran on was to do away with
SARP; and said he believes that almost a 60% majority elected those councilmembers who are sitting
here, and said there was no mistake that the SARP was the centerpiece of what they ran on. He said he's
confused about something: he said there's obviously two sides to this and each side has their rhetoric; but
the side that wants the SARP to stay in place and a city center, and they are entitled to that belief even
though the majority said we don't agree with that and he said that's the blunt truth; state that if we don't
Council Study Session Minutes January 18,2011 Page 8 of 21
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
have city hall as part of our city center there will be no city center. He said professionally he spends his
time in the sign and awning business for about 37 years with branches elsewhere, and said his and his
sales staff time is spent in two places: the customer and city or county hall for that municipality. He said
he's been to every city hall campus and building from Bellevue and Seattle to Butte, and from the
Canadian border down to Pendleton, Oregon. He said he has spent hours in city halls and county seats
and courthouses; and said what he sees is not much retail going on; and honestly all that goes on at a city
hall are people going there to pay parking tickets, utility bills and contractors procuring permits or
necessary documentation and businesses licenses and there is the occasional city hall next to a courthouse.
He said he would like to draw attention to Spokane County Courthouse next to their building department
building; he said there are three restaurants in that vicinity that they have done work for; and said those
restaurants have a heck of a time staying open and get very little business from the permit center, from the
county building department and several of them close and open with what little business they get from
people at the courthouse and the attorneys; and said he doesn't understand why we have this mindset that
if we have a city hall that business will thrive because we have a city campus. He said one of the largest
campuses in the northwest is Richland and Kennewick, and said there are very few businesses that can
survive in those climates; and said people pulling permits and going to trial do not stimulate the business
economy. He said you can have a very nice building, and perhaps that is what we have in our head is this
building itself will revitalize business; but said that doesn't work either; he said free enterprise revitalizes
business and not government buildings. He said he believes that the land that the city presently owns at
CenterPlace is our best option; and said anything else we do is going to involve revenue enhancement;
and said he would prefer "not to have his intelligence insulted and just say, raise my taxes." He said we
have been in a very serious economic downturn for over twenty-four months; said our government's debt
is 95.6% of our gross domestic product; and said three years ago it was 36.9; and said that means we are
looking at a tax title wave that the only way they can balance the budget is to raise taxes, and said if they
raise their income taxes federally to 100%, they could not balance the federal budget; and he asked
Council to please prudently think what can we do to not raise taxes in this community for the next two to
three years, because that is key to our survival as a city and for any business trying to conduct commerce
in this city.
14. Jack Pring, 2915 S. Dishman Mica Road, Spokane Valley: said he wouldn't respect himself if he
hadn't stood up to this council, including Councilmember McCaslin who is not here tonight, and said he
wishes him well. Mr. Pring said he knows that he is about as much about free enterprise as anybody in
this room and said he contributed to everyone of the councilmembers from Councilmember Dempsey on
over. Councilmember Dempsey stated that Mr. Pring did not contribute to her. Mr. Pring said that he did
so with no strings attached in any way; said he didn't meet Dean Grafos or Susan Scott and they got their
zoning changed; he said he had a member of the previous council come up and talk to him and want to get
his zoning changed if Mr. Pring would work with him, and Mr. Pring said he won't go that way. Mr.
Pring said these folks got theirs changed and they still went with the new program, and he congratulated
council and said he respected them for that. Regarding the used car lot, Mr. Pring said there is only one
reason they want this used car lot; he said he has done a little business with CarMax when it was under
Circuit City, and said they have come to play, that they are a Fortune 500 Company and they contacted
Kathy McClung, and Dean Grafos, and they contacted him, but said they can't do any business until they
get this zoning right; but said they have come to play; and said if we can do some business, he'd like to
help. Mr. Pring said he respected the people up there will make the decision, and as hard as they have
worked that he has gotten to know almost every councilmember; and said they are good honest people
with integrity, and this business of hypocrisy, the man who spoke about that, I don't believe he really
means it from his heart; and he's a good man, and Mr. Pring said he didn't want to say anything bad about
him; and he thanked council for all they do.
15. City Clerk Bainbridge said she received the following and with the Mayor's permission, read
the letter into the record: From H. James Magnuson,Attorney at Law, dated January 17, 2011: "To the
Council Study Session Minutes January 18,2011 Page 9 of 21
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
Honorable Mayor Towey and Council: I am writing on behalf of University City, Inc., an owner of real
property in the Spokane Valley. I am writing with respect to the City Council's consideration for zoning
in the University City Center are. The new zoning adopted should be pre-City Center and pre-Sprague
Subarea Plan zoning mixed use. The property needs a flexible, mixed-use commercial zoning to enable
redevelopment to increase the tax base and create more jobs. Broad commercial zoning is appropriate
and compatible with existing commercial uses,traffic and arterials in the area. As such, I would urge you
to adopt a flexible, broad, mixed-use commercial zoning to apply to this area going forward. Thank you
for your assistance. H. James Magnuson,Attorney at Law."
There were no further public comments and Mayor Towey invited comment from council.
Councilmember Gothmann made the following motion as a substitute for the existing motion: I move
that the western boundary of the City Center zone be moved to Balfour on the north side of Sprague and
to Dartmouth from Sprague and Appleway;furthermore, that this be done under the emergency provision
of the law pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130(2)(b)." Councilmember Gothmann added that the state statute is
listed below on his written motion, which was distributed to councilmembers. The motion was seconded
by Councilmember Dempsey. Councilmember Gothmann explained that first of all council has to
identify the issue; he said on September 7 and September 9, City Hall received two letters, one from the
Pring Corporation and one from the Magnuson Corporation. To get an idea of what they were asking for,
Councilmember Gothmann read the following excerpt from the Pring Corporation: "Based on that
understanding, we hereby request that the City Council take the necessary steps to provide changes to the
City Center zone that would accommodate the intended use of subject property one and two for auto-
related sales and service development and other commercial uses, all approved under pre-SARP zoning."
Councilmember Gothmann said their prime intent was to adopt other auto uses; he said that was followed
by a letter two days later from Mr. Magnuson in which it states: "I'm writing in support of the request of
the Pring Corporation of September 7, 2010, that the certain property owned by University City, Inc. be
returned to pre-SARP zoning via text amendment to the SARP plan." Councilmember Gothmann said the
reason this whole issue came to us was initiated by that letter; four days later during a council meeting,
Mr. Grafos stated that he was concerned with auto-oriented uses in the city center zone; and
Councilmember Gothmann said Councilmember Grafos was rightfully concerned and that Mr. Grafos
would like to send the permitted uses to allow vehicle sales and auto-oriented uses in the city center zone,
back to the Planning Commission. So the issue, explained Councilmember Gothmann was that
Councilmember Grafos wanted to get auto-oriented uses back to the Planning Commission, because he
wanted to accommodate these two letters, and said that is a worthy objective to accommodate citizens in
their quest to provide businesses. Councilmember Gothmann said he looked up AutoMax and they are a
good corporation and their earnings continue to rise. Councilmember Gothmann continued by explaining
that on October 5, Mr. Connelly prepared an emergency ordinance relative to the City Center only, which
went to the Planning Commission which rejected the proposal to eliminate the city center zone, and said
the Planning Commission's reason for rejecting the proposal was due to lack of information on two pieces
of property. Councilmember Gothmann said that on January 4 Attorney Connelly noted that changing the
size of the zone under an emergency ordinance was less risk to the City than eliminating the zone itself
under an emergency zone ordinance. Councilmember Gothmann said he wants to get the job done and
does not want this to get challenged and go to the courts; and said after the job is done, council can take
up city center in the ordinary course of events in May or so; and said what he is proposing would
accommodate the Pring's desires, would accommodate the Magnuson's desires, and accommodate Mr.
Grafos' objections as stated in September 2010; and Councilmember Gothmann encouraged moving this
direction to solve the problem instead of taking stances that will end up in court and delay the process and
not solve the problem.
Councilmember Dempsey said she agrees with Mr. Gothmann and feels this is a good solution where one
would not have to take sides, as this provides a solution to the reason this came up to begin with; and said
the rest of the city center issue can be taken care of in due course;but this would take care of this now and
Council Study Session Minutes January 18,2011 Page 10 of 21
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
would be a beautiful solution for a contentious problems. Councilmember Grafos said he believes the
issue is larger than Mr. Pring's property; as what we are talking about is creating a viable area and a
viable business environment on our business route, and said changing the size of the city center doesn't
help all of those business owners there and it certainly doesn't help us from an economic standpoint; and
said he would not support the motion. Councilmember Dempsey said if we could focus on what we were
asked to do, and rather than leap out into the whole broader spectrum of solving all the problems,just to
focus on this immediate request by two businesses who asked council to make changes so they could have
this business, that we would be better off rather than saying that this doesn't solve all our problems, and
she said she realizes this doesn't solve all our problems,but it would solve this problem and council could
move forward.
Deputy Mayor Schimmels said we spent approximately one and a half years of editing the SARP plan,
and editing these other properties; he said you can go to Argonne and Sprague and something was
changed there, and that council changed something at Evergreen and Sprague, and "we did this and we
did that, it just never seems to end, and what have we really accomplished in that." He said a lot of
people talk about our city center and said he believes that people need to get "city hall" out of the
vocabulary when discussing city center because of financing, and said maybe ten or even twenty years
down the road a city hall could be addressed; he said regarding Mr. Pring and Mr. Magnuson, we have
"probably a majority of people here that speak well for U-City; Mr. Magnuson, you're on his side; you
don't like what Mr. Pring has; so I say we either do what we intended to do or we fold the tent up," but
thirteen months, we've had one building permit off the Sprague Avenue plan, and it's a nasty
environment out there, but there should be more to it than that, and said he would not support the
amendment.
Councilmember Grassel said in looking at the Dartmouth property, it appears to include the Magnuson
property, and Councilmember Gothmann said his proposal would place both properties under
consideration within the mixed-use zone so auto uses would be allowed. Councilmember Grassel asked
if we know what properties are still in the city center zone. Councilmember Gothmann said a partial list,
and those council has not heard from, include Harmon Auto Glass, Mike's Donuts, Zips, Sterling
Savings, the Castle, Iron Horse, Dr. Ryan's offices, Appleway Florist, and he mentioned approximately
twenty businesses; and said there are 200 properties in the area and this is just a small example, and that
in any public meeting, council has only heard from three of the 200 property owners, and he asked why
would Council want to make decisions for them without sitting down to discuss what they would like to
do with their property. Councilmember Grassel said according to Community Development Director
McClung when we had meetings, that letters were sent out to all the property owners, but speaking as a
business owner, sometimes it is difficult to keep up with your mail; and said she had people tell her they
received letters from Spokane Valley with no notice of where it had come from and they almost threw it
away thinking it was junk mail; that we had a gentleman here last week who told council he wanted to
refinance his home and it was the appraiser who notified him he couldn't because his house was
nonconforming because it was in the city center zone; and she said she asked him if he recalled receiving
any notice from the city about his zoning, and he told her not that he could recall; regarding zoning and
property, until you want to do something with your property and then are told you can't do something
because you are nonconforming, then it becomes a huge burden; and said she thinks that is evident as
council has seen that in a number of the different zones; that council has tried to correct that through
some of the code text amendments; and said this gentleman was erroneously told by a staff member in
January that he was still nonconforming, when in fact we had changed the zoning back in November, and
said there is even confusion with our staff as to their understanding of what has and has not been
corrected; and for those reasons, she said she would not be in favor of this amendment.
Councilmember Gothmann said regarding the gentleman who spoke last week concerning his problem in
refinancing his home,that he is obviously conforming; and said that the August 19 meeting at which time
Council Study Session Minutes January 18,2011 Page 11 of 21
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
we supposedly got all the people in the city center together,the only thing that was on the agenda for that
meeting was: what would you like changed. Councilmember Gothmann said there was no agenda that
said we would do away with the zoning; but the meeting was more to ask what was wrong with the zone
and said we got practically no comments; and the issue of doing away with the zone didn't occur until
October when it was suggested by Mr. Connelly in response to council. During that August 19 meeting,
Mr. Gothmann said only three property owners of property in that zone spoke: Mr. Magnuson, Mr. Pring,
and Karla Kaley.
Councilmember Grafos said a letter was sent to all the property owners, and they came in and met and
spoke about the restrictions on their properties at the city center; and said Councilmember Gothmann
wasn't at that meeting or any zoning meeting, and reiterated that this is not about a single property but
about jobs and helping our city grow and said we are in "bad straits right now." He said you can take
Jack Pring out of the city center zone, but you would leave all those restrictions on those other property
owners, and one example is the core street at University City; he said a lot of people probably don't
understand what the core street is, and he explained that the core street under the SARP and the City
Center zone, which is the most restrictive of all the zones, is a road that would be built straight through
University-City; and once a single building permit was issued for development on this core street, it
would stop all expansion in the entire city center zone until all remaining building pads on the core street
were developed; and said that was predicated on the fact that they were going to put a new city hall there,
and said we don't have the money to do that; and said that leaves about seven new, unfunded east/west
streets, twelve new north/south streets, and one hundred percent of those buildings in the city center are
nonconforming due to the setbacks for building coverage regulations under the city center zone; we show
prelocated streets through about twenty existing buildings, and said there are still thirty property uses that
those property owners can't use on their property; he said it is not about Jack Pring and used cars but
about helping citizens and creating jobs.
Councilmember Dempsey said she thinks we are going back to arguing a point that doesn't need to be
argued; that we don't have to argue all of SARP or all of city center, and said it is within Council's
responsibilities to alter anything there and that council can change the roads and change the regulations
and still keep a city center;but tonight if we make a minor change,then we could do all the rest about city
center in due course and have proper public input and there would be no rush. Deputy Mayor Schimmels
said it is interesting to note that we have besides the letter, fifteen people who testified tonight, and we
have eight people who supported this ordinance and seven that don't. Mayor Towey invited public
comment.
Karla Kaley, 10516 East Main Avenue: said she doesn't understand; she said an issue was brought to
council for an emergency response based on economic reasons to accommodate a particular use in certain
parts of our city; and a very viable, rational, reasonable compromise has been offered twice now to
change the scope and the volume, which she feels has been a legitimate criticism of SARP; yet there
seems to be a resounding "no, I don't want to talk about it" and she said that tells her there is another
agenda here or another reason why this is at the table; and if it's something else we should discuss that.
She said if the goal is to get rid of SARP, that's ok, but to what alternative; because that is not what has
been proposed and council is going backwards, and said that the purpose of SARP was to help revitalize
our city and have quality-controlled growth.
Dee Dee Loberg, 1806 4th, Greenacres: said she likes the idea of the compromise; that compromise gets
us further than building walls; she said she thinks some people are afraid to speak; but perhaps a show of
hands would show how many want a compromise.
Diana Sanderson, 11716 E. 14t' Avenue: said she feels the compromise is very helpful as it deals with
something they are looking at and the reason why this became a hot button; she said she thinks it is very
Council Study Session Minutes January 18,2011 Page 12 of 21
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
sad to rapidly push through something when it can be done in April and May and have more citizen input;
she said she was astounded to here this was happening in this manner; and said there was a dislike for
some of the ways that this was set into place.
Dick Behm, 9405 E. Sprague: he said if council would accept this compromise, the Spokane Valley
Business Association (SVBA) would assist the council in contacting every property owner within the city
center zone, they would probably ask the Chamber of Commerce to help, to make sure those property
owners attend a workshop so we can explain what's on the table; and said whichever decision gets made,
there would be a better understanding of how the business people in this area feel; and said that City
Center Zone is premium zoning and knowing there would be a city center there some time in the future,
the value of those properties will keep increasing faster than any other type of zoning.
Nathan Dikes, 11214 E. 30th; said he owns a business at 10410 E 9th; said his family has had a 61-year old
business in Spokane Valley; that he has seen University City grow and decrease; that he finds this
discussion very interesting, and as part of the Spokane Valley Business Association, he's listening from
that perspective; that he respects that other business owners have an interest in wanting to develop along
Sprague, and it sounds like a good amendment.
Diana Wilhite, PO Box 14932, Spokane Valley: said she would support this amendment in that it solves
the problem concerning restricting the ability of property owners to do something; she said it allows for
economic development and allows the rest of the property owners, several of whom she said she has
spoken to who could not be here tonight, to talk about the changes that need to be made, and to discuss
the city center concept, that perhaps it should be someplace other than U-City, and it would give citizens
the ability to come to council, including property owners and those involved concerned about the
Sprague/Appleway corridor.
Steve Wineger 10021 E. Knox: Spokane Valley: said he understands the compromise, but said that what
is happening here is that "we are ruling by the rule of exception; there have been several exceptions
made" and he said he believes that for the sake of commerce we have to allow the businesses on the table
now for those exceptions to be given; but this band aid will stick until someone else needs financing or
wants to sell their building; and said that some of businesses that were mentioned in this corridor and
haven't expressed anything yet, he said he knows they are considering that because they are his clients;
and said they will run into the same "I need an exception brick wall that the previous people already have
and have gotten a pass" and said when you go down that road, it is very slippery the first time you don't
grant an exception to someone that asks for it. He said there is a lot of concern about lawsuits; and said
the law must be administered fairly and equitably; and said he feels we have to have the exceptions made
that have been made obviously or they would not have been made, and said it is a matter of time before
someone else comes up to the table and says "Hey, I can't live with this either and I need an exception."
There were no further public comments.
COUNCIL DISCUSSION:
Councilmember Gothmann said he is very careful and does not attend planning commission meetings
because it's part of his ethics as he doesn't want to influence what they do; and said he carefully reads the
transcripts of the planning commission meeting, including those of the August 18 or 19 meeting; and he
said the reason for those meetings was so that staff, who are neutral in the process, could receive
comments from the public without any possible influence from councilmembers. Councilmember
Gothmann said that "city center" needs to be defined; he said the intent of a city center is to have high
density businesses and become a place where people could go for business purposes and recreation
purposes; and said that the City itself doesn't have to pay the cost of the development; he said by council
vote, core restrictions, east/west streets, setbacks, prelocated streets through buildings can all be changed;
Council Study Session Minutes January 18,2011 Page 13 of 21
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
and said he feels there is a high probability of a lawsuit if council does away with City Center now; said
he wants to bring jobs in, and all other things can be argued in time. Councilmember Dempsey suggested
council focus on the topic of the emergency ordinance, and said the rest will come back in April or May
when Council will have ample opportunity to gather more public input and have further council
discussions; she said if council accepts the proposed amendment,this can all be taken care of and the rest
can be discussed later, whether we have a city center, or eliminate city center, and added that a city hall
has been off the docket for a long time; and that city center is not city hall; and said she would like
council to focus on what they are doing here and why and to address the purpose of this emergency
ordinance.
Deputy Mayor Schimmels asked Councilmember Dempsey regarding the language of the motion, that it
states that this be done "under the emergency provision of the law pursuant to RCW 36"and said the only
things she is doing is changing some property lines; but are still supporting the emergency clause.
Councilmember Gothmann said he feels there is an emergency;that it exists at the western end of the city
center zone; he said there are property owners who want to develop their property and due to economic
circumstances and due to things that have changed, they cannot proceed with that development; and
added that he sees no proof that such emergency exists in the middle or the eastern end; and said he
knows some of the property owners are in favor of leaving it as zoned; and said he has not seen any proof
that an emergency exists at the entire zone, and that he has only seen three people who discussed
properties within those zones.
Councilmember Grafos said if you are going to change half of that zone, you are doing exactly what
council has been accused of doing, which is "caving in or changing zoning for specific property owners."
He said the argument is not about Mr. Pring's property; but is in the fifteen months this plan has been in
effect,there has only been one building permit; and said to leave half of the city center zone doesn't make
sense; he said the California consultants, the experts hired in 2004 and paid almost $1 million to, set the
essential elements that were needed for the success of a city center, and said these experts indicated those
essential elements included "(1) land purchased and construction of a new city hall, estimated at 20-25
million dollars; (2) the site of the city center should contain a city library, (3) the site of a city center
should be at a major crossroads with freeway access, (4) the site should contain retail buildings with
residential space and condominiums above, (5) the site should be home to major anchors tenants."
Councilmember Grafos read from his prepared statement: "The essential elements needed to make this
plan a reality including an estimated 35-40 million dollars of taxpayer money needed over the next 5-20
years simply does not exist. It didn't then and it certainly does not now. Also, when you're talking
about leaving that as a city enter] no consideration was given to what was already occurring on the north-
south streets, especially those fueling the explosive growth in the Centerplace, Mirabeau areas, even
before the completion of the 54,000 square foot Centerplace Regional Event Center. As Councilmember
Schimmels stated last week, this ordinance [and not Bill's] is about opportunity and jobs for our citizens.
