Loading...
2008, 07-29 Special Joint Spokane Council Meeting City of Spokane Valley Fi le Copy CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEX AGENDA SPECXA:L JQIiNT MEETING/STUDY SESSION SpQkane Valley City Council/Spokane City Council T'uesday, July 29, 200$ 12:00 p.m. - 3:00 p.m. Spokane Valley City Council Chambers, Spokane Valley City Hall 11707 E Sprague Avenue DISCUSSION AGENDA ITEMS INCLUDE (but are not limited to): 1) Growth Management & Joint Planning Areas (JPAs) 2) Wastewater Treatment Facility 3) Transportation Benefit District (TBD) 4) Fees: (a) Traffic Impact Fees; (b) Permit Fee Structure 5) Panhandling 6) Other: lVote: Unless othorwise noted above, no public comments will be taken at this meeting. However, Council atways reserves the right to request information from the public and staff as appropriate. During mestings held by the City of Spokane Valley Council, the Cfluncil reserves the right to tske "action° on any item listed or subsequently added to the agenda. The term °action" means to deliberate, discuss, review, consider, evaluate, or make a collective positive or negative decisfon. NOTICE: Individuals planning to attend the meeting who require special asslstance to accommodats physical, hearing, or other impafrments, please contact the C'rty Clerk at (509) 921-1000 as soon as possible so that arrangements may be made. July 29, 2008 Joint Meeting, Council & Spokane City Council (7FF1CE OF THE CITY A'I'I OR.NEY Spcrry,kane NIICHAEL CONYLLLY, CI'CY A'TTOR.NEY Cr1RY P. DRISKEI.,I.,, pEPUTY CI"1'Y ATTORNEY Valley~ 11707 E Sprague Ave Sui[e 106 ♦ Spokane Valley WA 99206 509.921.1000 ♦ Fax: 509.921.1008 4 cityhall@spokanevalley.org Memorandum To: Mayor l7ich Munson, membe..sjof the'City Council From: 1Vlichacl F. Connel ~;~61 ttorney CC: Dave lVl:ercier, City Maniiger, illike Jackson, Deputy City Manager, Kathy vlcClung, Community Develapment Director GIMAIJoint Planni.ng Update The City of Spokane Valley 11as been activcly cngageci in negotiacions vvith Spokane Cotuity to facilitale joiut pluuiuig of land use developm.ent since August of 2005. Attached as Fxliibit A is a summary of signiCcant steps ta.ken tlirou~h Fcbntary of2008. The City also successfully tinalized a Joint !'laiuiuig Agreement with respect to lhe Tur.tle Creek area south of the City o('Spokane Valley on the 28[h day of April, 2008. Tlus agreement is attached as Exhibit B. The City lias also participaied in the R.egionAl Collaboration effarts currently being conducced by CTEl7. There have been tAvo graiits provided so far and a[hird that was just received. Attacheci as E:chibit C is a summary of all graut relatcd activity to date. l lus has resuliecl in a Gollaborativc Planning R.epnrt issued iii July of 2007 ancl the Plaiuiing"Cechnical Comnuttee Regianal ColJaboration Urbmi GroNN'th Area Updaie dated ivlay of 2008. We are expectuig an additional report froin the consultants analyzing devclopmenc regulat.ions aiid review processes f.or the UCA's on January 29, 2008. Tlle City is further currently worl:ing witM STA co enter i.nto an uiterlocal agreemcnt clefuung each jurisdiclions role in preservafipn of a rapid trausit corridor within the City of Spokane Valley, a copy of discussion pouits relating to this effort is attacheci as EYhibit D. To datc the City has not engaged in joint planni.ng discussion urith the Cin, of Spokane regarciing development, transpartation or infrastnicture cost issues. Attached as E:clubit ! E is a map dcpicting ttie shared bounciaries beh;?een rhe two Ciiies as Nvell as County propertics where developmcnt may effect both jurisdictions. Roadblocks to JQint Planninp: 1. Lack of success in developing joint planning agrcements with Spokaiie County. RThile the Growth Vlanagement Steerina Committee by motion recommendcd that no future UGA's be identi.f:ied unri] joint planning agreemencs are in place; ( Sec exubit F) aiid Further recam.mended a template joiiit planning aD eement ( See Exhibit G) littlc progr.ess has been made beyond the Turkle Creek A~,~reement referencecl above. 2. The absence o:f a elear ciefinirion of the specific concerns and priorities held by the COunty NN7tli respect to futuce and existing urbali developmenl. A possible initia.l stcp in resolving this would be for the County to i_dentify wliat their policy objee:tives are sa the Cities eould fash.ion aa-eements that were cognisant of those gaals. 3. The b:isic disagz'eenient between Cities and the County over whether or nal the CoLmty 5hpuld encompass urbazt areas at a.ll as gro,,vttl mana;ement pursuant to RCW 36.70A is imPlemented. NVhile a numbe.r of court cases and IIearing Board Decisions have adclressed khis issue diere has been no judicial resolution of the issue ui Spokasie County. 4. 