Over and over again, we hear the argument by a small vocal business group and some real estate
speculators whose properties are located in the U-City area that if we don't designate their properties as
the city center, or we don't change the traffic direction at U-City for a mere 2-5 million dollars, the City
will be lost."
Councilmember Dempsey said in response to the comments that nothing had happened under SARP in
those fifteen months, she said it was ordinance 09-026, 027, 028 and 029 that moved the effective date of
the implementation of the SARP to October 15, 2009; and said the election of the present council was
held November 3, which she said was seventeen days, at which point the council that was sitting then
knew there was no point in trying to go any further, as this council had been elected on an anti-SARP
platform, and therefore nothing would be done; she said it was the first or second meeting that Mr. Grafos
in 2010 moved to dismantle the SARP; she said SARP never had a chance, and reiterated that seventeen
days is not enough time for any plan to work. Councilmember Grassel said that Councilmember Dempsey
Council Study Session Minutes January 18,2011 Page 14 of 21
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
did at one time vote against the SARP, in perhaps 2009, so she's done a 180. Councilmember Dempsey
acknowledged that and said her husband has pointed that out to her; but she explained that what she was
for from the very beginning was the city center. Mayor Towey reminded council that the discussion is
about the amended motion and he asked for further comments. Mayor Towey stressed that this is not
about one parcel; he said this is an emergency motion for all of city center; and said he would not be in
favor of the amendment.
Mayor Towey re-stated the replacement motion: "the western boundary of the City Center zone be moved
to Balfour on the north side of Sprague and to Dartmouth from Sprague to Appleway;furthermore, that
this is to be done under the emergency provision of the law pursuant to RCW 36.70A.130 as stated
below. " Mayor Towey called for the vote, and at Councilmember Dempsey's suggestions, the Clerk
conducted a roll call vote: In Favor: Councilmembers Gothmann and Dempsey. Opposed:
Councilmembers Grafos, Grassel, Deputy Mayor Schimmels, and Mayor Towey. The amended motion
failed. Councilmember Dempsey said she was always for a city center, and was one who responded to
the newspaper poll and said she indicated then that she'd like a city center,that we need a heart of the city
and someplace to focus on; and said the City Hall, the Library, and the dense business area weren't the
focus then to her, but that she was for the heart of the city, and she said it "quite frankly breaks my heart
to have this eliminated."
Councilmember Grassel said she feels the emergency ordinance does three things: (1) it restores most of
the uses and gives developers more options to what types of businesses are allowed in the zone, the
zoning includes 56 single family homes, 83 commercial properties, 33 duplex-multi-family properties,
and currently 23 vacancies; and said 56 of these properties are single family homes and they have been
through a code text amendment and are conforming as of November; (2) it frees up the property for the
owners to get funding in order for upcoming spring projects; and said as one who has gone through the
process of purchasing land for a business and having a building built, it is a long process; and said if we
are looking at any properties being able to enhance their property or for new property coming in, this
emergency ordinances gives them the freedom to begin planning and getting their financing lined up; and
(3) it restores the district to a commercial zone. She said instead of"Sprague being forced into something
it is not, a city center, it allows commercial opportunities to come here and to expand. We can go out and
recruit commercial business to locate in the Spokane Valley that currently they would not be allowed to."
She said a good example of this might have been Trader Joe's; and she said that a GSI representative told
her that the Valley was not an option for Trader Joe's because of some of the zoning difficulties."
Further, Councilmember Grassel said that the "emergency ordinance does not remove the option for a city
center in another location. It does not mean we are now going to disincorporate the city; and third it does
not mean that the council lacks vision. This council has listened to the property owners loud and clear
and they do not want this zoning. They are the ones that pay the taxes here; they are the ones that have
put their lives on the line to have their business here. So on the contrary,the current zoning is an absolute
infringement of property rights, it always has been an infringement of property rights, and as one who
attended a number of the zoning meetings prior to the entire SARP being implemented, anybody will tell
you over 85%of the people that attended those were adamantly against the zoning in the first place. We
can develop Sprague into an attractive commercial zone while proceeding with other economic ideas;
some of these would include an urban river trail,the possibility of a sports complex for world-class sports
events, and a city center area in Mirabeau Park location where we already own the land. And I would
suggest that from day one,the city center designation was putting the cart before the horse. We put it in a
survey as an option without any approval of the business owners in that area and then we designated it as
the city center zone before purchasing the land." She said she finds that very interesting that we would go
about the process in that way, and for those reasons, she thinks the zoning must be taken out of the way so
they can go forward with their financing.
Council Study Session Minutes January 18,2011 Page 15 of 21
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
Councilmember Gothmann said the reason 85% of the people were against SARP was because of the
direction of traffic on Sprague/Appleway, which he said is not the issue; as this is a zoning and
development regulations issue and had nothing to do with traffic. Councilmember Grassel questioned
those facts and she said those comments were not about the one-way vs. two-way but were about zoning
through their properties. Mayor Towey noted that Councilmember Gothmann has the floor but
Councilmember Grassel stated she would not allow him (Councilmember Gothmann) to make comments
that are in error and such should be stated for the record. Councilmember Gothmann said presently, this
city has an inadequate number of parks and an inadequate amount of parkland for a city this size; and said
however, we have "more commercial space than we can support" and what is being proposed is to take
from the scare park space by putting in a city hall there, and said he feels that is not wise.
Mayor Towey invited further public comment on the original motion; none was offered, and he opened
the floor for council comments. Councilmember Dempsey said city center doesn't mean that the city
owns the property; she said she took a ruler and looked at a map of the city of Spokane Valley, and the
actual city center of Spokane Valley is just about a block "this direction" over here on Union and
Sprague.
Councilmember Grafos said we are not talking so much the geographic center of the city but more the
center of the community life of this city, and he read the following to address the emergency declaration:
"Let's start at the Sept 9, 2009 regular council meeting, where the city council declared an
emergency and amended the comprehensive plan saying:
`One more basis (reason) to support an (emergency) amendment to the Comp Plan is to
ensure timely application and compliance with the Plan and the goals of economic
development as it tried to save an area which is underdeveloped, this declaration of
emergency would ensure that this happens.'
[And then we move to] November 9, 2010 staff report from the community development
department to the city council also concludes:
`The Planning Division, after review and consideration of the submitted application (the
emergency ordinance) and applicable approval criteria (recommends) that the Planning
Commission (recommended) approval of Emergency Comprehensive Plan Amendment
ECPA-01-10'[the ordinance we are talking about tonight].
That same November 9, 2010 staff report concludes:
`The proposed Comprehensive Plan designation to Mixed Use Avenue and a change in the
zoning classification to Mixed Use Avenue IS CONSISTENT with the Comprehensive Plan
goals and policies."
It is now 15 months and one building permit later in the designated City Center zone, and our city
is facing a long-term economic challenge in meeting the needs of our citizens. The need to remove
the economic obstacles to development in this area of our City by emergency ordinance is both
immediate and necessary. City financial reserves are projected to decline from $24,000,000 in
2010 to $10,500,000 in 2014. Sales tax revenues which account for almost 47%of the revenues to
provide essential services to our citizens have decreased over $3,000,000 annually from 2007 and
by all indications will continue to decline in 2010 from 2009 levels. This decline in new
development has been most severe in the City Center Zone, the most restricted and highly
regulated zone in the sub-area plan and the least likely to be successful less than 8 miles from the
City center in Spokane, Riverpark Square.
This California plan with its hundreds of impediments to reasonable re-development in our city,
especially the city center zone has neutralized the greatest strength of this area, a business route
with its large parcels of development land, existing multi-use buildings, reasonable zoning
restrictions and existing infrastructure and roads making re-development and new development
Council Study Session Minutes January 18,2011 Page 16 of 21
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
very attractive in this area as the economy recovers, all in a prime location less than 8 miles from
downtown Spokane.
One extreme example of this regulation is the "core" street [which we talked about earlier] which
relies on substantial unavailable public investment and draconian restrictions to succeed. Once a
single building permit is issued for development on this magical core street, all business expansion
in the entire city center zone would stop until all remaining building pads on the `core' street are
developed. [Add to these restrictions, you] add 7 new un-funded pre-located east-west streets, 12
new north-south streets, literally 100%of existing buildings in the city center now non-conforming
due to setbacks or building coverage regulations, new roads that are] designated through 20
existing buildings, nonconforming signs, 40 property uses no longer allowed just for starters and
you have set this area up for even slower economic growth. As a real estate broker with
involvement in real estate in the Spokane area for over 40 years, I can tell you that going forward
in this new economy, with very expensive development standards and restrictions will further
restrict re-development in the U-City area. Sprague Avenue is an important BUSINESS ROUTE.
It provides opportunity for hundreds of businesses who either cannot afford the high rents at the
regional valley shopping center, or whose business activity is not compatible with the regional
setting. Examples are medium box retailers like Target, Fred Meyer, ShopCo, or destination
businesses like automotive uses, grocery stores, medical, insurance, restaurants, etc. The
investments on Sprague Ave were made and continue to be made by primarily small-scale property
owners and investors who came forward in ones' and twos' to meet the needs and desires of our
local community.
The goal of the planning Dept and our city government should not be creating expensive,
unrealistic design patterns for development, but in reinforcing commonsense-based regulations
allowing reinvestment in our community, keeping structures occupied, expanding the tax base, and
creating jobs. The California consultants hired by our city at a cost of almost a million dollars in
2004 reached the following conclusions for essential elements needed for the success of a city
center: (1) Land purchased and construction of a new city hall, estimated cost 20-25 million
dollars; (2) the site should contain a city library; (3) the site should be at a major crossroads with
freeway access; (4) the site should contain retail buildings with residential space and
condominiums above; (5)the site should be home to major anchor tenants. The essential elements
needed to make this plan a reality including an estimated 35-40 million dollars of taxpayer money
needed over the next 5-20 years simply does not exist. It didn't then and it certainly does not now.
Also, no consideration was given to what was already occurring on the north-south streets,
especially those fueling the explosive growth in the Centerplace, Mirabeau areas, even before the
completion of the 54,000 square foot Centerplace Regional Event Center. As Councilman
Schimmels stated last week, this emergency ordinance is about opportunity and jobs for our
citizens. Over and over again we hear the same argument by a small vocal business group and
some real estate speculators whose properties are located in the U-City area that if we don't
designate their properties as the city center, or we don't change the traffic direction at U-City for a
mere 2-5 million dollars,the city will be lost.
THUS, THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS FOR A SUCCESSFUL FUTURE CITY CENTER DO
NOT EXIST AT UNIVERSITY CITY, A BUSINESS ROUTE. THE COMMUNITY, CIVIC,
AND ECONOMIC ELEMENTS NEEDED FOR A SUCCESSFUL CITY CENTER DO
HOWEVER EXIST TODAY IN THE CENTERPLACE/MIRABEAU PARK AREA:
1. Freeway access from Sullivan, Evergreen and/or Pines road
2. Freeway interchanges
3. Class "A"office buildings
4. A regional shopping center
Council Study Session Minutes January 18,2011 Page 17 of 21
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
5. Class "A"hotels and meeting centers
6. An expanding medical district
7. The Industrial Park
8. The Centennial Trail
9. The Senior Center
10. The YMCA
11. Discovery Park and Mirabeau Park
12. The Centerplace Regional Event Center
13. Government buildings, ex. The Dept of Wildlife
14. River views,natural areas and waterfalls (just like the city of Spokane)
15. Vacant development land and walk able landscaped streets
16. Lastly, The City of Spokane Valley already owns 54 acres of land at Centerplace with a number
of possible sites for a future city hall — a structure which should be built on land ALREADY
OWNED BY THE CITY.
The City Council with an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan should immediately bring
forward a motion designating the Centerplace/Mirabeau Park area, bordered by Sullivan Rd. on the
east, Pines Rd. on the west, the Spokane River on the north and I-90 on the south as the City
Center. [And he mentioned that the parameters of the city center could change.] At the winter
council retreat at Centerplace in February, the Public Works director will present to the City
Council a list of possible sites at Centerplace for a future city hall. The $477,000 in yearly lease
payments for the present city hall building would support debt service on a City Hall building with
construction costs around $8,000,000. The Regional Event Center Building completed in 2005 was
completed for around $7,000,000. Thank you." Signed: Dean Grafos. Again, he said the elements
do not exist at University City for a city center.
Councilmember Dempsey again asked where is the emergency? She said all this has been going on for all
these years, and she asked why is there an emergency now. Councilmember Grassel said the emergency is
that we have property owners who are caught in the middle of being able to do nothing with their property
because of the extreme restrictions that are placed, in particular, the City center zone; she said she has
gone to a number of meetings and is amazed at how many people have not actually read what's in the
zoning language of the city center zone; and she gave as an example the previous gentleman from the past
council meeting who did not know it made his house nonconforming at one time, and said that man's
house was nonconforming for a whole year and had his house burned down during that time, he would
not have been able to rebuild his house; and she said that is a crisis and she asked why that was even put
in the zoning at all; she said we clearly have an emergency and said we have that same problem with our
commercial property owners; and said she thinks there is not an understanding of what we are doing to
the properties currently and said they aren't able to get anything accomplished because of the zoning.
Councilmember Grassel said it is disingenuous to not understand it from the business owner's perspective
as it's their land that they purchased and worked their entire life for, and said for many it is their
retirement plan, and said to just sit back and say "well, what's the emergency?" — I think we stated it
pretty loud and clear: "They can't do anything with their property." Councilmember Dempsey suggested
she and Councilmember Grassel have different definitions of "emergency" because an emergency is
something that requires immediate action, and this requires action, but said she feels to say it is an
emergency is disingenuous. Councilmember Grassel countered by stating: "If you had a property and it
burned down and you were not able to rebuild it, that wouldn't bother you, you don't find that to be an
emergency at all?"
Mayor Towey said he is here due to the will of the people; and that he takes that responsibility very
seriously; he said he wanted to address the comment that people haven't been able to have input on the
city center question; but said he feels they have; he said in November 2009 there were approximately
Council Study Session Minutes January 18,2011 Page 18 of 21
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
89,000 people in the Spokane Valley; and out of those, 47,000 were registered voters; and out of those,
23,000 voted; he said they looked at the city center and they voted; and he said those voters told him that
they did not want the city center; and said out of 23,000, 58%said that did not want the city center,which
is 13,000 people; and he expressed his appreciation for people giving their opinion; and said that while he
listens to those comments, he must go back to those 13,000 who told him that they did not want the city
center; and he stressed it is not about one parcel, but is about restricting zoning; and said he will vote for
government to get out of the way and let the private sector do what they do best; and said he knows for a
fact that there is an emergency as people are strapped and can't do anything. Councilmember Dempsey
asked if the November vote was about candidates or about SARP, and asked if there was anything on that
vote about City center. Mayor Towey responded that he feels the whole year they campaigned, they
campaigned against the city center and SARP. Deputy Mayor Schimmels called for the question.
City Manager Jackson interjected by asking Attorney Connelly and Community Development Director
McClung whether they feel they have the information needed to put this ordinance together; and Mr.
Connelly said he feels the opinions have been clearly expressed on all sides.
Vote by acclamation on calling the question, i.e. to stop discussion and vote on the pending motion: In
favor: Mayor Towey, Deputy Mayor Schimmels, and Councilmembers Gothmann, Grafos, and Grassel.
Opposed: Councilmember Dempsey. Motion carried and discussion is now stopped. Vote by acclamation
on the pending motion to advance the ordinance to a second reading: In Favor: Mayor Towey, Deputy
Mayor Schimmels, and Councilmembers Grassel, and Grafos. Opposed: Councilmembers Gothmann and
Dempsey. Motion carried.
Mayor Towey called for a recess at 8:10 p.m., and reconvened the meeting at 8:20 p.m.
2. First Reading Proposed Ordinance Amending Zoning Code and Map (City Center)—Karen Kendall
After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and
seconded to advance the ordinance to a second reading. Mr. Connelly explained that this is simply an
ordinance implementing the one just advanced to a second reading; that it is identical in impact and
simply mirrors the zoning code to the comp plan map, and said this would not be an emergency since it
would be consistent with the comp plan which would be amended by the prior ordinance, that this is the
motion amending the zoning code. Mayor Towey invited public comments, no comments were offered.
Vote by Acclamation: In Favor:Mayor Towey, Deputy Mayor Schimmels, and Councilmembers Grassel
and Grafos. Opposed: Councilmembers Dempsey and Gothmann. Motion carried.
NON-ACTION ITEMS:
3. West Gateway Project—Neil Kersten
Public Works Director Kersten explained that a few weeks ago Councilmember Grafos asked staff to look
at a west gateway project at Thierman and Appleway; he said he spoke with the County Engineer and
since this is not a buildable parcel and is so small, the County is willing to transfer it to us without cost,
and he asked for council preference on this strip of land. Deputy Mayor Schimmels suggested staff
proceed with the land transfer Mr. Kersten said if we do take it, we should plan to spend some money to
get it cleaned up,that currently it is a location for political signs. Councilmember Grassel said she feels it
is a great location as an entry to the City of Spokane Valley, and perhaps this would be a good location
for a monument sign with the City's logo and a welcome to city of Spokane Valley. Councilmember
Grafos said he spoke with Commissioner Richard about the county donating this piece of property, and
said he envisioned a low-cost way to enhance that and said he appreciated the preliminary site plan with
the landscaping, and that he envisioned bringing water to that area and improve the area with
approximately $50,000 rather than $120,000; and Mayor Towey said the issue is whether to accept the
land, and council can determine how much to spend later, and said he favors acquiring the parcel. Mr.
Kersten asked if there were any objections from council concerning acquiring this parcel, and no
Council Study Session Minutes January 18,2011 Page 19 of 21
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
objections were voiced. The topic came up of the request about a year ago to share expenses with Liberty
Lake for a sign erected at the opposite side of town, with Liberty Lake on one side of the sign and
Spokane Valley on the other, and City Manager Jackson said staff plans to get together with staff from
Liberty lake soon, and suggested as we move forward,that we consider a city-wide plan for a city sign,to
perhaps include city parks, and to have a uniform plan in place. It was also stated that Thierman isn't the
entrance to the City but rather Havana, although it was mentioned that coming from the freeway, this
could be considered a main entrance based on number of vehicles passing through.
4. School Zone Flashing Beacons—Neil Kersten
Public Works Director Kersten said that Councilmember Grafos had expressed interest in placing flashing
beacons at Bowdish Junior High School just south of 16th Street; and he went over the history as shown
on his Request for Council Action, showing which schools currently have flashers, which were done with
the assistance of grants; and he mentioned that the grants only pay for materials, so we would do a
combination of match for labor and installation to the total cost of about $18,000; he said he anticipates
another funding cycle in 2011 and that they will rank some of the schools listed on his table 3 and work
with the school districts; and said that the grants will only be provided to put in flashing beacons at
elementary schools. Mr. Kersten said to put any beacons at middle schools, we would have to fund those
at 100%; he also said we will be spending some money upgrading the current beacons; that the timing
gets changed a little for each year, and staff has to work with that to make sure the beacons come on at the
correct time. Councilmember Grafos said he still thinks the middle school is a safety issue and that even
though we are at a financial struggle, we could get them done one at a time and have all completed in five
years; and said he would like to get a consensus to look at funding this with at least getting the beacons
installed at the Bowdish Junior High. Councilmember Gothmann asked if staff could rank the elementary
school zones and the middle school zones, and Mr. Kersten said he would rate the elementary schools
above all middle schools, and said it is a "given" due to the age of the children. Mayor Towey said then
the priority is the elementary schools, and once we solve that, he feels we should look forward to raising
it to the middle schools; and Mr. Kersten said it would definitely be a safety improvement if all schools
have the flashing beacons, and he encouraged doing elementary first, then middle, then high school; and
said there may be some elementary schools that don't have high enough traffic volumes that wouldn't rate
high enough to score state-wide, and said we may need to fund some of those; keeping in mind there may
be some that don't need them at all; and said staff will rank the schools and bring back that information.
5. Advance Agenda—Mayor Towey
Mayor Towey confirmed that there will be no Council meeting February 15 as councilmembers will be
using that as a travel day to Olympia for the legislative session
6. Information Only: The Response to Public Comments of January 11, 2011 Meeting and Solid Waste
Update were for information only and were not reported or discussed.
7. Council Check-in—Mayor Towey
Councilmember Grafos said he attended a GSI (Greater Spokane, Inc.) forum where they discussed
transportation, and medical schools, and he mentioned that Fairchild Air Force Base is the number one
employer in the county. Mayor Towey acknowledged City staff Mike Basinger who was recognized from
the Regional Health District for his work in forming a partnership as part of creating the city's bike and
pedestrian program.
8. City Manager Comments—Mike Jackson
City Manager Jackson spoke of the letter he and Councilmembers received from Spokane County
concerning the regional solid waste summit February 2 and 3, which letter asked council to provide
names of those planning to attend, and for any "must haves" to submit prior to the meeting; and
Councilmember Gothmann said alternative costs are necessary, as well as what other alternatives are
Council Study Session Minutes January 18,2011 Page 20 of 21
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
there, including handling this ourselves. It was also mentioned that many of the main concerns should be
addressed during that two-day forum.
EXECUTIVE SESSION: It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed
to adjourn into Executive Session for approximately 45 minutes to discuss potential litigation, and that no
action will be taken upon return to open session. Council adjourned into executive session at 8:45 p.m.
Mayor Towey declared council out of executive session at approximately 9:07 p.m., at which time it was
moved, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn.
Thomas E. Towey, Mayor
ATTEST:
Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk
Council Study Session Minutes January 18,2011 Page 21 of 21
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
MINUTES
City of Spokane Valley
City Council Regular Meetings
Formal Meeting Format
Tuesday,January 25,2011
Mayor Towey called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m.
Attendance: Citv Staff:
Tom Towey, Mayor Mike Jackson, City Manager
Gary Schimmels, Deputy Mayor Cary Driskell,Acting City Attorney
Bill Gothmann, Councilmember Ken Thompson, Finance Director
Dean Grafos, Councilmember Kathy McClung, Community Development Dir.
Brenda Grassel, Councilmember Mike Stone, Parks &Recreation Director
Neil Kersten, Public Works Director
Absent: Scott Kuhta, Planning Manager
Bob McCaslin, Councilmember Karen Kendall,Assistant Planner
Rick Van Leuven, Police Chief
Carolbelle Branch,Public Information Officer
Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk
INVOCATION: Councilmember Gothmann gave the invocation.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Towey led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL: City Clerk Bainbridge called the roll; all councilmembers were present except
Councilmember McCaslin. It was then moved by Councilmember Grassel, seconded and unanimously
agreed to excuse Councilmember McCaslin from tonight's meeting.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously
agreed to approve the agenda.
INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS AND PRESENTATIONS: n/a
COMMITTEE,BOARD,LIAISON SUMMARY REPORTS:
Councilmember Gothmann: reported that he attended the Spokane Valley Business Association (SVBA)
Meeting where SVBA expressed concern for the City Center, and where City Planning Manager Kuhta
gave a presentation regarding the Site Selector; attended the Business and Education Committee of the
Chamber of Commerce held at East Valley School District where Mr. Doug Tweedy, Spokane Economist
for Labor and Market Analysis Branch of the Washington Employment Security Department spoke
concerning the labor market in Spokane County; went to a Housing Community Development Advisory
Committee where they determined initial allocation of funds for various development projects, and he
said the final distribution will be handled by the County Commissioners; attended a meeting of Financial
Access, which is a branch of SNAP, at which meeting they reviewed the rules for granting loans; went to
the City Forum where Mr. Dick Denenny reviewed the TMDL (total maximum daily load) river effort
and where they heard a report on the history and goals for the river; went to a Board of Health Executive
Meeting where they discussed fees for special food events, and said this group will be planning a trip to
Olympia for the purpose of lobbying and that he will likely be traveling with that group to Olympia; he
attended an area meeting concerning safety and fear which was a result of the bomb found in Spokane
during the Martin Luther King, Jr. march/parade; went to the Chamber Gala were Mr. Dick Denenny
received the Harry Nelson Citizen of the Year award, and where Mr. Dick Behm was awarded Chamber
Member Volunteer of the Year; went to a 911 Board meeting, and he said there is $3 million per year that
Council Regular Meeting 01-25-2011 Page 1 of 16
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
the Governor has proposed taking away from the 911 funds to go to disaster relief funds, and said by
taking these funds out,the enhanced 911 is delayed several years.
Councilmember Grafos: said he attended the Chamber of Commerce Annual Awards Banquet where they
Honored Mr. Dick Behm and Mr. Dick Denenny; said he went to the STA (Spokane Transit Authority)
meeting where they discussed trip reductions including trips to be eliminated within Spokane Valley, such
as several "loops" around the Industrial Park, and the YMCA loop; and he encouraged people to voice
their transit concerns to the STA.
Deputy Mayor Schimmels: concerning the STA service, said they plan to also eliminate the stop at the
Mall and said that the actual changes are still being discussed; said he also attended the Spokane Regional
Transportation Council meeting which addressed funding issues for roads, street, and sidewalks; and he
reported that Councilmember McCaslin had his right leg amputated last week and is doing reasonably
well but said it is tentative, as "one day he feels reasonably good and the next day he doesn't."
Councilmember Grassel: reported that she attended the Convention and Visitor's Bureau (CVB) Board
Meeting where Kevin Twohig of the Public Facilities District, showed depictions of the downtown
Convention Center's plans for expansion and that they will propose a ballot bond in 2012 for that
expansion; she said new CVB Board members were also introduced, one of whom was Eldonna Shaw of
the Spokane Valley Chamber of Commerce; that she attended the Spokane River TMDL Forum and said
that Mr. Denenny gave a thorough history of that process;that she attended the Spokane Valley Chamber
Gala and she extended congratulations to the Wilhites for their involvement organizing that event.
MAYOR'S REPORT: Mayor Towey stated that he attended the SRTC open house at Riverpark Square;
he attended the Advisory Committee Shoreline Masterplan meeting at CenterPlace where property
owners, businesses and neighbors were in attendance to advise on the policies and guidelines; said he and
Deputy Mayor Schimmels met with Cheney Mayor Trulove on items of common interest; he met with the
Sheriff yesterday to discuss the upcoming public safety district legislative items that will be before the
legislators, in particular House Bill 2012 and Senate Bill 5155; said he also attended the Greater Spokane,
Inc. meeting yesterday where they discussed their legislative priorities; and he said in regard to Ms. Rose
Dempsey who resigned her council position as of last Friday, that he will miss her and he said we need
people like her, dedicated, committed to council and to the city, and passionate for this city. Mayor
Towey also extended congratulations to Mr. Dick Behm for receiving the Chamber's Volunteer of the
Year award.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Towey invited general public comments.
Nancy Holmes, from Avista, 1411 E. Mission: she said that tonight she represents the Spokane Valley
Chamber of Commerce and she thanked those members of council who attended the Gaga. Ms. Holmes
said as Chair of the Government Affairs Committee, she presented a letter for council's consideration
regarding the Regional Transportation Benefit District, and said the Board passed the following motion:
"The Greater Spokane Valley Chamber of Commerce recommends to the City of Spokane Valley and to
the City of Liberty Lake that they pass a resolution supporting the formation of a County-wide
Transportation Benefit District. We also recommend that these cities adopt an interlocal agreement for
establishment of a county-wide Transportation Benefit District as provided for in Chapter 36.3.RCW."
She said she realizes council has done some work on this tough issue,but they believe the benefits for this
region are great and all jurisdictions are facing transportation funding gaps; and she recommended both
cities and the Chamber getting together to figure out how to make that happen.
J.F. Goffinet, 5010 Model Court, Spokane Valley, WA 99206: he had copies of his letter distributed to
councilmembers, and he read parts of that letter explaining his request to have a veterans' memorial of
some type, installed on the vacant property recently mentioned as being given to this city from the
County, a triangular shaped piece of property not far from the Display House; and said it was Mr.
Council Regular Meeting 01-25-2011 Page 2 of 16
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
Gothmann who brought his triangular-shaped piece of property to his attention. Councilmember
Gothmann added that Mr. Goffinet is Chapter Chair of the NCOA out of Veradale,Wa.
Nancy Nishimura, 15103 East Valleyway, Veradale: said she would like to propose an idea that came to
her because of the recent sad event at the Plant Farm located in Spokane Valley; she said the police
officer involved in that wasn't aware of who the business owner was or what he looked like; and she
suggested that since all police cars have computers in their vehicles,there should be a database of pictures
of all business owners in Spokane Valley; she said perhaps the SCOPE Volunteers could use a digital
camera and take the pictures of the business owners; and said if this had been in place,the officers would
have seen what Mr. Creech looked like and perhaps that incident could have been avoided; and she added
that this would not be costly since the computers are already in place; and said that photos could be taken
when businesses renew their business licenses.
Alan Hinkle, 11916 E Sprague Avenue: said he was a neighbor of Scott Creech for about five years and
lived across from the Plant Farm; said his son and Mr. Creech's son played high school basketball
together; he said that Mr. Creech over a two-year period, was contacting and apprehending people at a
rate of about one per month; and said what should have happened, if according to the newspaper someone
called and said increased police presence was needed, they didn't go to those people's residence but
instead went to the Plant Farm; and said if they had seen that Mr. Creech had apprehended people in the
past,this would never have happened; but to pull up in an unmarked car is an accident waiting to happen;
and said he hopes the Sheriff will change the policy about allowing planned vacation during an
experience such as this; and suggested policies and procedures need to be changed so this doesn't happen
in the future.
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 W/VOUCHER NUMBERS: TOTAL AMOUNT
01/05/2011 21847-21866; 104110018, 1230100019 $1,577,718.93
01/06/2011 21867-21878 $466,804.80
01/07/2011 3408, 3409, 3411, 3412, 3420, 21846,
$220,456.30
21879-21883
01/14/2011 5201 (2010 Parks &Rec Refund) $500.00
01/14/2011 21884-21923 (2010 expenses) $93,951.76
GRAND TOTAL $2,359,431.79
b. Approval of Payroll for Period Ending January 15, 2011: $249,309.82
c.Approval of City Council Formal Format Meeting Minutes of January 11, 2011
Towey mentioned the voucher list date should be 01/14/2011 instead of 04/14/2011.
Mayor Towey noted the typographical error on the last voucher last date, which should have read
[January 14, 2011]. It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to
approve the consent agenda.
NEW BUSINESS:
2. Second Reading Proposed Emergency Ordinance 11-001 Amending Comprehensive Plan and Map
(City Center)—Kathy McClung
After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and
seconded to approve the ordinance. Community Development Director McClung explained that the
property referred to is within the Sprague/Appleway Plan currently designed as "city center" which is
generally located between Walnut on the west, Bowdish on the east, Main on the north, and 4tn on the
south; that this is the second reading of the ordinance, and this ordinance is to delete the "city center"
Council Regular Meeting 01-25-2011 Page 3 of 16
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
zoning from the comprehensive plan and map and replace it with "mixed use center" designation, and
declare an emergency, which is provided under state statutes; she said the ordinance has been revised
from the first reading to incorporate comments received from council at the last meeting. Mayor Towey
invited public comment.
1. Chris Pierce, 404 N Farr Road: first he expressed thanks to Council for all the memorials for former
Mayor Rich Munson, said he went through high school with Mr. Munson's son, and Mr. Munson was his
scout leader; he said at the memorial held at CenterPlace, Mr. Pierce was speaking with Mr. Munson's
son and they reminisced about a boy scout outing in that field before the Mall was established, and before
CenterPlace was thought about, that there was nothing between the river and the freeway; and said when
he read in the newspaper that Councilmember Grafos said that is the city center; he said he lives a few
blocks from the City Center,that this is the city center and we need a comprehensive plan just to get some
kind of development there; he said perhaps for financial reasons a city hall should be at CenterPlace, but
said he doesn't believe that is the city center; and he asked Council not to get rid of the city center as we
need something; and said he realizes this is also up to the building community as well.
2. Dee Dee Loberg, 18306 4th Avenue: said her last appearance was driven by emotion, and said she
would now like to address her actual concerns about this ordinance, and she made the following
comments on the Facts and Findings: (1) said she agrees with that; (2) agrees nothing has changed since
the inception of the emergency ordinance provided November 3, 2010; (3) agrees there are no significant
environmental impacts; (4) agrees the City intended to construct a city hall and make aesthetic and street
improvements, and until 2011, had a fund balance in the civil capital project line item of over$5 million;
(5) regarding the failed library bond issue, she said she feels this bond issue was highjacked by the
rhetoric surrounding the couplet and doesn't reflect the true wishes of the citizens; (6) regarding the
revenue forecast deteriorating, she said this council rolled back the property taxes that provided for the
$100,000 decrease; (7) regarding provide development, major commercial investments and ending
negotiations on land purchase and adoption of the 2011 budget and funds availability for construction of a
city hall — she said she agrees major commercial investments are in financial difficulty, but said so is
everyone else and have been since 2009; and said she feels the redistribution of the civil capital project
funds in the 2011 budgets of street maintenance and curb-to-curb paving projects has contributed, and that
the motion to end negotiations has contributed, all of which she said are directly tied to city council
actions; (8) regarding the potential development that could occur in the city center and that currently is
precluded by the current designation, she said there has always existed the potential of development way
before the adoption of SARP and it did not occur, but said stating that such "could occur" does not
constitute an emergency; (9) regarding the comprehensive plan annual process would delay any changes,
she said she feels this council is contributing to any delays to potential development by their current and
previous action; (10) regarding public testimony and investment opportunities, she said it is interesting
that the future meeting dates are cited for public input and that no mention is made of the comments
against this ordinance; and said this to her is inaccurate and an unfair representation of the situation and is
disingenuous concerning the public process, she said the reasons for lack of development are speculative
and does not prove an emergency exists within the city center concept; (11) regarding council engaging in
the public process to ensure citizen participation, she said this finding is misleading as to supporting the
RCW's intent, and said when this ordinance debuted, it contained future meeting dates to support it; (12)
as to the city council not accepting the Findings of the Planning Commission (a)that"the public has had
an opportunity to be heard," is a misleading finding as the findings were published prior to the third and
fourth meetings cited; and that "economic development has not occurred due to the restrictions currently
in place" that it is not the current restrictions on the city center designation that have contributed to the
lack of development potential, but the overall economic situation coupled with the current council's
determination to eliminate the SARP; (b) "the city council is not abandoning the concept of a future city
center and is actively exploring alternatives to this site" that in the survey about where it should be
located as noted in the Clearwater Report, 73%preferred U-City while only 4% supported Mirabeau; and
(c) that the "City Council finds that the economic threat is immediate and a result of the restrictive
Council Regular Meeting 01-25-2011 Page 4 of 16
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
development standards imposed" is an opinion by the current council and said she does not believe it has
been fully vetted by all business owners in the designated area; and (13) she said is a basic summary of
the information provided above designed to support the emergency ordinance. Ms. Loberg said with
84,000 adults living in our city, she feels the at-large representation promised upon installation of office
seems to have disintegrated to special interest representation; and said she feels council is not responding
to those citizens who are not in favor of scraping a city center along Sprague; she said councilmembers
constantly cite that this will affect more than just a few business owners, and she asked who else is in
favor of this other than the special interest; and asked who could possibly want more car lots and
convenience stores; she said we have miles of that already; and said she believes council has not offered
enough concrete facts and findings to support an emergency; she said: "Face it. Sprague Avenue has been
in decline for the past decade and a half; SARP was created to enhance the aesthesis of the corridor, to
provide for a city center vision, and to address the issues of too much commercial property; and it also
helped to address urban sprawl by allowing for denser citizen population." She said this council has
disregarded the recommendation from the Planning Commission and the caution from the City's attorney
as to process potentially setting our city up for litigation in addition to wasting all of the money that went
into this; and said she finds this to be fiscally irresponsible; and feels that we do not have at-large
representation and the current council doesn't really listen and consider any dissent on the issue; and that
we don't currently have a political process that takes into account all the different views and opinions.
3. Mary Pollard, 17216 East Baldwin Avenue: Ms. Pollard read the following statement: "Dear Honorable
Mayor Towey and Council Members, I heartily support releasing these properties from this Zoning.
That's the only ethical thing to do. Let's remember we are not discussing parkland. These are not public
properties but privately owned. There is no moral high ground to covet and speculate with what doesn't
belong to you. The phony emergency ordinance that enacted this mess you are addressing tonight was
clearly an abuse of legislative authority when they realized they would lose their Council seats in the
election. Let's remember that Constitutional free speech was threatened over objections to the City
Center. The Planning Commission had two that voted against Mr. Carroll's assertions. The Library, the
first anchor of the City Center was part of why it failed and thousands more signed for Disincorporation
than voted the City into existence, dissatisfied with the City's totalitarian mode of operation, beyond
anyone's financial resources to oppose. Our elected City Council is charged with protecting our
constitutional rights and personal liberties. That is exactly what you are doing tonight. This emergency
ordinance is needed to end a cruel game of lifeboat that this zoning put into practice without any life
preserver. The findings and facts for rescinding this ordinance are indisputable. If business is not
generating tax then essential services will have to be paid by taxing us more directly. We can't afford
another tax. The devil is always in the details that show the zoning cannot ensure economic
sustainability. It stifles with too many demands that crimps any notions of expansion. City Center could
be called "Bigfoot" considering how it stomped its way over 200 acres of private property. These
owners, saddled as nonconforming uses, won't be running with the wolves because of the high cost of
staying in the race. Hard work and a promise of success is always a gamble. The amount of those wagers
should be voluntary without reinventing the rules once the money laid down. Who cares about a City
identity when most struggle to keep the identity of their name with their address? When we suspend
people's property rights — That's tyranny? I can't believe I have to say these things — What Country is
this? Did we forget our pledge to liberty and justice for all. The opportunity for an investor to
independently transform this area has not been removed. It's the bully stick of this zoning that must be
abandoned. The pro-growth gamble that sent this nation into a tailspin was a result of bad public enabling
policies. People hardly put stock in elections much less a Mr. Noodle chart of sticky dots from public
meetings. These weren't ballots and who's the keeper of the dots anyway? No growth, no new money,
no bankers or takers. Revenues dropping like a rock. What's in your pocket? My family personally
experienced the betrayal of bad planning. No one should have to settle with loss. Plans already paid for,
wrenched out of your hands. It is absolutely demoralizing to treat owners as if they don't exist. Who can
be so selfish as to crow, "It's good for me!" Only God can create life out of death. Hypocrisy is agreeing
to destroy others to achieve some advantage and call it good. A greed for more that manipulates the lives
Council Regular Meeting 01-25-2011 Page 5 of 16
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
of others is indefensible. Our first duty is to love our neighbors as ourselves. What is an acceptable
number to harm? Most businesses and home owners have their assets tied up in their property. Just
because someone may own more than we do, doesn't entitle us to legislate being a community of
pickpockets. That is class envy. They have no wiggle room. Their wallets aren't bulging. It doesn't
belong to us. I challenge us as a community to stand and support our City Council . The anchor of the
City Center lies in the hearts of all of us to choose to love,to temper ambition with thankfulness for what
we already possess. Everything we want will come if we manifest justice, a commitment to help those
that struggle, if we manifest tolerance that has room for every dream. Our life's achievement on a
spreadsheet will be forgotten but the legacy that chooses love over ambition is the only civic lesson that
will survive. The emergency before us is resolving to pull down the walls that divide us and look at
policies through the lens of compassion and mercy. Spokane Valley's first task is to build a City Center
of relationships that recognize unquestioningly who is our neighbor."
4. Nick Avariotes, 11813 E Broadway: said regarding the city center, he had an old newspaper from way
back, and said it is obvious where the center should be; and said to go out to Mirabeau's "got to be
unbelievably crazy" and that the city center should be in the center.
5. Erica Johnson, 1406 S Progress Road; she thanked council for looking at this issue and said she felt her
voice didn't matter with last council; and that it left a lot of people and business owners feeling like that.
6. Steve Neill, 10820 East 18th Avenue: thanked council for doing the will of the voters by ending SARP;
said it took courage; and he then gave numerous World War II statistics on the number of planes
manufactured, how much merchant tonnage was produced, number of destroyers, and trucks and of what
the gross domestic product was then and how the United States overwhelmed the opposing countries with
war material; then he gave more statistics on the number of factories the U.S. has lost since 2001, and
spoke of corporations overseas expanding while U.S. plants close; he spoke of the number of
manufacturing jobs lost by the U.S. over the years; and said we are losing our ability to remain a free
nation by treating manufacturing as a "red-headed stepchild" and he mentioned other state's statistics
regarding loss of manufacturing plants, and said we have so many things to offer companies, such as
universities, reasonably-priced land and outdoor activities which should make Spokane Valley a
"destination location;" and he challenged Council to examine how to create jobs to attract manufacturing
to this area and encourage other plants to expand their operations here; and said that SARP offered
"cutesy boutiques and coffee shops which have extremely limited economical impact at a huge cost to the
taxpayers" and said if we want state of the arts schools and well-maintained roads, then we should be
creating a manufacturing friendly zone.