17ifferinp- devclopmcnt standarcis between jurisdictions particularly within mctropolita.n UGA's. 2 _ Exh i bit A . CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY ' Request for Council Action ~ Meeting Date: Februay S, 2008 , City Manager Sign-off: Item: Check a11 that apply: ❑ consent ❑ old business Cl n uSetio❑n public hearing , 9s a •0 information ❑ admin. report 0 pndn9 ls AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Joint Planning Area Update • GOVERNING LEGISLATION: RCW 36.70A, Spokane County Wide Planning Policies. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION TAKEN: See below ' BACKGROUND: (All identified exhibits are available for your review with the City clerk.) 1. On August 10, 2005 the Joint Planning Subcommittee of the GMA Steering Committee of Elected Officials discussed steps necessa,ry to create joint planning agreements. . Minutes of that meeting are attached as Exhibit A. 2. On September 06, 2005 the City of Spokane Valley provided a proposed Joint Planning Agreement to the Spokane County Commissioners. A copy of that agreement and the commissionees response is attached as exhibit B. 3. On September 29, 2006 this agreement was discussed at the Joint CitylCouncil . Meeting at the Spokane Valley Council Chambers. See attached Notice of Special Meeting attached as Exhibit C. v 4. Between*this date and early 2006 the City and County exchanged versions of this Joint Planning Agreement. What began as a specific joint planning agreement with respect to the TurtleCreek area evolved into a discussion concerning a template to be used by the ' County for all inter-jurisdictional joint planning agreernents. . 5. On January 18, 2006, the GMA Steering Committee approved a Motion Recommending Joint Planning For Existing Urban Growth Areas, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit D. 6,. On February 08, 2006, •the City of Spokane Valley provided the GMA Steering Committee members with copies of a draft Joint Planning Agreement proposed to be adopted as a template. Ttiis agreement was ~to be discussed at the GMA Steering Committee meeting on February 16, 2006. (See e-mail from Spokane County to the GMA Steering Committee, attached as Exhibit E.) 7. On May 17, 2006, the City of Spokane Valley sent, at the request of the County, an additional copy of the joint planning agreement provided to the GMA Steering Committee. (See e-mail attached as Exhibit F.) 8. On June 28, 2006 the GMA Steering Committee considered a joint planning agreernent to be used as a template. By this time the document included changes suggested by both Spokane County and the City of Spokane. (See minutes attached as Exhibit G.) - ~ 9. The GMA Steering Committee discussed the joint planning agreement template at both its September and October meetings. Possible changes were* presented and discussed. No action was taken. 10. On October 16, 2006 Spokane County circulated a revised copy of the joint planning agreement to all members of the GMA Steering Committee for consideration on `November 15, 2006 (See minutes of GMA Steering Committee attached as Exhibit H). 11. On November 15, 2006, the GMA Steering Committee continued to discuss the agreement. No action was taken. (See ininutes -of GMA Steering Committee attached as Exhibit I). . 12. In November of 2006 the jurisdictions of Spokane County, the City of Spokane, the City of Spokane Valley, the City of Liberty lake and the City of Airway Heights received a collaborative grant from'CTED to review development regulations used. in the urban growth areas and municipalities in Spokane County. 13. On December 20, 2006, the GMA Steering Committee moved to accept the proposed Joint Planning Agreement as a template. The motion passed 8 to 3 with Commissioner Mielke, Commissioner Richard and Mayo.r Peterson voting against. The minutes of this meeting are attached as Exhibit J; the template agreement is attached as Exhibit K). 14. On May 29th, 2007 the results of the CTED grant were presented at a Luncheon meeting sponsored by CTED. (A copy of those results is attached as Exhibit L). 15. On July 23, 2007, at a joint meeting between the City of Spokane Valley City Council and Spokane County Commissioners, the most recent version of the GlenroselMoran Prairie JPA was discussed as a basis for future agreements with the City of Spokane Valley. (The County proposal and minutes of this meeting are attached as Exhibit M.) The City responded with several comments. (These comments are as set forth in the e- " mail to James Emacio attached as Exhibit N.) • 16. On July 31st, 2007 we were advised that the Commissioners would consider the City's comments in conjunction with their consideration of the Joint Planning Agreement being negotiated with the City of Spokane for the Glenrose area.( See e-mail from James Emacio, attached as Exhibit O). 17. On September 13, 2007, Spokane County sent correspondence and a proposed agreement to the City of Spokane and Cify.of Spokane Valley re.garding Glenrose/Moran. (See attached Exhibit P). : 18. On October 19, 2007 then Mayor Wilhite sent a letter to the Commissioners requesting that all UGA's adjacent to the City of Spokane Valley be identified as Joint Planning Areas. (This letter is attached as Exhibit Q). 