7. Dwight Hume, 9101 N Mountain View Lane: said he is here on behalf of his client Harlan Douglass
who has seventeen properties within the entire SARP/Subarea plan, some of which are within city center,
and some of which would benefit from the elimination of the city center designation; and said he and his
client go on record in submitting his January 25, 2011 letter, in supporting Council's intent to declare an
emergency and the elimination of the city center. He said he attended the series of meetings through last
summer, fall and winter concerning SARP; and it was his observation that there is a polarity of opinion
regarding supporting or not supporting SARP; but in this particular last action where council has taken a
step to say that they want a process started to consider the emergency of the elimination of the city center;
he said that he went to the Planning Commission and he attended that meeting, and said it was interesting
that the findings of the Planning Commission weighed against the actual testimony at the hearing as they
are completely foreign to each other; and said that the proposed findings that staff recommended to
Council were entirely consistent with Council's request and said he did not find or recall any public
testimony that should have caused the Planning Commission to write the findings that they did. Mr.
Hume said that his letter tonight spells out with the attachment of the Planning Commission's findings, a
rebuttal of those points and said he hopes it will be considered of substance to strengthen Council's
position especially if for some reason, a lawsuit gets filed as a result of council's actions tonight,which he
Council Regular Meeting 01-25-2011 Page 6 of 16
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
said was alluded to last week. Mr. Hume said as a professional planner, he thinks the findings written by
the Planning Commission were just "borderline capricious and arbitrary" and he asked council to please
consider his points and if necessary include his points in Council's findings.
8. Diane Johnson, 17112 E Baldwin: she thanked council for looking at this issue and said she supports
reversing that zoning; she said it saddles businesses and homes with an onerous zone and said having it
removed will make them more productive and when businesses are more productive, it will benefit our
city; and said that she hopes council, if they do consider a city center wherever it might be located,would
be fiscally sound as the other was horribly expensive.
9. Peggy Doering, 11522 E Sunview Circle, Spokane Valley: she read the following statement: "As a
private citizen I am before you tonight to discuss the proposed Emergency Ordinance Zoning change. I
have been attending the City Council meetings and listening to the review process. I have three concerns
regarding this emergency amendment that I would like to share with you. The first concern is the
language itself. When I think of an emergency, I think of a public safety concern, something that is an
immediate danger to the citizens of the valley. This zone change has nothing to do with public safety, fire
or police,natural disaster or lack of access by the citizens to an area that has been a common use area. As
a City council, I would think that this would be difficult to justify this zoning change as an emergency. I
do believe that Councilman Schimmels was correct when he gave the "emergency" another name which
was "opportunity." This is an opportunity for two individuals to transfer property with a zone change that
would be favorable to a potential business which has been identified as a used car lot. This is what has
precipitated this emergency zone ordinance. This is not an emergency for the public good/public interests
which the City Council should keep as its first concern. Mr. Pring, came before you last week to assure
you that there were no strings attached between the council and himself. Apparently, he has contributed
to some of the council members' political campaigns. This was said with a friendly exchange between
the City Council and Mr. Pring. Now this places another burden on the Council. This is my second
concern which is the appearance of fairness. The City Council in their governance manual does have a
Section named Appearance of Fairness Doctrine which shall apply to those actions of the Council which
are quasi-judicial in nature. So, does this apply in this case? I'm not sure. Even if it does not apply to
this proposed emergency ordinance before you, I think that fairness question has arisen in my mind. So
sometimes we need to step back from a situation and have it reviewed through an objective lens and
determine what appears to be fair to all average persons in the Spokane Valley. The third concern is that
many of us in this room have participated in the workshops, the focus groups and given testimony to the
planning commission, and the past council and this council to develop this SARP plan over many years. I
understand that it was going to be reviewed later this spring with the comprehensive plan amendments, so
why declare an emergency? That's the crux to this whole problem I'm having. So, all this time invested
by city staff, architects, business owners, engineers, STA, both city and county transportation
departments, outside consultants such as EcoNorthwest will be tossed into the dead file because of an
emergency request of two business owners for a possible used car lot. Those are my three concerns
tonight."
10. Nancy Nishimura, Green Thumb Nursery business address 16816 East Sprague: said she came tonight
because she received a notice from the Chamber of Commerce explaining that this is an opportunity for
business owners to speak about something that will affect us; she said she's not sure what constitutes an
emergency; said she spoke against SARP numerous times in the past; and said she's not even sure if she's
conforming or non-conforming; that her father has owned the property since the 1950's, and said in the
interest of fairness,they have longevity, and that if this emergency is a way to help change the SARP plan
or throw it out, that she supports that; she said she heard from the former mayor and some past
councilmembers that there is a glut of retail on Sprague, and said she doesn't understand what that means
or why it would be said, or how that is that fair; she said thinking of all the hours and years her family has
put into their business, she doesn't appreciate having the nonconforming designation put on that property
and said that she is not alone, and that is what is contributing to the demise of the properties; she said on
Council Regular Meeting 01-25-2011 Page 7 of 16
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
the night the SARP was passed, she heard a comment that there was a glut of retail east of University; and
she said east of University is where all the development is, and said she is also against the one-way
couplet because west of that is pretty much dead and is very distressing to drive down there; and said if
we want to have a city center we need to have a city, and said we need to feel we are unified; and said if
businesses are killed and the businesses' hard work is not appreciated,they feel disenfranchised; and said
she never had a reason why one would be grandfathered in, and said that isn't good enough as if she
wants to sell that property, she doesn't want that designation; and again said she doesn't like the
designation of nonconforming, or to be written off as a glut; and she asked what are the factors
contributing to not making a city center not economically viable on the western part of Sprague from
University; she said she knows there was a study and she attended one of the workshops; and the Gonzaga
business students presented information that having that one-way couplet contributed to the demise of the
businesses as there are fewer people passing by; and said it is sort of a joke; why do we have that big wide
street with no cars on it numerous different times of the day; and she asked where is the center of the city,
and said if it is a matter of needing a bigger building, that a big building already exists at Mirabeau with
ample parking; and said council should consider that business district in order to have a city.
11. Rustin Hall, 10520 E Holman Road: said he is a co-owner of a regional architectural firm, past chair
of the Greater Spokane Valley Chamber of Commerce, and is starting his second year as a Planning
Commissioner; and said he speaks tonight as a concerned citizen and not representing any of those
entities; and is here to advocate an additional piece of due diligence that he strongly recommends Council
take on; he said he believes community leaders need to recognize when looking at such entities as the
Spokane Valley Business Association, the Greater Spokane Valley Chamber of Commerce, Planning
Commission, City Council,that"we have way more common ground than dissenting opinions and we are
all after basically the same things for our city, prosperity and maintaining our quality of life" and said
how one chooses to go about it is the difference; he said common ground can be built by better
communications and finding the compromise that is needed; and that the entire community needs to be
listened to above any other interests; and to do that, he suggested having a statistically valid survey
conducted; he said surveys only have a useful life of a few years; he said a statistically valid survey will
give scientific valid proof that will eliminate speculations of what Spokane valley citizens want or don't
want; that when conducted by a professional research agency, there will be 95% accuracy of what the
citizens want; and said all that information can then be broken down by certain demographics such as
location or zip code, or businesses owners, etc., and that it gives Council power since knowledge is power
and said it could validate exactly what this Council is talking about tonight, or it could offer some other
ideas, and said until that is done, he believes we are working on speculation. Mr. Hall said such survey
would also afford positive press and get the zoning settled and find stability; and said some examples of
survey questions could be, is there interest in having a city center, and based upon the cost, are citizens
willing to pay for it; do they have a preferred location and then give suggested locations; and also give
information on timing. He said he is not one to have the current economy scare him away from a future
plan; he said such survey would cost approximately$18,000, and said he spoke to a local survey firm that
works nationally, and that it would take about six weeks to accomplish; and he mentioned the City of
Kennewick, the Parks and Recreation Bond for the City of Spokane, and the YMCA here in Spokane
Valley as example surveys; and said this is far too important for speculation.
12. Cassandra Tiesma 105 N Skipworth: said in response to the last speaker, what she heard was about a
facility but that tonight's issue is not about a facility but is about zoning imposed upon property owners;
and said the idea for a scientific study is a good idea but it's too bad it wasn't done before the zoning was
changed; she said she wasn't asked if they wanted their zoning changed; said this isn't something that
everyone needs to know or be questioned about, as it affects all the properties within that area, and said
they are the ones objecting to the bad zoning imposed on these properties; and said she feels the previous
comments were not relevant to tonight's agenda, and said she supports revoking the zoning that was put
in without her consent or notification.
Council Regular Meeting 01-25-2011 Page 8 of 16
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
13. Dan Allison, N 1203 Warren Road: said the man who spoke about a survey for $18,000; he said we
have a new council that told citizens what they were going to do and they have been doing it by
dismantling the SARP,that the voters voted for that; he said they voted in favor of these council people to
tear SARP down; and said we have people out here who must not have listened to that vote, and said he
thinks it was a 60% or somewhere close, of 23,000 voters; and said the survey that Mr. Hall talks about
would have 500 people phone-called; said he has lived here all his life and has voted every time, that he
voted for these councilmembers; and said contrary to what a former councilperson said, he feels the
steamroller needs to get moving so we can get this SARP thing done, we can get some businesses going
and some tax dollars so the citizens don't have to keep watching taxes go up, and said he hopes council
gets this done tonight.
14. Allen Hinkle, 11916 E Sprague: said when the previous council "did the SARP thing" he attended
consecutive meetings for eight months; said he kept some statistics and said a high 80%of the people did
not want the SARP or what it was doing, and said they didn't find out about it until late; and said a lot
were not invited to the stakeholders meetings; and this zoning created a "zoning czar" and properties that
were commercial in the zoning were turned into residential, so then if the city wants to by imminent
domain take these properties, then they'd only have to pay residential fees instead of the commercial
value; and said it was a very messy situation; he said Ian Robertson was the chairman of the Planning
Commission who was hand-picked, and said there was no way in "God's green earth that he could
honestly make the recommendation to the previous city council, and tell them, oh, yeah, this is what the
citizens want. I'll tell you what happened in this room right here off in the corner, people would come in
with their attorneys and their plans, and they were really objecting to it; the Planning Commission, and
they were ushered over in a corner and say shh, shh, shh,we're going to cut you a deal;we're going to cut
you a deal, and this went on month after month and any of you that were here saw it." He said this is a
real sorry process and not the way it should have been; and said "he [Ian Robertson] was hand-picked by
the previous mayor of the previous city council and this is what happened and this is how it went down;
and then it gets down here to where the rubber meets the road and we see oh, this is not good, I just lost
all my property rights and worse yet, I lost the value of my property, and as people said,this property has
been in their family for generations; and so we witnessed this; and then there was a vacancy on the city
council and surprise, surprise, Ian Robertson was picked to fill that,but he had to stand for election and he
was thankfully not re-elected. I have nothing against him except the lack of honesty of all those meetings
and then coming to the previous city council and saying, oh yeah, this is what the people want. It's not
what the people want and a high 80% said no, and they said it a lot stronger than just no. For what this
city council is doing to undo this mess, sure there was a lot of money spent, but there was a lot of money
wasted and said he's written articles in the paper and testified here, we don't want a Three-Sisters
Oregon, or a Leavenworth, Washington; this is Spokane Valley." He said he's been on Sprague Avenue
for 43 years; there's been criminal activity, been death, drugs, he watched businesses come and go on
either side of his practice just across the street from here; and said you could question why the businesses
close; but said it could have been a lot of things such as illness or death; and if you want to get it going,
you get the zone changed and get it back to where it was; and he mentioned a new building close to Dick
Behm's business, the expansion on the Rosauer's property, Winco and all the businesses on the couplet
on Appleway, and said there's millions of dollars worth of new business, and said we heard all this
testimony over the last several years that no one would build there, it's going to the "rats and nobody
could make a buck on it"and said that just isn't so; and he applauded this council.
15. Gordon Curry, 1423 Trent: said he doesn't think this meeting would have been necessary if the proper
zoning would have been left the way it was several years ago, so the businesses could do as they wanted
to, and if not the correct zoning,they could go in and possibly get it changed; and said he doesn't think it
is fair to be beating on one man who has property who has a company that wants to come in and create
several jobs, probably 100 jobs or better, whether it's a used car lot or whatever business so long as it is
legitimate; and said that Mr. Gothmann has some opinions on some businesses, but said if it is a
legitimate business it's a good business and said we should not have to put him through the ringer two or
Council Regular Meeting 01-25-2011 Page 9 of 16
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
three hits and keep worrying him about whether he can do it or not; and said he applauds Council for
trying to get this straightened out and that he doesn't think this thing should have ever had to have been
here.
16. As read by Clerk Bainbridge from James Pollard, 17216 E Baldwin: From James Pollard: "Mayor
Towey and members of the Council. I attended most public meetings following the city's incorporation. I
don't remember things as they are being portrayed by current supporters of the SARP. I do remember
two things very clearly. The last time I spoke before the former City Council I expressed concern over
their wanting to spend several hundred thousand dollars for architectural concepts of a new city hall while
so many community needs were not being met. They spent the money. I then remember voting, with
thousands of other citizens, for positive change. We voted in councilmembers whom we believed would
serve the citizens. Council members who would actually consider the negative impacts from restrictive
zoning on Sprague Avenue. Council members who would ask why our city would incur endless debt from
leasing land for our city center, when the city already owns property at a much more appealing site. I
support this emergency ordinance. Thank you. James J. Pollard, 17216 E. Baldwin Avenue."
17. As read by City Clerk Bainbridge: from Susan Scott, 205 Evergreen Road:"Dear Mayor Towey and
Council. As children we were always warned never to take candy from a stranger. As adults we would be
well warned to never accept revitalization from a bureaucracy. Revitalization was used as the bait to lure
the unsuspecting into initially supporting a plan that would ultimately steal property rights, encumber
growth,threaten investment and collapse retirement plans. One of the more obnoxious goals of the SARP
has been the introduction of the new form based code style of zoning. Cities across the county are
battling the negative effects of this dangerous planning fad most often sold under the guise of
revitalization. Existing landowners and businesses are being pushed out to make way for the new and
improved, classier, high end development designed more for municipal bragging rights than actual
revitalization. Check out the fate of the Burien City Center project on the west side of our state. Under
this ordinance the city center district will be returned to mixed use, a designation it had under the
painstakingly constructed 2007 comprehensive plan. The very same 2007 comp plan zoning that
addressed the issue of"too much retail," a by-product of the zoning inherited from the county when the
city incorporated. The kicker is that the brand new `07 comp plan zoning was never allowed an
opportunity to solve any of the problems on the corridor. A dubious "overwhelming mandate" for a city
center was immediately inserted as an excuse to launch the SARP. The need for SARP was further
overstated by predicating it on the discarded county zoning instead of the city's new and improved comp
plan zoning. Heavy handed top down mandates and restrictions are prone to failure. Lift the burden of
the restrictions for the entire city center district. I urge you to support this emergency ordinance and
thank you for your courage in honoring campaign promises and forging ahead with a vision that
recognizes valley culture and free markets. Thank you. Susan Scott, 205 Evergreen Rd."
18. Craig Eggleston, 11810 East 18t'' Avenue: stated that he has been in Spokane Valley over 40 years,
and said he was a member of the Spokane Valley Planning Commission for three years, and he heard
many hours of testimony from his neighbors; and said while council has listened to many, they need to
also listen to the citizens who live here; he said a survey was mentioned; and he explained that in 2004 a
"Community Preference Survey" for the city of Spokane Valley was conducted by a local research firm,
Clearwater. He said the survey was conducted from March 18, to April 7, 2004, which he said is only
thirty months after September 11, and that this survey indicates one of the biggest concerns of the
residents was the economy; he said there was a huge financial crash after 9/11 and businesses came to a
halt; and said the executive summary points out that the majority respondents, 83% thought Spokane
Valley was headed in the right direction. He read: "Concerns about the economy and planning related
matters were among the top issues respondents identified as facing the city." He said "62% of
respondents indicated that having a recognizable downtown or city center was important to the future of
Spokane Valley." He said these are not developers, these are your neighbors; and said regarding who
goes to these businesses, he said the customers are those who live here in the valley. He said that 74%
Council Regular Meeting 01-25-2011 Page 10 of 16
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
said that public money to develop a city center was appropriate, and only 2% strongly opposed the use of
public money to create a city center. Mr. Eggleston asked Council if they were listening to the 2%or the
74%. He said that over half of the respondents felt that the University Center area would be the most
ideal location for the Spokane Valley City Center;taking further data from the survey,he said that 74%of
the people of Spokane Valley do not believe that Spokane Valley has a community identity, and that
having an identity was important to the future success of the Spokane Valley, and said that 76%indicated
that. He further explained that the survey explains that other locations were sought out at this time;
Mirabeau Point, only 18% of the people felt it was an appropriate location. He said when he asked the
people who testified at the Planning Commission during his tenure, as well as a life-long resident of
Spokane Valley, he said they don't want a city center on the river; that they would rather have that as
pristine or public parks as much as possible, and said moving it there is not what the people want; and
said he can vouch for three years of hearing testimony. He said 52%of the people wanted the city center
located at U-City. Regarding commute time, he said less than 50% had a commute less than fifteen
minutes; 32% had a commute less than fifteen to thirty minutes, and only seven or eight percent had a
commute of thirty minutes or more; and said the way the Spokane design was created was from the
people in Olympia wanting to get people downtown before the Spokane Valley was created;they wanted
to get people downtown to work downtown, and said that is not the case now as we have our own city;
the decision to incorporate was well established, and the majority of the Spokane valley residents work
and do their business out here in the Valley; and said it is the customers of these businesses that Council
should be listening to; and said if the city center is not identified, businesses will be pushed out onto
Pines, McDonald, Evergreen, Sullivan based on testimony he has heard from independent reports and
findings from experts in these areas. He said the public wants a community center to give us an identity;
he said SARP needs adjustment but throwing it out is like "throwing the baby out with the bathwater"and
is irresponsible. He said throughout all the testimony he heard, he has not heard about offering any of the
businesses tax breaks or tax incentives, which is something which can be addressed. Mr. Eggleston also
said he is personally offended by the comments made concerning Ian Robertson, who was awarded the
Citizen of the Year and who is a pastor; and he asked Council to take that into consideration of those
making those types of comments about a person's character, or smearing a good man's name. He asked
council to throw out the ordinance as this is not an emergency, and said there are a lot of questions
regarding the motives of why this is taking place, as it seems to be more in the interest of developers and
not the people of Spokane Valley.
19. Karla Kaley, business address 10516 E Main: she urged Council to stop and not approve this
emergency ordinance; said she has been before council and the planning commission previously, and by
reference is including all those other statements, and said further, if Council kills the revitalization plan,
which is the only plan we have for a city center,that council won't have another shot at a city center; she
said she realizes the city center is not the same as locating the city hall; but a city center is the heart, vital
place, identity and focus people understand and believe in when they think of the city; and said without a
city center, there is no identity. She said the area is ripe for revitalization, identity and growth; that all
statistics show we are growing and are ripe for new money and new development; and if we stick to a
plan with vision and direction, we "get to play with the big kids"the Fortune 500 companies that she said
she thinks would like to relocate here; and she asked why are we going backwards. She said that she
didn't get it before, but thinks she gets it now: it's because council has a different plan; she said that is a
plan that concerns her as it doesn't appear to include quality growth and development of 1,118
individually privately held properties that front or are along the Sprague/Appleway Corridor; she said she
believes council wants to leave it with what we have, with what the free market has already given us,
which is the mixed use zoning which she said "lead to the declining, visually unappealing properties
lining our city's backbone" and said it is the geographic center of our city. She said it appears council
doesn't want us to benefit from good planning, and she offered comments made from Mr. Grafos that
were in the October 30, 2010 in the Spokesman Review: "Sprague Avenue is a business route for new and
existing businesses of all types . . . it provides opportunity for hundreds of small businesses who can't
afford the high prices and rents of other areas." Ms. Kaley said she feels we have just been called the
Council Regular Meeting 01-25-2011 Page 11 of 16
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
low-rent district; and said without the protection and direction of good planning, the low-rent district is
not far from the red-light district, which she said she is concerned about. She said there are major
portions of the SARP that could be revisited and parts she doesn't like,but now we are looking at no plan;
and said this is not an emergency or about auto-related issues or they would have scooped up and
supported any one of the two-times before modified ordinance proposed by Mr. Bill Gothmann. She said
further she has grave concerns this is about other motivations; about wanting new, about building at
CenterPlace, and said she is concerned about building on some of the most important, valuable open
space we have; others protect their open space and we propose to build on it, right by the river; she said
when everyone else in the United States are tightening their belts and revising their values, re-modeling
and re-building their houses instead of buying new, someone is proposing to build new. She said this is
about being potentially second class and not being worthy of good planning. "Imagine" she said, "if this
is what your city council is really feeling and saying, can you imagine that this is what they're projecting
in business meetings where people want to come and relocate, or maybe have a business here and the
Sprague/Appleway Corridor is low rent." She said that has to be damaging business potential; and said
she respects council, but is concerned their actions are reckless, irresponsible and that they are setting the
city up for failure as they further de-evaluate the properties in that area already struggling. She said a city
center designation is usually a higher classification and you get more money for your property when
located in a city center; and she urged council to get more information and said she doesn't think this is
what the citizens want.