19. On November 27, 2007, Spokane County Commissioners scheduled discussion of the Mayor's request. No action was taken at the meeting. The City did advise the County that they would provide an updated version of the Turtlecreek JPA for County consideration by the end of the year. 20. On December 4, 2007, the Commissioners considered the comments of the City of Spokane concerning the Glenros.elMoran Prairie agreement. No action was taken. ' 21. On December 24, 2007 the City of Spokane and Spokane County agreed on the - Glenrose JPA. . 22. On January 4, 2008, the City of Spokane Valley provided Spokane County with a revised version of the Turtlecreek JPA. A copy of that agreement is attached as Exhibit R). OPTIONS: council direction . RECOMMENDED ACTION OR MOTION: NA BUDGET/FINANCIAL IMPACTS: STAFF CONTACT: Mike Connelly, City Attorney • • ATTACHMENTS: N/A (See City Clerk for copies of identified exhibits.) Exhibit B . ~ ' TNTF'•R.LQCAL AGRl;LMENT REGA.R.DI!(G JOIiW k'LANTNTNG BETWLLN SPQKkiNE COUN'.L Y ANn THE CITY OF SPO:K.4► Vr1T..LFY Ihis Agrce.ment is enterzd into by Spokane County; hereinafter referreci Co as "County" and the - City of Spoka.ne Valley, hereinafter referred to as "City," jointly rrfereed to as the "Pariies." Whereas, a. Goal of t}ie State GroNvth IVfana€ement E1.ct is to ensure coordination behween communifies and jurisdictiotts, including special purpose districts to reconc.ile conflicts; and Whereas, R.CW 36.70A.210 sets forth certain requirements for County-wida planning policies, including that County-«ride planning policies sball addres,,; policies for joint county ancl eity piattning withi.n uctFUn gro-,vth areas; and Whereas, The Count}f-wide pla.niting policies for Spokane County adopted pursuaut to RCW 36.70A.210 contain policies for a joint planninD process intended to i-esolve issues rzga.rding how zoving, subdivision and other land use approvals in desi'iated joiiit plaiining areas «jill ba coordinaled, ~.acl khat such joint planning may be accocr.iplislied pw,sua.►rt to an interlocal agreement entE;rc;cl i_nto behveen and/oe aniong jurisdictions and/or spccial purpose disti•icts; and Whereas, the Parties are desirous of coordinating zoning, subdivision and other (and use approvats in the Tun:lecreek area of thc Urbai Gro~k-lh Area (iJGA) as depicteci on Che rriap in Lxtubit .A (hereinaiZer the TurtlccreEk A,rea) and in those are.as of e6e Ci[y of Spokanc Valley wtiere development clircetly i.rnpacts transportation syslems within t:i1e Turtlecreek Area; Fuid Whereas, thc Parties recognize that development nccurri.ng in one jurisdiction can have transporl:at:ion unpacts on neighboring jurisdiccions a.nd wis}i to develop and adopt development rea lations that will assist in idenCifying and tttitigatiiicy those impacts; and Whereas, ttie defuled Turtlecreek Area is esperiencU.1- significant davelopment antL'or reqnesrs for development; and Whereas, development wiiliin the Turtlecreek Area and developnlent within the City of SpoRane Valley may i.rrspact the ability of the County and the Ci[y of Spokave Vatley to plari and provide adequate Joint Planning Agreement Turtlecreek Page 1 af 17 C08-37 transportatiou facilities in compliance with RC1V 36.70A The Grovvth tManaaeinent Act; and NVheceas, the Parties Nuish to separate, without prejudice to either Party, the issue of potential annexation of thae poruon of the Turtlecrrek Area withvn the Urban Growth Area and the le~al authority and riglit [o pursue or oppose sucb azwesation from ihis Agreement. NoFV, Theref'orc Be Tt Resoivcd, in order to coordinate the review and approval of zoning, subdivision and other land use actions, and to ensure tii3t transportation capacity for development meets concurrency requirements and that consistent development staiidards are used, the Parties agree to cooperative joint planning pursuant to the following tenns and conditions: 1. LeRal hasis: This Agreement is entered'into pursuajrt to RCW 36.70A.010; 020(3); 210 (3) (a), (b), (ct), and (f); RCW 39.34; Countywide PItuining 1'olicies Far Spokane County (Planning Policies) Topic 2; Overview of Groxth Management Act (GN1A) Requirements; '1'opic 2,1'olicies (1) itnd (2); Topic 5 Transportation, Overview of Groa+tli ATanagement (GMA) Requu-ements; and Glossary CountyGVide .Plaialaing Poliey Terms, Joint Planning rl.reas. 2. I:ntent: it iS the intent 0# the Pa,~ties: a. To provide for coordinated planning for traisportation Nvith referance to and consideration of the SkTC TmfFic Analysis Zones ('rA2) in the Turtlecreek Area and in those areas of the City Qf Spoka.ae Valley whErE ctEVClnprrtent dirccl:ly im.paets txansporcatiou systcros witFiin the Turtlecreelc Area and to provide for cc>ordinated developlileclt standards in ttle Turtlecreek Area. ' b. To ensure that transpoirtation improvements necessary to mitigate tNuisportation impacts resulting f.rom new