20. John Carroll, 1207 S Rotchford Drive: Regarding the comments concerning Ian Robertson, Mr.
Carroll said he sat with Mr. Robertson on the Planning Commission for many years, and Ian "bent over
backwards to listen to everybody " and made sure their voices were heard fairly and included in the
discussions. Mr. Carroll said that last week Mr. Grafos said that many of the elements of the city center
weren't present, and Mr. Carroll said he agreed with that as if they were present, we wouldn't be having
this debate; he said the city center to which he refers doesn't include a city hall or a courthouse or a
library, but one which is dense retail, vertically and horizontally, and includes lots of retail and specialty
shops of all types, professional offices, dining options from fast food to fine dining, entertainment venues
such as movies and theaters and clubs, is pedestrian friendly with small blocks and lots of streets and
cross streets and wide sidewalks, and includes public transportation and centralized parking; he said these
city centers would be sought out by our residents for special nights out, by visitors for dining experience
or entertainment, and said that is what a city center is all about. He said our designated city center is a
plan to develop these features and elements and this plan is for the future and for future generations to
build on; it includes development standards which can change often, but is a plan which can grow and
develop our city as the people want; it gives developers a choice. He said currently the designated city
center is about 184 acres;there are 284 acres of mixed use commercial that council wants to roll that back
into; and said if there's nothing going on in that zone, why would council want to downzone the city
center back into that area; he said the designated city center won't impact this generation but would
impact future generations; and said that city center holds the promise of hundreds of jobs and millions of
dollars added to our local economy; and said the responsibility that Council has is for all the citizens of
this city; and said the population that voted for this council is only 15% of the population, and said
council didn't mention the 14% or 12,000 that voted against this council; he said while not a big
difference,the important thing is the 40,000 who didn't vote, and many of those who didn't vote because
they are not old enough, but they are the ones who would enjoy our city center; and said the primary
question is, what do we want to leave for future generations; and said Council is turning down
opportunities and a future, for a job at a used car lot.
Mayor Towey called for a recess at 7:50 p.m., and reconvened the meeting at 8:05 p.m.
Mayor Towey invited further public comments; and no other comments were offered. Mayor Towey said
he appreciates all the comments tonight and appreciates people getting involved as that is so important.
Deputy Mayor Schimmels said we had an educated,knowledgeable person a few minutes ago who recited
Council Regular Meeting 01-25-2011 Page 12 of 16
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
a litany of business types, and Deputy Mayor Schimmels said at least two-thirds of those are not allowed
in that existing city center, said he could be wrong but said he doesn't think so; and added that when he
"saw the library vote go down, amongst a few other things, irregardless of what you see on the surveys,
and I like the surveys to a point and I respect them to a point, but I could see the downfall with the public
by not supporting the library; I have never been in favor of putting a city hall there, but a library is
another story, and I believe that started the downhill slide."
Councilmember Gothmann said these are difficult issues, and the whole thing starts with the premise of
should we have zoning at all, and said if we didn't have zoning we wouldn't have this problem and
anyone could build anything anywhere they wanted; and once the city has the authority to zone, some of
the private sector investment is taken away, and when that transfers from the private to the public sector,
the public sector realizes they are put in a position of becoming a supplier of zones; and he gave as an
example the issue of determining how much residential, commercial, or industrial zones to supply; he said
he heard some say to let the free enterprise system handle it, but said the problem is we have taken that
away when the city went to zoning. Further, Councilmember Gothmann said "there has been a proposal
before us now to do away with the city center zone and to do it with an emergency ordinance; and so I
asked myself what are the gains. One of the gains are uses for U-City. There's been a lot of talk about
additional uses, first of all there's something like 84 uses common between city center and the mixed use
zones, there are an additional, depending on how you count, 30 or 35 zones that are different, there are
things that you cannot do in city center that you can do in mixed use" and he read several of those types
of uses such as light assembly, carpenter shop,machine shop, medical/dental manufacturer, sign painting,
outdoor storage; and auto-related uses such as auto sales, painting, parts, carwash, fueling station and
show room; and "in addition to that,there's housing that now if we do away with city center,these will be
allowed in city center, and under city center zoning they wouldn't: assisted living, bed and breakfast,
child care greater than thirteen children, duplex, single family," and said regarding single family, that
ordinance that passed sometime ago by the council put single family homes in our entire city in
commercial spaces are now considered conforming uses. He said "how about other uses in city center,
would you like a kennel in city center, is that appropriate,how about a greenhouse in city center, and keep
in mind city center is supposed to be a place, where Mr. Carroll did an outstanding job of describing what
it is, it is a high density place for high density businesses." Councilmember Gothmann said of the 25 to
35 uses,there are some that should be permitted in city center,but those are the uses we are talking about
tonight; so you gain those things; and if we pass this ordinance you gain jobs if CarMax settles here; and
said one of the losses would be cross-streets, and another loss would be an opportunity for a city center in
the center of the city,which is a possible loss of business,reputation, and future loss of jobs.
He said the "$42 million mandate" will not change, he said it was really $35 million, and of that it will
still cost $26 million to extend Appleway and still cost $9 million to refurbish Sprague; and said the $42
million people were worried about causing an increase in taxes, he said all of that money comes from
grants or Real Estate Excise Tax, and none of it would come from property tax; and regarding cross-
streets, he said developers pay for their own streets; he said we are still paying $450,000 annually for the
lease of the current city hall, and said or we could take that money and apply it to a purchase. City
Councilmember Gothmann said contrary to what has been mentioned in the past, SARP was not adopted
by an emergency ordinance; that Ordinance 09-012, which adopted the Sprague and Appleway Corridor
Subarea Plan was adopted June 16, 2009; that there may have been some emergency ordinance passed
later to "make it work" and said there were more than 70 meetings to adopt the plan, and this is the third
meeting to do away with city center; he said it was stated that we were going to lease space for a city hall,
and said that is incorrect; and said there was $5.2 million in the bank to purchase land at U-City; and there
was an agreement to work toward an agreement signed by both parties for the purchase of land in that
area;he said he feels there is an emergency in the western part of this zone,but not an emergency to adopt
all these things in the other part, and said he cannot support an emergency ordinance and feels it should be
done in proper course when the issue comes up in three or four months.
Council Regular Meeting 01-25-2011 Page 13 of 16
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
Councilmember Grafos commented that there are businesses that are affected by the SARP; in the study
that Mr. Eggleston referred to,there were "177 respondents"but stated that the businesses he is concerned
about include nonconforming businesses such as McDonald's, Rosauer's, Firestone, Les Schwab, A-Z
Rentals; and said the main thing is that the only way this plan would work is to restrict property rights of
all the properties through zoning on the entire corridor, and said that is exactly what's happened; he said
Ms. Karla Kaley said "it was all about the money and increasing the value of their property" and that is
correct, he said it does, and the way you do that is you restrict the zoning uses of all those properties up
and down the corridor; he said in the Comprehensive Plan it states "the property rights of landowners
shall be protected from arbitrary and discriminatory actions pursuant to state and federal law"and said he
believes that this zoning plan and the SARP restricts those property rights, and will vote for the
ordinance.
Councilmember Grassel stated that the emergency zone change is not for one individual property owner
or for another car lot, and is not payback for an individual for the campaign, that all those who ran in the
campaign last year put their own individual money in the campaign and went out to raise funds; she said
there are 83 commercial, 56 residential, 23 vacancies, and 33 multi-family duplex properties in the city
center zone; and said again this is not being done for one or two property owners; she said while mixed
use designation allows car lots, there are a number of development opportunities currently not allowed
under city center zoning; and said each of the seven zone designations has had a meeting through the
summer and fall of 2010 to address issues and questions, including the city center property owners, and at
that city center meeting,the owners or property owner representatives asked for the zoning to be changed;
and said not only has council received testimony since last October, but has received private e-mails for
and against, heard from a number of citizens and said council appreciates all the input both for and
against; and said at the end of the day, this is about property rights, and to hold the property owners
hostage through this zoning is not only unfair but is a taking of property much like imminent domain, but
without the benefits of receiving just compensation; and said if Council wanted a city center, they would
have gone through the proper process; and she said the Convention and Visitor's Bureau will present a
design to the voters, tell them how much it will cost, they'll work with the business owners in that
location, and then take the issue to the voters; but said here in Spokane Valley, we designated a location
without the funding provided to purchase or create the infrastructure, and said even in the survey, it was
asked if people wanted the city center at University City, but what was not in the survey was mention that
the zoning would include residential homes from Main to Fourth, whereas she said most people thought
of that area as the old University Shopping Center; and said there was some deception in the survey given
to the community; she said she has no problem in conducting another survey, but said she will make
"darn sure that the citizens she represents understand what it is that they are being asked on the survey,
clearly with the numbers provided." Councilmember Grassel said as a business owner, she would ask
everyone to consider the harm that has been done to these property owners, and to recognize that we have
other options to enhance the city without trampling on the rights of any of our citizens; and said therefore
her conscience will not allow her to go forward with the zoning, and will therefore support the ordinance
because the property owners in the city center zone take priority over any other comments.
Mr. Craig Eggleston stated he had a point of information,and Mayor Towey recognized Mr. Eggleston.
Craig Eggleston said Councilmember Grafos referred to that survey and said there were only 174
respondents to that survey, but that is incorrect, and said over hundreds of people responded to that
survey. Councilmember Grafos said he believed it was 400 in the survey, but only 177 came back and
said "it's right here in the comprehensive plan." Mr. Eggleston said "it's also right here and I'm looking
at it" and he said Mr. Grafos is incorrect. Councilmember Gothmann said the survey was done by
telephone not by mail, and there were 400 respondents; and regarding the restriction of property rights,
zoning itself is a restriction of property rights, which dictates what property owners can and cannot do;
but the question is, how restrictive should those be; and he said that is a legitimate question; and said he
would agree there are certain uses he'd like to see changed in city center, such as grocery stores and
drive-ins, and said those changes can be made by a code text amendment.
Council Regular Meeting 01-25-2011 Page 14 of 16
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
Vote by Acclamation to approve the ordinance: In Favor:Mayor Towey, Deputy Mayor Schimmels, and
Councilmembers Grassel and Grafos. Opposed: Councilmember Gothmann. Motion carried.
3. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance 11-002 Amending Zoning Code and Map (City Center) — Kathy
McClung
After City Clerk Bainbridge read the ordinance title, it was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and
seconded to approve the ordinance. Community Development Director McClung said this is the
corresponding change to zoning that relates to the ordinance just passed that changed the comp plan and
map. Mayor Towey invited public comments; no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation to
approve the ordinance:In Favor:Mayor Towey, Deputy Mayor Schimmels, and Councilmembers Grassel
and Grafos. Opposed: Councilmember Gothmann. Motion carried.
GENERAL PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mayor Towey invited general public comments; none were
offered.
ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS:
4. Solid Waste Update—Neil Kersten/Deputy Mayor Schimmels
Public Works Director Kersten said tonight's report is a precursor to next week's February 2 and 3 Solid
Waste Summit, and he gave an overview of that agenda, and said the primary aspect of discussion will be
regional governance; and he briefly discussed some of the background documents. Deputy Mayor
Schimmels said the Spokane Regional Solid Waste System was formed in 1988; the original entities were
the City of Spokane and Spokane County; later in 1989 interlocal agreements were sent out to nine
entities including Fairchild AFB; that in 2003 Liberty Lake and Spokane Valley each signed an interlocal
giving a total of fourteen entities; he said the Waste-to-Energy Plant was built about twenty years ago
and the bonds will be retired this year; that two committees were established, the SWAC or Solid Waste
Advisory Committee mandated by state law with a Board that answers to Spokane County; and there is
also a Spokane Regional Solid Waste Liaison Board which advises the City of Spokane; and said the
City of Spokane cannot raise the tipping fees or spend more than $1 million on an aggregate amount and
other things that must be ratified by Spokane County, which comes through the boards. Deputy Mayor
Schimmels said in 2011 our city and the City of Liberty Lake's Interlocals will expire unless there are
outstanding bonds; three more entities' interlocals will expire in 2015 and three more in 2016; and added
that the City of Spokane Valley also has an agreement with Sunshine Disposal for commercial refuse
services, and with Waste Management for commercial services and residential garbage. Further, he
explained that we just tried to complete since 2007 a comprehensive plan that must be formulated every
five years which has taken us from May 2009 through January 2011 and said we are still lacking one
signature; so therefore the Department of Ecology cannot review this plan and accept that; and said the
only good is, our five-year date starts maybe this or next month. He explained that we have a big
decision,that Wheelbrator,who under contract manages and takes care of the burner,that contract expires
this November, so the City of Spokane is after all the members at this point to add a three-year extension
that would somewhat meld into the expiration of the 2014-2015 and so forth; and said there are some
technical language problems in the original contract, it entails $18 million to do some repairs, and one
could look at this and say "Well, what are we doing here just to appease the contractor out there,but there
might be a little of that, but really it is expected maintenance that will just be condensed into a shorter
timeframe." He said all entities within the County have been invited to next week's summit and he
encouraged Councilmembers to review the Briefing Book and to bring that to the Summit. Deputy Mayor
Schimmels said "the aim regarding governance is to possibly include all cities within the County in
having a say with the City of Spokane rather than the City of Spokane dictating to us, it might not be bad
but it really isn't good or great"and said we help pay the bills and we need to give input, and said he feels
progress has been made in that all members are coming together to discuss the issue. Deputy Mayor
Schimmels also stated that if the City of Spokane would go out and buy the $18 million in bonds within
the next ninety days, which he said he is sure they will, then that will extend our contract out possibly
Council Regular Meeting 01-25-2011 Page 15 of 16
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
another ten years; and said the basic thought is when these Interlocals are extended,they would all go out
at the same time with the same cutoff of twenty years.
City Manager Jackson said our legal department has an opinion in terms of whether we would be bound
to the contract if bonds were issued, and said our contract does expire in November of this year, and said
these are the important issues Council will need to consider, and said there are a myriad of legal matters
dealing with the contract, but now it is up to our City if we want to continue being part of the regional
system, which is the first and basic question: are all the partners willing to work toward a regional
solution; and as you read through the material you will see ideas posed by the City and the County that
appear to be incompatible; and said this will not be a simple matter to reach agreement, that the matter is
very complex and we will continue to work with our legal counsel and may even engage additional
counsel; and he said staff will prepare a notebook to contain the materials on this subject, so council and
appropriate staff will have that readily accessible for the February 2-3 summit.
At 9:00 p.m., it was moved by Councilmember Grafos, seconded and unanimously agreed, to extend the
meeting another thirty minutes.
5. Procedure for Filling Council Vacancy—Mike Jackson
City Manager Jackson said the proposed procedure is similar to the process followed in 2009 when we
experienced a council vacancy, and that process worked well. After briefly going over the procedure,
there were no objections to bring this issue back next week for a motion consideration to formally
consider approving the process.
6. Advance Agenda—Mayor Towey
Councilmember Gothmann said he appreciated Rose Dempsey's service, that she brought a human-ness
to council especially in dealing with people with disabilities, she was a good listener, polite, and he
wanted to publicly thank her for her service.
INFORMATION ONLY: The STEP Paveback, Fire Department Quarterly Report, and Department
Reports were for information only and were not reported or discussed.
It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn. The meeting
adjourned at 9:24 p.m.
ATTEST: Thomas E. Towey, Mayor
Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk
Council Regular Meeting 01-25-2011 Page 16 of 16
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
MINUTES
SPOKANE VALLEY CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
STUDY SESSION FORMAT
Spokane Valley City Hall Council Chambers
Spokane Valley,Washington
February 1,2011 6:00 p.m.
Attendance:
Councilmembers Staff
Tom Towey, Mayor Mike Jackson, City Manager
Gary Schimmels, Deputy Mayor Cary Driskell,Acting City Attorney
Bill Gothmann, Councilmember Ken Thompson, Finance Director
Dean Grafos, Councilmember Steve Worley, Senior Engineer
Brenda Grassel, Councilmember Mike Stone, Parks &Rec Director
Rick Van Leuven, Police Chief
Absent: Carolbelle Branch, Public Information Officer
Bob McCaslin, Councilmember Chris Bainbridge, City Clerk
Mayor Towey called the meeting to order at 6 p.m. At the request of the Mayor, City Clerk Bainbridge
called roll. All Councilmembers were present except Councilmember McCaslin. It was moved by
Councilmember Grafos, seconded and unanimously agreed to excuse Councilmember McCaslin from
tonight's council meeting.
ACTION ITEMS
1. Motion Consideration: Procedure for Filling Council Vacancy—Mike Jackson
It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels and seconded that Council approve the Procedure for filling a
council vacancy as submitted. City Manager Jackson explained that there were minor changes made to
the procedures from last week in order to have it read a little easier, and he brought council's attention to
#3B which clarifies that if tonight's motion passes, applications will be accepted immediately, and 3C
which states that if a majority vote occurs at the outset, the process need go no further. Mayor Towey
invited public comment, no comments were offered. Vote by Acclamation: In Favor: Unanimous.
Opposed:None. Motion carried.
NON-ACTION ITEMS:
2. 2011 STEP(Septic Tank Elimination Program) Paveback Program— Steve Worley
Senior Engineer Worley explained that tonight's agenda item is to discuss this draft Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU), with the changes noted in track-change format, and that this is for the 2011 STEP
(sewer tank elimination program) Paveback, and said we enter into such MOUs each year with Spokane
County; and that this is to reimburse Spokane County for costs associated with the full-width paving of
streets associated with this summer's STEP. Mr. Worley also explained that the additional work is to
ensure the road grades are appropriate for future road improvements, which is the same type of work
Spokane County did for us last year relative to Mission Avenue; and he explained that three of the 2010
STEP projects have not been completed and will carry over to 2011. There was also brief discussion
concerning Barker Road, additional stormwater utility work, and drainage problems on 48t'' in the
Ponderosa area, and Mr.Worley said staff has set up a meeting with the County to discuss that problem in
particular, and currently the County has not yet paid the contractor. Councilmember Gothmann also
mentioned he lives a few houses away from that area. This item will be brought back to council next
week for a motion consideration.
Council Study Session Minutes February 1,2011 Page 1 of 2
Approved by Council:
DRAFT
3. Advance Agenda—Mayor Towey
Councilmember Gothmann mentioned that he would like to include for the upcoming retreat, an
opportunity to discuss and analyze our budget for pavement preservation, and Mr. Jackson mentioned
staff intends to discuss that topic under the financial discussion, adding that during the retreat, there will
be no finalized decisions but staff will present and council and staff will discuss options for how to
maintain reserves in the general fund as well as looking at long-term preservation and capital projects.
Councilmember Gothmann also mentioned that he would like at some point, whether during the retreat or
later,to discuss the requirements of councilmembers for where, how and when to deliberate and what the
law requires; and that he would also like to pursue the idea of a veterans' memorial as mentioned last
week. Mr. Jackson said staff will look into those issues. Councilmember Gothmann also mentioned the
Spokane Regional Clean Air Agency will be discussing full cost recovery and said this means, businesses
will pay more if cities don't, and that he would like to have a discussion of that topic at an upcoming
council meeting. Mr. Jackson said staff will look into that issue as well. Mayor Towey reminded everyone
of next Tuesday's meeting schedule: the retreat from 8:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. at CenterPlace, and the
regular evening meeting at 6 p.m. here at City Hall, and that both meetings are open to the public.
4. Council Check-in—Mayor Towey
Councilmember Grafos suggested the council consider sending a letter of support regarding the State's
potential lack of funding for the Mac Museum. Mr. Jackson said he will discuss that issue with our
lobbyist and that it may be that the upcoming Legislative Meetings in Olympia will give opportunity to
address that topic as well; that he will look into that and get more information to see what he can put
together.
5. City Manager Comments—Mike Jackson n/a
EXECUTIVE SESSION:
It was moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels, seconded and unanimously agreed to adjourn into Executive
Session for approximately thirty minutes to discuss Potential Litigation, and that no action will be taken
upon return to open session. Council adjourned into Executive session at 6:24 p.m. At 6:53 p.m., Mayor
Towey declared council out of executive session. It was then moved by Deputy Mayor Schimmels,
seconded and unanimously to adjourn. The meeting adjourned at 6:54 p.m.
Thomas E. Towey, Mayor
ATTEST:
Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk
Council Study Session Minutes February 1,2011 Page 2 of 2
Approved by Council:
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: February 8, 2011 City Manager Sign-off:
Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ® new business ❑ public hearing
❑ information ❑ admin. report ❑ pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: First Reading Proposed Ordinance Regarding E-Cigarettes
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: N/A
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: In mid 2010, Council heard a report from the Spokane
Regional Health District ("SRHD") on E-Cigarettes, including a request to adopt a regulation
pertaining to sales to minors. Council requested that staff work with the SRHD and local
municipal entities to draft consistent and uniform ordinance language that each jurisdiction could
enact.
BACKGROUND: Because E-Cigarettes are not well regulated by any State or Federal agency
at this time, their health impacts are unclear, and the percentage of nicotine or other harmful
ingredients or additives is unknown beyond the manufacturer's unverified claims. In addition,
without State or Federal law dictating otherwise, E-Cigarettes and related components may be
sold to minors, regardless of their nicotine content.
In December 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit decided a case which
determined to what extent the manufacturers of E-Cigarettes may be regulated. NJOY v. FDA, -
-- F.3d ---, No. 1:09-cv-00771-RJL (2010). As a result, States and municipal entities are
currently permitted to regulate E-Cigarettes as they do with traditional cigarettes. The SRHD
has proposed that Spokane County and the cities of Spokane Valley, Spokane, Millwood,
Liberty Lake, Cheney and Airway Heights work in conjunction to form a consistent and near-
identical set of ordinances to prohibit the sale and gifting of E-Cigarettes and related
components to minors.
This proposed ordinance is contemplated to be a stop-gap exercise of authority until such time
as either the Federal or State government takes action to regulate such activity.
A Council member asked how the proposed penalties in this ordinance compare to those in the
state code relating to cigarettes. We have revised this ordinance to make attempted purchases
by minors a Class 3 infraction, the same as for cigarettes. For violations by vendors, it is safe to
say that the proposed penalties are lighter than for cigarettes, which has a sliding scale
depending on number of violations, up to and including loss of business license.
OPTIONS: Advance to a second reading with or without modifications; don't advance to a
second reading; or take other appropriate action.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Move to advance the ordinance to a second reading.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: None identified at this time.
STAFF CONTACT: Cary Driskell, Acting City Attorney; Chris Longman, Legal Intern
ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Ordinance to prohibit selling/gifting of E-Cigarettes and related
components to minors.
DRAFT
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
SPOKANE COUNTY,WASHINGTON
ORDINANCE NO. 11-***
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY, SPOKANE COUNTY,
WASHINGTON, ADOPTING NEW CHAPTER OF SPOKANE VALLEY MUNICIPAL CODE
(SVMC) 7.40 REGULATING THE SALE OF ELECTRONIC CIGARETTES,ALSO KNOWN AS
"E-CIGARETTES," TO MINORS; AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING THERETO.
WHEREAS, Article 11, §11 of the Washington State Constitution allows local governments to
make and enforce within their jurisdictional limits, local laws and regulations not in conflict with the
general laws of the State; and
WHEREAS, E-Cigarettes are battery operated devices that generally use liquid cartridges filled
with nicotine, flavors,and other chemicals; and
WHEREAS, E-Cigarettes convert liquid nicotine, which is a known neuro-toxin and highly
addictive substance, into a chemically impregnated gas that is inhaled by a user simulating smoking; and
WHEREAS, some E-Cigarette cartridges claim not to contain nicotine, but there is no regulatory
program to monitor this assertion and no way for the City to determine which cartridges may or may not
contain nicotine; and
WHEREAS, extended exposure to nicotine results in increased tolerance, resulting in the need for
escalating doses to receive the desired stimulation and causing withdrawal symptoms which include
cognitive and attention deficits, cravings, and sleep disturbance; and
WHEREAS, E-Cigarettes are not currently well regulated; at this time,there are no restrictions on
the sale, distribution, or purchase of E-Cigarettes under State law, although other jurisdictions have
enacted laws controlling such devices or taken other regulatory action; and
WHEREAS,no Washington State law controls the sale of E-Cigarettes to minors; and
WHEREAS, E-Cigarettes present a substantial risk of nicotine addiction and resultant harm to the
public health and safety of the citizens of the City,particularly for children and young people; and
WHEREAS, the City Council seeks to promote the City's interest in public health and safety by
implementing regulations on the sale of E-Cigarettes and related components, and Council seeks to
protect minors from the known health hazards of nicotine and the unregulated manufacturing of
substances intended to be inhaled.
NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County,
Washington, ordains as follows:
Section 1. That SVMC Title 7 be amended by adding a new Chapter, to be designated
"Chapter 7.40 Electronic Cigarettes and Related Devices,"to read as follows:
7.40.010 Purpose and intent.
Ordinance 11- E-Cigarettes Page 1 of 4
DRAFT
The purpose and intent of this chapter is to protect minors from the hazards of nicotine
addiction and the dangers of ingesting products with no regulatory oversight as to their purity,
contents, and potential negative health impacts.
7.40.020 Definitions.
As used in this Chapter:
"Electronic Cigarette" or "E-Cigarette" means an electronic device usually composed of
a mouthpiece, a heating element or atomizer, a battery, and electronic circuits that provides a gas
derived from liquid nicotine and/or other substances which is inhaled by a user simulating
smoking. The term includes such devices, regardless of the details of the product appearance or
marketed name, generally manufactured to resemble cigarettes, cigars, pipes, or other smoking
devices.
"Liquid Nicotine"means any liquid product composed either in whole or part of nicotine,
proprylene glycol and/or other similar substances and manufactured for use with E-Cigarettes to
be converted into a gas for inhaling.
"Minor"means someone under 18 years of age.
"Person" means any natural person, individual, corporation, unincorporated association,
proprietorship, firm partnership,joint venture,joint stock association, or other entity or business
of any kind.
7.40.030 Sampling and sales to minors prohibited.
A. No person may give, distribute, transfer, sell, market, or offer E-Cigarettes, their
components, or samples to persons under 18 years of age.
B. It is a defense to a prosecution for violation of this section when the person making
the gift, distribution, transfer, sale, marketing, or offer as a gift, transfer, sale, marketing, or
sample reasonably relied on any of the officially issued identifications referenced in RCW
70.155.090 showing the purchaser or recipient was at least 18 years old.
7.40.040 Coupon redemption.
No person shall give or distribute E-Cigarettes, or their components, to a person by a
coupon if such coupon is redeemed in any manner that does not require an in-person transaction
in a retail store to help prevent redemption of such merchandise by a minor.
7.40.050 Purchase by minors prohibited.
No person under the age of 18 may purchase, attempt to purchase, possess, or obtain E-
Cigarettes or their components. This prohibition does not apply to activities or enforcement
actions under the control of a City, State, or Federal law enforcement authority or Spokane
Regional Health District.
7.40.060 Prohibition signage to be posted; Identification required.
A. Any person selling, marketing, displaying, giving, or distributing E-Cigarettes or their
components shall display a printed sign, posted so that it is clearly visible to anyone purchasing
E-cigarettes or their components. The sign must be in contrasting colors and at least 20 point
type and must read substantially as follows:
"IF YOU ARE UNDER 18, YOU COULD BE SUBJECT TO PENALTY FOR
PURCHASING E-CIGARETTES OR RELATED DEVICES OR THEIR COMPONENTS -
Ordinance 11- E-Cigarettes Page 2 of 4
DRAFT
SVMC 7.40.050. THE SALE OF E-CIGARETTES OR RELATED DEVICES OR THEIR
COMPONENTS TO PERSONS UNDER THE AGE OF 18 IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED -
SVMC 7.40.030. PHOTO ID REQUIRED."
B. When there may be a question of a person's age, identification of at least the
sufficiency referenced in RCW 70.155.090 shall be required by any person selling, giving, or
distributing E-Cigarettes or their components.
7.40.070 Mechanical sales restricted.
A. No person shall sell or permit to be sold E-Cigarettes or their components through
any device that mechanically dispenses such products unless the device is located fully within
premises from which minors are prohibited, or in industrial worksites where minors are not
employed nor permitted, and not less than ten feet from all entrance or exit ways to and from each
premises.
B. It is a defense to this section if the person demonstrates to the satisfaction of the
City's Building Official that it is architecturally impracticable for the device to be located not less
than ten feet from all entrance and exit ways.
7.40.080 Penalties and enforcement.
Violation of any provision of this Chapter by a minor shall be a class 3 civil infraction
under SVMC 1.10.010 and RCW Chapter 7.80. Violation of any provision of this Chapter by
anyone other than a minor shall be a class 1 civil infraction under SVMC 1.10.010 and RCW
Chapter 7.80. Each transaction is a new and separate violation.
This Ordinance shall be enforced by the Chief of the City of Spokane Valley Police, or
his or her designee, and the Heath Officer for the Spokane Regional Health District, or his or her
designee, who shall collectively be the "enforcement officer" as that terminology is used in RCW
Chapter 7.80.
7.40.090 Chapter to be harmonized with State and Federal law
A. This Chapter shall be harmonized to avoid any conflict with RCW Chapter 70.155 and
with all other State or Federal preempting laws or regulations. Nothing in this Chapter
diminishes the authority of the City to enforce RCW 70.155.080 or any other applicable laws or
regulations.
B. This Chapter shall be repealed on the day that State or Federal legislation goes into
effect incorporating either the same or substantially similar provisions as are contained in this
ordinance, or in the event that a pertinent State or Federal Administrative Agency issues and
promulgates regulations preempting such action by the City. The City Council may repeal this
Chapter whether or not identical or substantially similar State or Federal legislation has been
enacted for the purposes of triggering the provisions of this subsection.
Section 2. Incorporation by Reference. The Spokane Regional Health District has determined
that it is in the best interests of citizens within its jurisdiction to protect children and young
people from E-Cigarettes. Therefore,the Spokane Regional Health District's findings,testimony,
and written record on this matter are hereby adopted and incorporated by this reference as if fully
set forth herein. A complete copy of such findings,testimony, and written record shall be kept on
file with the City Clerk.
Ordinance 11- E-Cigarettes Page 3 of 4
DRAFT
Section 3. Severability. If any part of this Chapter is declared unenforceable, it shall not affect
the remainder.
Section 4. 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 , 2011
City of Spokane Valley
Thomas E. Towey, Mayor
ATTEST:
Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk
Approved as to Form:
Office of the City Attorney
Date of Publication:
Effective Date:
Ordinance 11- E-Cigarettes Page 4 of 4
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: February 8, 2011 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: 2011 Sewer Paveback Program —
Draft Memorandum Of Understanding (MOU) with Spokane
County
GOVERNING LEGISLATION:
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: Adopted 2011-2016 Six Year TIP which includes the
2011 STEP paveback program. An initial draft of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)
with Spokane County and project basin maps were submitted for information at the January 25,
2011 Council meeting. In addition, an Admin Report was submitted for further review at the
February 1, 2011 meeting.
BACKGROUND: The 2011 Budget includes funds for full-width street paving associated with
Spokane County's 2011 Sewer Construction Program.
As has been done in previous years City staff is working with Spokane County staff on fine
tuning the estimates for the City's portion of paving the roads full-width in the 2011 sewer
project areas. Spokane County's 2011 Septic Tank Elimination Program includes two projects
within the City of Spokane Valley:
M icaview
This basin generally includes the area south of Sprague Avenue to the City limits south of
Eighth Avenue between Barker Road to the west and Hodges Road to the east.
Green Haven
This basin generally includes the area north of Appleway Avenue and south of Broadway
Avenue between Flora Road to the west and Michigan Road to the east.
Estimated paveback costs to provide full-width paving and drainage improvements for the two
sewer basins are summarized below:
City of Spokane Valley Share
2011 Estimated Road and Drainage Improvement Costs
Estimated Road Estimated Drainage
2011 Projects Improvement Costs Improvement Costs
Green Haven $ 550,000 $ 70,000
Micaview $ 250,000 $ 30,000
Total Est. Cost: $ 800,000 $ 100,000
Below are a few comments on the above estimates:
1. A Community Development Block Grant application in the amount of $247,000 was
submitted to Spokane County, and preliminarily selected for funding, for full-width road
paveback associated with the Green Haven sewer project.
2. These are preliminary estimates. Staff will continue to review them in more detail with
Spokane County to ensure all appropriate costs, credits, and savings have been
accounted for.
Attached is the final draft of the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) regarding the city's
reimbursement to Spokane County for paveback costs. Draft revisions that were included with
council's packets last week have been included. No further changes have been made to this
document.
Three of the 2010 STEP projects have not been completed are will carry over to 2011. Sewer
construction within the South Greenacres (phase 4), Corbin, and Cronk sewer basin are
anticipated to begin in March, as weather conditions allow.
OPTIONS: 1) Motion to approve the MOU with Spokane County to cover the reimbursement of
costs associated with the design, full-width paving, and drainage improvements for the Green
Haven and Micaview sewer basins. 2) Provide additional direction to staff.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: I Move approval of the 2011 STEP Memorandum of
Understanding with Spokane County and authorize the City Manager to sign the Agreement.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The 2011 Budget includes sufficient funds for the 2011
STEP paveback program.
STAFF CONTACT: Neil Kersten, Public Works Director
Steve M. Worley, Senior Capital Projects Engineer
ATTACHMENTS Final Draft of MOU, including Attachment A
Sewer Basin Maps
Memorandum of Understanding
Between the City of Spokane Valley and Spokane County
Pavement Replacement Cost Sharing and Drainage Improvement Costs
For the 2011 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 2011 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 2011 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 2011 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 2011 Sewer Construction Program includes the Green Haven and
Micaview Sewer Projects within the limits of the CITY, as identified in the COUNTY's
adopted Six-Year Sewer Capital Improvement Program 2011-2016.
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 a road design for a segment of Barker Road located within the 2011
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
estimate for this roadway is presented in Attachment A to this Memorandum of
Memorandum of Understanding
2011 Sewer Construction Program Page 2 of 3
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 2011 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 2011
projects shall not exceed $ 900,000 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
completed on a project, the COUNTY will send a final invoice to the CITY for the
Memorandum of Understanding
2011 Sewer Construction Program Page 3 of 3
remainder of the CITY's portion of the project costs. For each project that is not
completed by the close of the 2011 construction season, the COUNTY will send a
progress invoice to the CITY prior to December 31, 2011.
TABLE 1
City of Spokane Valley Share
2011 Estimated Road and Drainage Improvement Costs
Estimated Road Estimated Drainage
Improvement Costs Improvement Costs
Total Costs $ 800,000 $ 100,000
SPOKANE COUNTY:
By: Date:
N. Bruce Rawls, County Utilities Director
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY:
By: Date:
Mike Jackson, City Manager
ATTACHMENT "A"
Scope of Work - Design of Barker Road for Future Widening
For City of Spokane Valley
Mica View Project Phase 1
City of Spokane Valley will give notice to proceed prior to design work beginning. A
typical section will be given to the design team prior to start of design. Design work on
Barker Road will not include review of existing or final alignment for conformance with
current design standards.
Scope: Barker Road - 8th Ave. to Sprague Ave., approximately 2,800 L.F.;
1. Design centerline profile for future City project to widen Barker Road.
2. Work will include additional survey work for area not needed for the Mica View
Sewer Project.
3. Future typical section to include 3 lanes with bike paths and attached sidewalks.
4. Provide road plan and profile sheets, 1"=50'H, 1"=10V.
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%plans and final plans.
9. Sewer project will remove and replace road to existing width. No widening.
10. County will charge City of Spokane Valley the employee costs including paid
benefits plus overhead rate of 21.89%.
Design Cost Estimate: Not to Exceed $11,600.00
File: P:\Clerk\AgendaPackets for Web\agendapacket 02-08-11\Item 3 MOU Attachment A-Barker Scope of Work.doc
co
I,
0
�I
• wirt
■r
ME Si MI
tr3
0 250 500 1,000
et M I CAV I EW SEWER BASIN
N
Boone
jil „rBroadwal. •
+,1.111 ■'"111fo urspringfie a111I�
uuulIIuI111l�
NI IiIIIIriui... uu
1
FL
0 375 750 1,500
Feet GREEN HAVEN SEWER BASIN
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: February 8, 2011 City Manager Sign-off:
Item: Check all that apply: n consent n old business ® new business n public hearing
n information n admin. report n pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Motion Consideration: Mayoral Appointments
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: Various ordinances, resolutions, and state statutes
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN:
BACKGROUND: Rose Dempsey's resignation from the Council leaves several committee obligations
open. Please note that in communication with Barb Nelson of the Spokane Clean Air Board, we learn that
state statute (RCW 70.94.100) permits Ms. Dempsey to retain her seat on the Board as the Spokane
Valley City representative until her four-year term ends,which occurs December 31, 2011. Ms. Dempsey
has agreed to submit periodic written reports to keep Council updated concerning this Board. Ms.
Dempsey is the only City representative on this Board.
Mayor Towey intends to make the following appointments:
1. Spokane Regional Health District Board: Mayor Towey
[Bylaws of Spokane Regional Health District Board of Health state members shall consist of two elected
officials from the City of Spokane Valley. Councilmember Gothmann is the other City representative]
2.Wastewater Policy Advisory Board—Deputy Mayor Schimmels
[Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Spokane County and Spokane Valley regarding regional
wastewater management, states that the five-member Policy Advisory Board is composed of two City
elected representatives. Mayor Towey is the other City representative.]
3. International Trade Alliance Advisory Board—Councilmember Grassel
This would include the ITA Advisory Board, and in an Ex-Officio (non-voting) position on the ITA
Board of Directors. Ms. Dempsey was the only City representative on these boards.]
OPTIONS: Confirm the appointments as recommended by the Mayor, or take other action.
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: I move to confirm the mayoral appointment of Mayor
Towey to the Spokane Regional Health District Board, Deputy Mayor Schimmels to the Wastewater
Policy Advisory Board, and Councilmember Grassel to the International Trade Alliance Boards as noted
above.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS:
STAFF CONTACT: Chris Bainbridge
ATTACHMENTS
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: February 8, 2011 City Manager Sign-off:
Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing
❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan (CEMP)
GOVERNING LEGISLATION:
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN:
Emergency Management Program Administrator Lisa Jameson will give an overview of the
Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan.
BACKGROUND:
OPTIONS:
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION:
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS:
STAFF CONTACT: Police Chief Rick VanLeuven
ATTACHMENTS:
Comprehensive Emergency
Management Plan : Overview
Comprehensive Emergency
Management Plan (CEMP)
Basic Plan
Emergency Support Function ( ESF) Annex
Hazard Identification & Vulnerability Analysis
Terrorism Annex
Limitations
There are no guarantees implied by the
CEMP
Lack of Staff within the System
Funding
The situation/disaster and/or emergency
Basic Plan
City of Spokane
City of Spokane Valley
City of Cheney
City of Deer Park
City of Liberty Lake
City of Medical Lake
City of Airway Heights
Town of Fairfield
Town of Latah
Town of Millwood
Town of Rockford
Town of Spangle
Town of Waverly
Unincorporated area of Spokane County
Basic Plan Purpose . . .
Our department, in cooperation with
Municipalities, departments and other
members of the community, endeavors to
mitigate, prepare for, respond to, and recover
from natural and man-made disasters that
threaten the lives, safety or property of the
citizens of Spokane by. . . .
Basic Plan
Emergency Proclamations
Requesting Assistance
Emergency Coordination Center
Continuity of Government
Continuity Operations Plan
Emergency Support
Primary Emergency Management Disciplines:
Department of Emergency Management (DEM)
Emergency medical service (EMS)
• Fire service
• Government administrative
Elected Officials who might be making emergency
management related decisions in an emergency response
Agency administrators
Department heads with multi-agency coordination system
responsibilities.
✓ Hazardous materials
• Health care
• Law enforcement
• Public communications
• Public health
I. Public works
• Private Sector
• Volunteer Organizations
Agency Involvement
Aging & Long Term Care of Eastern Washington
American Red Cross
ARES/RACES
City of Airway Heghts Fire Department
City of Cheney
City of Cheney Fire Department
City of Cheney Police Department
City of Liberty Lake Police Department
City of Spokane
City of Spokane Valley
Department of Emergency Management
East Valley School District
Eastern Washington Center for the Deaf and Hard of
Hearing
Educational Services District 101
Holy Family
Humane Evacuation Animal Rescue Team
Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC)
Providence
Rockwood Clinic
Sacred Heart
SCRAPS
Second Harvest
Spokane Airport Fire Department
Spokane Airport Police
Spokane City Fire Department
Spokane City Fire Department/ Dispatch
Spokane County Fire District#3
Spokane County Fire District#4
Spokane County Fire District#8
Spokane County Public Works
Spokane County Sheriffs Office
Spokane County Utilities
Spokane Humane Society
Spokane Mental Health
Spokane Police Department
Spokane Regional Health District
Spokane Transit Authority
Spokane Valley Fire Department
Spokanimal
United States Department of Agriculture
US Fish &Wildlife Services
Valley Medical
Washington State Air National Guard
Washington State Department of Transportation
Washington State Guard
Washington State Patrol
Washington State Patrol Communications
Washington State University, Spokane
Whitworth University
Hazard Identification
Federally Declared Disasters 1980-2009
3/09 Severe Storm
4/97 Flood
1 /97 Severe Storm
1 /97 Snow
2/96 Flood
11 /91 Fire
7/86 Flood
5/80 Volcano
All Hazards Approach
Fire-Urban/Structural
Floods
Hazmat Incidents
Infectious Disease Outbreak
Infrastructure
Dams
Pipelines
Transportation
Terrorism
Wild Land Fire
Emergency Management Efforts :
Preparedness
Community Planning
Protection
Critical Infrastructure
Mitigation
Hazard Identification
Recovery
Active Disaster Coordination
Single or Multi-jurisdictional Assistance
Disaster Declarations
Emergency Coordination Center Activation
Scarce Resource
Direct Contact with Washington State
Emergency Management Division for
Resource Support
Building a Strong Foundation . . . . .
Co' prehen- ve
Emerge cy Manage gent Plan
Jurisdictional COOP Plans
Individual Agency Response Plans
Is there a plan?
Activate the Emergency Operations Center
Send a representative
Declare a disaster
Set Policies
Track expenditures
Public Information
Report damages
Request Resources
Submit Situational Reports
COOP
Emergency Plans & COOP for Departments
Jurisdiction internal notification system
DEM , Public Information Policy and Procedures
Establish Roles and Responsibilities
Special Needs Population
Train & Exercise Emergency Procedures
Inventory Resources
Implementing & Evaluating
Agency, jurisdiction and community
Training
Exercises
Information Sharing
System Development
Lisa Jameson
Emergency Management Program Administrator
509-477-3029
Ijameson @spokanecounty.org
Srok,ine Comprehensive Emergency i4ianngement Plan
Updated 2009
R. EMERGENCY DECLARATION.
1. Emergency Proclamation.A local state of emergency will be proclaimed by issuance of an
emergency declaration,the legal method,which authorizes extraordinary measures to meet
emergencies and/or solve disaster problems.A-declaration allows for the emergency use of
resources,the bypassing of time consuming requirements such as hearings and the competitive
bid process,and activates extraordinary measures as outlined in this plan.A declaration is
_usually-a prerequisite for state assistance and made at the onset of a disaster to allow the local
government to do as much as possible to help itself,
a. Any declaration issued has the force of law and supersedes any conflicting
_provision-of law during the period of the declared.emergency.
- - —it -in preparing declaration a description oflthe-eventandthe-siecessary-emergeney
authoriz lops _110.4 jt .he documented. The Spokane Department of Emergency
Management should be informed,and a news release made as soon as possible when an
emergency proclamation is signed.
c. The chief executive of the local government may declare a Iocal "state of
emergency."
d. County-Wide Disaster.
•
• Jurisdictions -may-declare an emergency to expedite .acs ss to . owity-wide
resources in order to support local government emergency needs.A disaster occurs when
required response needs exceed capabilities.
•
25
CEMP
Update December 2009 Final Draft
•
•
•
•
Spokane Comprehensive Emergency Management Pian
Update 2010
C. REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE.
I. If the sithation is beyond local capability,a request for state assistance,and/or federal
assistance shall be presented to the DEM.
2. Documentation describing disaster impacts is vital to the requests for state and federal
assistance.The use of reports will vary according to the type of emergency being
handled.
3. As a minimum a request for assistance should include the following infonmation:
• Type of disaster.
-Time disaster occurred-orthreateens'to"occur.
..---
• Actions already taken.
• Areas and number of people involved.
• Estimates of loss of life and extent of damage.
• Type and amount of assistance required,
D. EMERGENCY COORDINATION CENTER(ECC).
1. The Spokane DEM has the responsibility to coordinate the emergency management
system.The DEM consults the officials on possible courses of action available for major
decisions.
2. During emergency operations the DEM Duty Officer is responsible for the proper
functioning of the ECC.. Prior to an activation of the ECC,an incident will be supported
by the DEM Duty Officer. This Duty officer is available 24 hours a day,7 days a week,
to respond during all levels ofECC activation(Please reference the Spokane ECC plan).
• The DEM also acts as a liaison with state and federal emergency agencies,and
neighboring counties.
3. The Emergency Coordination Center(ECC)is the central point for emergency
management operations.The purpose of this central point is to ensure harmonious
response when the emergency involves more than one political entity and several
response agencies.Coordination and supervision of all services will be through the EOC
Manager and Scetion Chiefs to provide for the most efficient management of resources.
• 4. All departments involved in disaster operations will be responsible for coordinating
communications and accountability with their respective staff members and/or mutual aid
resources.Accountability shall include location of deployed resources,hours worked,
applicable expenditures,and emergency staff information.
Spokane CEMP Update 20I0 26 •
•
Spokane Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan
. Update 2010
E. CONTINUITY OF GOVERNMENT.
1. Succession of Authority.
a. A community's ability to respond to an emergency must not be restrained
by the absence of an elected official or key department head.Therefore,to ensure
continuity of government, each local government in the county will develop a
Continuity of Government Succession List. This list will designate who will be
the decision-maker if an elected official or department head is not available. At
least three people should be listed and prioritized for each key position.
b. Lines of'suacession to eac i paiTmenthead wtll-be defemeineA by"the "
appropriate county or city governing body or by the departments' Standard
Operating Guidelines.
2. Preservation of Records.
a. All county departments will develop plans and procedures to guarantee the
preservation of vital public records, to include their reconstitution if necessary,
during and after emergencies.
b. In general, vital public records include: those considered absolutely
essential to the continued operation of County government;considered absolutely
essential to the ability to fulfill its responsibilities to the public;required to protect
the rights of individuals and essential to restoration of life support services.
Documentation of actions taken during an emergency or disaster is a legal
requirement.
c. Specific vital public records could include: vital statistics, deeds,
corporation papers,operational plans,planning records,resource data,authorities,
personnel and payroll rosters, succession lists, supply and equipment lists, laws,
charters and financial records.
d. All appointments and work assignments in an emergency situation shall be
documented. Department Heads will submit a complete emergency operational
plan or Incident Action Plan (lAP) as to staffing allocation, equipment
distribution, and other emergency related needs as requested by the Spokane
Department of Emergency Management for situational reports.
Spokane CEMI'Update 2010 27
Spokane Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan
Update 2010
F: CONTINUITY OF OPERATIONS PLANS(COOP).
1. COOP development is an effort within individual departments and agencies to ensure the
continued performance of minimum essential functions during a wide range of potential
emergencies.A COOP provides comprehensive procedures,and provisions for alternate
facilities,personnel,resources,interoperable communications,and vital records and
databases.
2. COOP establishes policy and guidance to ensure the execution of the mission-essential
functions for each department and agency in the event that an emergency threatens or
incapacitates operations and the relocation of selected personnel and functions of any
essential=facility-is•requirech Specifically this COOP-is designed#o — — -- _ = = '•
• Ensure that departments are prepared to respond to emergencies,recover from
them,and mitigate against their impacts.
• Ensure that-departments are prepared to provide critical services, in an
environment that is threatened,diminished,or incapacitated,
• Provide a means of information coordination to the Spokane and/or Municipal
government to ensure uninterrupted communications within the internal
organization of the government and externally to all identified critical
customers.
• Provide timely direction,control,and coordination to Spokane and Municipal
leadership and other critical customers upon notification of a credible threat or
before,during,and after an event.
•• Establish and enact time-phased implementation procedures to activate
various components of the"Plan"to provide sufficient operational capabilities
relative to the event or threat to Spokane Jurisdictions.
• Facilitate the return to normal operating conditions as soon as practical,based
on circumstances and the threat environment.
• Ensure that Departmental COOP Plans are viable and operational and are
compliant with all guidance documents.
. • Ensure that Departmental COOP Plans are fully capable of addressing all
types of emergencies or "all hazards"and that mission-essential functions are
able to continue with minimal or no disruption during emergencies.
•
3. The objectives of COOP planning are to ensure that a viable capability exists to continue
essential government functions across a wide range of potential emergencies,specifically
when the primary facility is either threatened or inaccessible.The objectives of this Plan
include:
• Ensuring the continuous performance of essenti_aI functions/operations during
an emergency.
• • Protecting essential facilities,equipment,records,and other assets.
• Reducing or mitigating disruptions to operations.
• Reducing boss of life,minimizing damage and losses.
• Identify and designate principals and support staff to be relocated.
Spokane CEMP Update 2010 28
Spokane Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan
Update 2010
• Facilitate decision-making for execution of the Plan and the subsequent
conduct of operations.
• Achieve a timely and orderly recovery from the emergency and resumption of
full service to all customers.
• Be maintained at a high-level of readiness.
• Be capable of implementation,both with and without warning.
• Be operational no later than 12 hours after activation.
• Take 'maximum advantage of existing local, state or federal government
infrastructures.
•
VI. LEVELS OF EMERGENCY ACTION. __
A. LEVELS OF EMERGENCIES.
1. To aid in preparedness and coordination,the CEMP establishes Levels of emergencies
outlined in the table below.These Levels categorize the severity of an incident and
describe general actions associated with each level as the magnitude of the event
increases.The Levels are intended to provide guidelines to help detail planning efforts
and provide a consistent approach for reporting and coordination during an event.
•
2. The Levels have a range of 1 to 5 and are scalable,recognizing that an incident may start
out at a low level event and escalate,or a significant event may immediately start off at a
high level.Likewise,as an event tapers off,the level is lowered and resources begin to
demobilize.During an event,different teams or agencies may be at different levels.For
example,during a Level 3 natural disaster,certain law enforcement special teams may
remain at Level 1 because of the nature of the incident.
The CEMP Activation Levels will be incorporated into Standard Operating Guidelines to
outline specific actions.When established for an incident,the levels provide decision-
making aid for activating and deploying resources.
•
•
Spokane CEMP Update•2010 29
Spokane Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan
Update 2010
LEVELS OF EMERGENCY
..-tell esaipt;_.. -t-1-M WVA-ValMerafaaasmAt
• Normal day-to-day operations
• No imminent terrorist • Steady-state reporting and monitoring
• No severe weather pending • Minor incidents controlled by first
• Localized incidents controlled by first
response agencies
• Continued monitoring
• Heightened terrorist threat • Use of department/agencies authorities
2 Localized incident &resources to assess and deter threats
• Potential Countywide Incident • Weather advisories
• Alerting teams
• Warning order
• Possible activation of ECC
• Pre-deployment of teams
• County level monitoring and
• Incident of Countywide countywide involvement
significance at ECC level • Countywide assets deployed
• 13CC activated
• County level assets deployed
• Imminent terrorist threat • ECC activated
4 • County Incident • Consideration of requesting of essential
• Potential Catastrophic Incident and extensively state assets through
DEM
5 Catastrophic Incident • Deployment of appropriate essential
and extensively state and federal assets
Spokane CEMP Update 2010 30
•
Spokane Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan
Update 2010
VII. ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES.
A. PREPAREDNESS RESPONSIBILITIES.(All Spokane and Municipal Departments)
•
I. Many county and municipal departments may have emergency-related functions in
addition to their normal daily functions.Each department director is responsible for the
development and maintenance of their respective emergency management plan and
procedures for each division and section,and performing such functions as may be
required4o effectively-respond-to and recover-from any-disaster-affecting-their respective --= -" -
areas of responsibility.Specifically,the following common responsibilities are assigned
to each department listed in this plan:
• Develop and maintain an emergency plan for their department.
• Develop and maintain a "Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP)" for their
department.
• Create and maintain a department"Calling Tree"for notification.
• Establish department and individual responsibilities(as indicated in this plan);
identify emergency tasks.
• Work with other departments to enhance cooperation and coordination, and
eliminate redundancy. Departments having shared responsibilities should
work to complement each other.
• Establish education and training programs so that each division, section, and
employee will know exactly where,when and how to respond.
• Develop site specific plans for department facilities as necessary.
•' Provide for the security and protection of departmental records and
equipment.
• Ensure that employee job descriptions reflect their emergency duties,
• Train staff to perform emergency duties/tasks as outlined in the CEMP or
individual department plans.
• Identify,categorize and inventory all available department resources.
• Develop procedures for mobilizing and employing additional resources.
• Ensure communication capabilities with the ECC.
• "Fill positions in the emergency system, as requested by the DEM Duty
Officer/ECC Manager acting in accordance with this plan.
• Prepare to provide internal logistical support to department operations during
the initial emergency response phase.
• Coordinate, where appropriate, to ensure that each building or facility is
prepared and secured before a disaster strikes.
B. -RESPONSE RESPONSIBILITIES.(All Spokane and Municipal Departments.)
Spokane CEMP Update 2010 31
•
•
Spokane Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan
Update 2010
1. The following common responsibilities are assigned to each department listed in this
plan.
• Upon receipt of an alert or warning, initiate notification actions to employees
on assigned response duties.
•
• As appropriate:
• Suspend or curtail normal business activities.
• Recall essential off-duty employees.
• Send non-critical employees home.
• Secure and evacuate departmental facilities.
•
• As requested, augment the ECC effort to warn_the public-tivouglr-use_of:.--- __- -.-- -----. LL
vehicles ec ur ed with pnbIi address systems, sirens,employees going from
•
•
door to door,etc.
• Keep the ECC informed of field activities, and maintain a communications
link to the ECC.
• Activate a control center to support and facilitate department response
activities,maintain events log,and report information to the ECC.
• Report damages and status of critical facilities to the ECC.
• If appropriate or requested,send a representative to the ECC.
• During response and recovery phases of an incident, Department Directors
may be assigned to support the ECC function not otherwise assigned during
normal everyday operation.
• 1?nsure staff members tasked to work in the ECC has the authority to commit
resources and set policies.
• Coordinate with the,ECC to establish protocols for interfacing with county,
state,and/or federal responders.
• Provide released News releases and other public information to the ECC.
• Submit reports to the EOC detailing departmental emergency expenditures
and obligations.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Spokane Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan
Update 2010
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1
The Emergency Support Functions(ESF).
Each ESF Annex identifies the lead and support agencies pertinent to the ESE.Several ESFs incorporate
==.;.ultipleeomponents,with primary.=ageneies-designated for-each-component-to enstire seamless integratiotrofand= __ = = ° _
transition transition between preparedness,response,and recovery activities.ESFs with multiple primary agencies designate
an ESF coordinator for the purposes of pre-incident planning and coordination ofprimary and supporting agency
efforts throughout the incident.Following is a discussion of the roles and responsibilities of the ESF coordinator
and the primary and support agencies. The ESFs provide the structure for coordinating interagency support for a
response to an incident.They are mechanisms for grouping functions most frequently used to provide support to the
management of an emergency,both for declared disasters and emergencies under the Stafford Act and for non-
Stafford Act incidents(see Table 1 below).
•
Spokane CEMP Update 2010 39
•
Spokane Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan
Update 2010
ESF#1-Transportation Transportation safety;restoration/recovery of transportation infrastructure;
movement restrictions; damage and impact assessment
Coordination with telecommunications and information technology
industries; restoration and repair of telecommunications infrastructure;
ESE#2-Communications protection,restoration and sustainment of information resources
,Infrastructureprotection_and_emergency=repair;-infrastructure-restoration -_:_ ..:.::.._..-_-- --
ESE#3-Public Works& engineering services and construction management;emergency
Engineering - contracting support for life-saving and life-sustaining services
Coordination of firefighting activities;support to wild land,rural and
ESF#4-Fire Fighting urban firefighting operations
ESF#5 Emergency Coordination and support of incident;issuance of mission assignments;
Management resource support;planning
ESF#6-Mass Care,
Emergency Assistance
Housing and Human
Services Mass Care;Emergency Assistance;Disaster housing;human services
ESE#7-Logistics
Management and Comprehensive incident logistics planning and sustainment capability;
Resource Support . resource support
ESF#8-Public Health Public Health;Medical;Mental Health Services;Mass Fatality
and Medical Services Management
ESF#9 Search and Rescue Life-Saving assistance;search and rescue operations
Hazardous Material Response,environmental short-and long-term clean
ESF#10-Hazmat Plan , up
Coordinate rapid response for assistance in animal rescue Nutritional
ESF#11-Agriculture, assistance;Animal and Plant disease and pest response;food safety and
Natural Resources& security;Natural and cultural resources and historical properties protection
Animal Rescue and restoration
Emergency infrastructure assessment,repair and restoration;energy
ESF#12 Energy industry utilities coordination
Facility and resource security;security planning and technical resource
ESF#13-Public Safety assistance;public safety and security support;support to access,traffic,
and Security crowd control,and evacuation
ESF#14 Long Term Social and economic community impact assessment;Analysis and review
Recovery"Plan of mitigation program implementation
Spokane CEMP Update 2010 40
Spokane Comprehensive Emergency Management Plan
Update 20W
ESF#15-Public Emergency Public Information and action guide;Media and
Information community relations
ESF#20-Defense
Support to Civil Affairs Effective use of military assistance during an emergency
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Spokane CEMP Update 2010 41
•
•
•
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: February 8, 2011 City Manager Sign-off:
Item: Check all that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing
❑ information ® admin. report ❑ pending legislation
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: 2011 New Freedom Call for Projects
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: n/a
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: None
BACKGROUND: On January 19, 2011 the Spokane Regional Transportation Council (SRTC)
issued a New Freedom Call for Projects for allocation of Federal Transit Administration (FTA)
Section 5317 funding. The funding level for Spokane County is approximately $252,000.
Project applications are due Tuesday, February 15th, 2011.
New Freedom funds are targeted towards projects and programs that provide new or enhanced
public transportation and public transportation alternatives beyond those required by ADA for
individuals with disabilities in both rural and urban areas. Eligible capital projects include
sidewalks, accessible bus stops and shelters.
Staff has been evaluating the New Freedom grant criteria and working to identify projects that
will have the highest potential to receive funding and greatest benefit to pedestrians and bus
riders. We have reviewed the City's sidewalk inventory, and coordinated with STA to identify
locations with known obstacles and accessibility issues to disabled persons.
Based on this review, staff has come up with a preliminary list of projects for submitting to SRTC
for the New Freedom Call for Projects. These projects are listed in the attached memo dated
February 3rd, 2011. Staff will coordinate with STA to complete as many identified projects and
projects similar in scope and nature as funding will allow.
OPTIONS: Consensus to move ahead with the applications for the New Freedom Applications
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: Council consensus to submit New Freedom
Applications to SRTC.
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The City's match on New Freedom funded projects is 20% of
the total project cost. As the proposed New Freedom applications are developed, staff will
coordinate with the Finance Department to ensure there are sufficient city funds to provide the
needed match for the proposed New Freedom projects. The City match would be
approximately $63,000 to take advantage of the amount of grant funding available.
STAFF CONTACT: Steve M. Worley, PE —Senior Capital Projects Engineer
Neil Kersten, AIA— Public Works Director
ATTACHMENTS: February 3, 2011 Memo: New Freedom Application Projects
I' OI Public Works Department
pokane Capital Improvement Program
Valley 11707 E Sprague Ave Suite 106 • Spokane Valley WA 99206
509.921.1000 • Fax: 509.921.1008 • cityhall@spokanevalley.org
Memorandum
Date: February 3rd, 2011
To: Steve Worley, Capital Projects
CC: Inga Note, Traffic
From: Bryan Hicks, Century West Engineering
Re: New Freedom Application Projects
The following is a summary of potential projects to complete with the New Freedom funding
that was developed from our coordination meeting with STA this morning.
Sidewalk Projects
1. Montgomery (University to Wilbur): Fill in gaps on north side of street, portion of gaps
on south side.
2. 4th Ave. (University to Pierce): Fill in gap on north side of street
3. Tshirley Rd. (Sprague to Coach Drive): Fill in gaps on east side of street
4. Mansfield Ave (Pines to Houk): Complete gaps and relocate utility poles and guy wires
to provide accessible routes.
5. Park Rd. (8th to 12th): Complete gap between new residential development and existing
sidewalk on west side of street.
Bus Pads for Transit Stops and Future Shelters
1. Sprague @ Pines Rd.: Northwest corner and Southeast corner
2. Sprague @ University Rd.: Northwest corner
3. Sprague @ Argonne/Mullan: North side between Argonne & Mullan
4. Sprague @ Sullivan Rd.: Northwest corner
5. Sprague @ Farr Rd.: Northwest corner
6. Sprague @ Havana Rd.: Northeast corner
7. Appleway @ Farr Rd.: Southeast corner
8. Mission Rd. @ Mullen Rd.: Approx. 150-ft East of Intersection
9. Mission Rd. East of Barker Rd.: Add ramps/pads to accommodate new Route#98
10. Sullivan @ Spokane Industrial Park: Add pads adjacent to Kiernan/Euclid intersections
11. Indiana @ Evergreen: Southwest&Northeast corners
12. Indiana @ ITT: South side of street
13. Indiana @ Staples: Southwest corner of intersection
14. Indiana @ Krispy Kreme: North side of street
15. Sullivan (4th to 16th) Provide pads on west side of street at intersections
DRAFT
ADVANCE AGENDA
For Planning Discussion Purposes Only
as of February 3, 2011; 10:00 a.m.
Please note this is a work in progress; items are tentative
To: Council & Staff
From: City Clerk, by direction of City Manager
Re: Draft Schedule for Upcoming Council Meetings
February 15,2011, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. (CONFIRMED:no meeting)
February 16-17: City Legislative Action Conference(CLAC) Olympia, Washington
February 22,2011,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,Feb 14]
1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes)
2. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance e-Cigarettes—Cary Driskell (10 minutes)
3. Admin Report: Chickens in Residential Areas (CTA 01-11)— Christina Janssen (15 minutes)
4. Admin report: Code Text Amendment,Adult Retail Uses—Lori Barlow (15 minutes)
5. Info Only: Dept Reports [*estimated meeting: 45 minutes]
February 25, 2011:Spokane Regional Council of Governments
9:30 a.m. —12:00 p.m. Spokane County Fair&Expo Center, Conference Facility in Expo Complex, 404 N Havana
March 1,2011,Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,Feb 21]
1. Draft Amended 1011 TIP (Transportation Improvement Plan)— Steve Worley (15 minutes)
2. Advance Agenda (5 minutes)
March 8,2011,SPECIAL MEETING: Executive Session 5:00 p.m. [RCW 42.30.110(1)(h)]
To review applications for council vacancy
March 8,2011,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,Jan 28]
1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes)
2. First Reading Proposed Ordinance (CTA 01-11)Animal Raising &Keeping—Christina Janssen (20 min)
3. First Reading Proposed Ordinance Amending Adult Enter.(Retail, CTA 03-10)—Lori Barlow (10 minutes)
4. Motions for March 22 Interviews of Applicants for Council Position#3 Vacancy—Mayor& Council(20 mins)
[*estimated meeting: 55 minutes]
NLC Congressional Conf, Wash.,D.C. March 12-16
March 15, 2011,NO MEETING(Council attends NLC Conference)
March 22,2011,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,March 14]
1. PUBLIC HEARING: Draft Amended 2011 Tip— Steve Worley (15 minutes)
2. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes)
3. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance (CTA 01-11)Animal Raising &Keeping—Christina Janssen(15 min)
4. Second Reading Proposed Ordinance Amending Adult Enter.(Retail, CTA 03-10)—Lori Barlow(10 minutes)
5. Council Position#3 Candidate Interviews—Mayor&Council (120 minutes)
6. Info Only: Dept Reports [*estimated meeting: 165 minutes]
Draft Advance Agenda 2/3/2011 3:08:53 PM Page 1 of 3
March 28, 2011, 9 a.m. —noon;Special Joint Meeting with City of Spokane
Exact meeting time TBD. Exact meeting place at City of Spokane TBD.
March 29,2011, SPECIAL MEETING: Executive Session 5:00 p.m.
To discuss applications for council vacancy [RCW 42.30.110(1)(h)]
March 29,2011, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon, March 21]
ACTION ITEMS:
1. Proposed Resolution Adopting Amended 2011 TIP— Steve Worley (15 minutes)
2. Mayor and Councilmembers: Appt of Candidate to Council Position #3 No public comment) (20 min)
a. Nomination and second of candidate; vote.
b. City Clerk Administers Oath of Office
c. New Councilmember Takes Position at the Dias
April 5,2011, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,March 28]
April 12,2011,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,April 4]
1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes)
April 19, 2011,Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,April 11]
April 26,2011,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,April 18]
1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes)
2. Comp Plan Amendments (Subarea Plan,etc.)
3. Info Only: Dept Reports [*estimated meeting: minutes]
May 3,2011, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,April 25]]
1. Draft 2012-2017 Draft Six Year TIP— Steve Worley (20 minutes)
May 10,2011,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,May 2]]
1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes)
May 17,2011, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,May 9]
May 24,2011,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,May 16]
1. PUBLIC HEARING: Draft 2012-2017 Six Year TIP— Steve Worley (15 minutes)
2. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes)
3. Info Only: Dept Reports [*estimated meeting: minutes]
May 31,2011, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,May 23]
June 7,2011, Study Session Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon, May 30]]
Draft Advance Agenda 2/3/2011 3:08:53 PM Page 2 of 3
June 14,2011,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,June 6]]]
1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes)
2. Proposed Resolution Adopting 2012-2017 Six Year TIP— Steve Worley (15 minutes)
June 21, 2011, Possible no Meeting, (AWC Conference, Spokane, Wa.)
June 28,2011,Formal Meeting Format,6:00 p.m. [due date Mon,June 20]]
1. Consent Agenda(claims,payroll,minutes) (5 minutes)
2. Info Only: Dept Reports ['estimated meeting: minutes]
OTHER PENDING AND/OR UPCOMING ISSUES/MEETINGS:
Airway Heights Plan Review Renewal
Alternative Analysis (contracts)
Bidding Contracts (SVMC 3. —bidding exceptions)
Budget 2012 (August/Sept 2011)
Capital Projects Funding
CDBG(Fall 2011)
Centennial Trail Agreement
Clean Air Agency
East Gateway Monument Structure #
Governance Manual (resolution) Update
Greenacres Park Bid
Lodging Tax Funding for 2012 (Oct 2011)
Milwaukee Right-of-way
Outside Agencies 2012 (August 2011)
Parking/Paving Options (for driveways, etc.)
Permit Tracking System
Railroad Quiet Zones
Reimbursement Assessment Amendment
Retreat, Summer 2011
Sidewalks
Signage (I-90)
Site Selector Update
Solid Waste Amended Interlocal
Speed Limits
Sprague Appleway Corridor Environ.Assessment
Sprague Avenue: One-way vs.two-way
Street Maintenance Facility
WIRA,Water Protection Commitment,public
education
# =Awaiting action by others
* = doesn't include time for public or council
comments
Draft Advance Agenda 2/3/2011 3:08:53 PM Page 3 of 3
Greater B01 W. Riverside t Suite 100
Spokane,Washington 99201
P:509.624 1393
Incorporated F:509.747.0077
February 1, 2011 greaterspokaneincorporated.org
Honorable Tom Towey, Mayor
Mr. Mike Jackson, City Manager
City of Spokane Valley
11707 East Sprague Avenue
Spokane Valley, WA 99206
Mayor Towey,Mr. Jackson and members of the City Council:
Greater Spokane Incorporated is pleased to submit its 2010 fourth quarter report of activities to
the City of Spokane Valley.
This report includes information on the following:
➢ Recruitment Activities
➢ Business Retention and Expansion Activities
➢ Industry Engagements
➢ Business Development Projects
➢ Strategic Engagements
➢ Workforce and Education Activities
The report also includes copies of various marketing materials that were distributed during the
quarter.
If you have any questions about the report, or would like a presentation on the information
included, please don't hesitate to call our offices.
Sit -rely,
�r O lip Jr'
obin B o i
onomic Development
Greater Spokane Incorporated
Attachment
The Spokane PDC and Chamber -- Integrated to accelerate regional economic prosperity
Greater Spokane Incorporated
Quarterly Report for City of Spokane Valley
Q42010
GROWING JOBS AND BUSINESS INVESTMENTS
k 2010
Objectives:
• Business start-up, expansion and relocation services
• Marketing and promotion of Spokane as a premier place to do business
• Enhance livability through advocacy—transportation, education, healthcare and recreation
• Partner in establishing a highly educated and skilled workforce
• Four Business Expansion and Retention Clients in Spokane Valley
• 176 Direct Jobs
• $190,759 in annual Spokane Valley tax revenue
yV^ • $54,335,641 in annual economic impact
• Two Recruitment Clients
• 153 Direct Jobs
• $196,645 in annual Spokane Valley tax revenue
• $95 million in annual economic impact
• Three CEZ projects for Spokane Valley companies
• 15 Direct Jobs
• $18,712 in annual Spokane Valley tax revenue
City of Spokane Valley Contract
• Recruitment
o Letters sent—160
• Advanced manufacturing and aerospace—80 companies
1. Focus on Oregon aerospace OEMs
2. Developed tax comparison and engagement with companies looking to relocate
in 24 to 36 months
....
• Clean technology—80 companies
o Qualified leads -32
o Visits—4 inbound, 13 outbound
• Recruitment visits to California and Vancouver, BC
o Proposals—18
• 22 Spokane Valley Properties
o Preparing for Medical Device and Manufacturing Trade Show—Anaheim, CA- February 7-10
o Advantage Spokane Newsletter—monthly to list of 2053
o Selectspokane.com—1,195 user sessions/5:43 minutes avg.time on site/ 12.99 avg. daily users
with 8.63 pages viewed per session
o Q4 recruitment win with Spokane International Airport-40 jobs, $20M economic impact
• Business Retention and Expansion
o Meetings with 9 City of Spokane Valley companies
• 1 new Spokane Valley BRE case identified—
1 business climate, policy, expansion or retention issues
o PTAC
• City of Spokane Valley businesses reported 14 contract awards totaling$1.5M
o Industry Group Meetings
• Inland Northwest Aerospace Consortium (INWAC)
1. Launched new website
2. Recruitment project for Oregon
• Consortium of Leading Energy Efficiency Northwest Companies (CLEEN)
1. Hosted November Smart Grid meeting
2. Newsletters
• Health Sciences
1. Continued work on full medical school and graduate medical education for
entire region
o Community Empowerment Zone
• Due to changes in legislation, decrease in interest in this program
• Advocacy work at the state level to revert legislation for maximum utilization
• Working with two potential expansions for 2011
1
f
[ Business Recruitment Activities
Recruitment Activities
New Prospects 160 480
New Qualified Leads Generated 29 82
Hosted Visits in Spokane 4 IEMIIIII
->- Visits to a Recruit Lead's Location 13 22
Lj=32.
i,., Recruitment Wins 1 4
I
l Direct Jobs Created 40 200
,:
" Indirect Jobs Created 320
Direct Investment $0 $72,000
Direct Annual wages $1,484,000 $11,241,618
Annual Economic Output $20,974,239 $119,902,901
Annual Local Tax Revenue from $230,721 $956,493
Output
. @ rim 42.1 :
Aerospace/Manufacturing 6
Business and Professional Services 2
IT and Digital Services
Clean Tech and Energy Efficiency 1
Other
I y Recruitment Wins
A win is defined as a company that formally announces the selection of the Spokane Region
as a place to site their business.
There was 1 recruitment win in Q4 2010:
l Associated Painters
l ;
' For over three decades Associated Painters, Inc. (AP)
has been in the business of painting commercial aircraft.
AP
t=tcd n!er, http://www.associatedpaintersinc.info/
Recruitment Losses
A loss is defined as a company who seriously considered the Spokane Region as a place to locate their business,
but chose another town/city from their short-list.
There were no recruitment losses in Q4 2010.
1
i
c
uuuuiuuuuuuuuiuuuiuu
1 City of Cheney 5
Spokane County 2 35
City of Spokane 47
City of Spokane Valley 22 75
r City of Liberty Lake 14 35
Airway Heights,West Plains 3 4
Fairfield
I
Outreach Activities:
• Responded to 18 requests for proposals
1 • Contacted 2053 site selection consultants on a regular basis:
Io Electronic mail pieces were sent to national and international site consultants and corporate
t
real estate brokers.Articles highlighted topics such as the Q3 Business Barometer and Advanced
I. Research at EWU
• Generated 32 media hits in Q3 equaling to $17,004.91 in advertising.
i • Advertising
o Journal of Business October, November "What is the Smart Grid?"
December—"Looking to Expand your Business?", "Clean Tech & Energy Efficiency"
o Trade and Industry Development
October, November--"Spokane in#1 State to Start a Business"
f • Social media
, s o Facebook -624 friends, Twitter—1,607 followers, Blog
1
Business Retention & Expansion (BRE) Activities
BR&E Activities
Business Assists 61 131
Business Visitations 23 90
New Business Retention
& Expansion Prospect Cases 6 ME
Business Retention
& Expansion Wins 0 10
Direct Investment 0 $12,998,296
Direct Annual Wages 0 $62,808,000
Annual Economic Output 0 $295,432,736
Local Annual Tax Revenue
from Total Output 0 $4,019,586
One-Time Construction
Total Economic Impact 0 $9,735,873
Business Retention & Expansion Prospects
A business retention& expansion prospect is a local or regional company that has contacted GSI with a business
z i
climate,policy, expansion, or retention issue.
There were 0 BR&E wins in Q4 2010,due in part to the restrictions on the use of the CEZ incentive.
Industry Engagement
• Clean Technology and Energy Efficiency
o The November Good Morning Greater Spokane featured Smart Grid Technology.An audience of
E ? 200 heard Philip Mezey of Itron and Roger Woodworth of Avista present on the Smart Grid.
Green businesses participated with display tables.
o Advertisements focused on Spokane clean technology were placed in publications such as
Global Corporate Expansion and the Spokane Journal of Business.
o CLEEN Biz& Buzz e-news communicated local news and events to 1100 regional engineers,
architects,innovators, and others.
o www.cleennw.org. The CLEEN J NW website serves as a one-stop resource for clean tech,
containing sections on incentives, how to green your business, regional partners, and a directory
of local clean tech businesses.The directory listings increased by 33%over the last quarter.
• Advanced Manufacturing/Aerospace
o The INWAC website launched January 19.
o Serving on INWAC board and INWAC MSN sub-committee
o Participated on panel for Manufacturers Roundtable.
• Health Sciences and Services
o Tripp Limbach has been engaged to do the business plan which will lead to accomplishment of
the goals of the Academic Health Science strategy.
o GSI has coordinated over 80 focal leaders to travel to Olympia to advocate for$70M in funding
for a full medical School and Pharmacy.
o A staff person has been hired for the HSSA grant, Medical Education Expansion/Outreach
Project,which was awarded to GS] and WSU collaboratively.
Procurement Technical Assistance Center(PTAC) - Government Contracting
• Q4, PTAC hosted 9 educational trainings with an attendance of 155 and gained 37 new clients.
• PTAC-200 followers on social media platforms
PTAC Contract Awards #Contracts $Awards #Jobs
Spokane Valley
Q4 2010 14 $1,492,805 30
Total 2010 27 $54,881,701 1097
2006-2010 388 65,409,323 1308
BIZStreet Activities
BIZStreet workshops and PTAC Services are open to all businesses at no or nominal cost,
regardless of membership in Greater Spokane incorporated
• October through December 2010,the BIZStreet Resource Advisors assisted 15 entrepreneurs with
information, referrals and services.Seven small business development workshops were attended by 143
individuals from Spokane area companies.
• Three newsletters to 4000 targeted individuals;three blogs addressed small business issues.
• Partnered with PTAC to present business resource information to 15 small businesses
+ Launched Small Business Council to address concerns. Partnered with City of Spokane to distribute a
survey to small businesses and provided feedback for the Seven in Eleven.
• BIZStreet has 200 followers on social media platforms
1
Business Development Projects
• Regional Economic Forecast
Hosted the annual Economic Forecast November 16 with Dr.John Mitchell of M&H Consultants, and Dr.
l s:
Grant Forsyth of Eastern Washington University. More than 600 people attended. Presentations are on
our website.
• CEDS
As the designated regional entity responsible for the Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy,
GSI convened a group of 49 leaders to request and prioritize projects for the future economic
PI development of the Spokane region.Sub-committees worked on the vision, plan and projects. 9 new
projects and 2 updated projects,were submitted.The CEDS document is posted on GSI's website.
• State of Spokane County
Presented at GMGS on March 11 at Mirabeau Park Hotel.
• ACCRA Cost of Living Index
Partnered with EWU on gathering price data for Spokane Metro area. Figures are use in the national
ACCRA Cost of Living Index.Spokane ranked 93.3 for Q2 2010.
• Catalyst Awards
A successful event attended by 200 people was held in the University District to celebrate the winners of
the 2010 Catalyst Awards. Honored were Ken Grunzweig Innovator of the Year: Kim Zentz;Company of
the Year; HOTSTART; Clean/Green Company of the Year: McKinstry; Organization of the Year: Goodwill
Industries Empowerment Zone;Clean/Green Organization of the Year Spokane Indians Baseball
Club/Avista Stadium; Mentor of the Year: Norm Leatha; Emerging Innovators of the Year: Brian Boler
and Reid Schilperoort.
• Partnered with WorkSource to create an incentives piece for business in Spokane.
• www.SelectSpokane.com SelectSpokane.com partners are: Spokane County, City of Spokane, City of
Spokane Valley, City of Liberty Lake, Avista Corp.,and Greater Spokane Incorporated. In collaboration
with WSU-Spokane, GSl assisted in managing our regional site selector tool.
• The newly formed Economic Development Advisory Group(EDAG), made up of eighteen business and
civic leaders, met December 8 to strategize on increasing the awareness of economic development
activities and developing a quarterly economic briefing program. The group will continue meeting
quarterly.
• Hosted Boost Your EQ, an economic development quarterly briefing on November 18.Three Spokane
Valley businesses were highlighted. Companies fell under the following categories: recruits, government
contractors, and business expansions—all assisted by GSI.
• 4 Spokane Valley companies featured in Alaska Airlines Magazine insert on innovation:One Earth
Starch, Western systems and Fabrication,Solarmation, and Critical Logic.
Workforce and Career Awareness Activities
From 2007 to present: 24,734 students, 966 educators,and 31 schools in 17 districts were served by GSI's
Career Awareness Campaign.
• Teach the Teachers
Held 3 Teach the Teachers workshops in Q4 with a total of 34 participants from CVSD,Spokane
Public Schools (Ferris, Havermale, LC,Skills Center,Shadle), Mead, Newport, EVSD, Deer Park, Riverside,
Cheney, WVSD and the Spokane Community College.Teach the Teachers workshops will continue in the
2011 academic year,
Q4 Topics;
o Energy&Power with Inland Power and Gonzaga University.
o Hospitality with Northern Quest&SCC
o Entrepreneurial Workshop with Tom Sawyer Coffee, Barrister Winery, Dry Fly Distillery and
Gonzaga University.
• Career Exploration Day will be held April 28 at Rodgers High School, 1600 students from Rogers will
attend and another 1500-2000 students will be bused in for the event,
Strategic Engagements
• University District Development
o Participating on U-District Development Board, U-District Advisory Committee and MarCom
Committees
o Combined U-District Month kick-off celebration with Catalyst Awards on November 6 at the
Gonzaga University campus.
• Public Policy
o State Agenda—the Public Policy Committee hosted the State Agenda Review with Jim Hedrick,
our state lobbyist.Twenty-one organizations presented their projects.
o Presented State Agenda at State Legislative Forum, held December 1, attended by 300. Our
legislative panel -Sen. Lisa Brown,Sen. Mike Hewitt (Walla Walla), Rep. Timm Ormsby, and Rep.
Joel Kretz and moderator Denny Heck.
o Planning for Olympia trip,Jan. 26-28;83 business and civic leaders are participating.
o Federal Agenda-The Federal Legislative Advisory Group hosted the Federal Agenda Review
with our federal lobbyist in attendance. 16 organizations presented.
o Completed the draft for FY 2012 Federal Agenda
o Planning for DC trip—April 5-8th to advocate for items in the Federal Agenda.
o Attended City Council meetings, reported back to GS' staff
'1
CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY
Request for Council Action
Meeting Date: February 8, 2011 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: Potential Land Acquisition
GOVERNING LEGISLATION: ROW 42.30.110(1)(b)]
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN:
BACKGROUND:
OPTIONS:
RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: "I Move that Council adjourn into executive session
for approximately minutes to discuss Potential Land Acquisition and that no action
will be taken upon return to open session."
BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS:
STAFF CONTACT:
ATTACHMENTS: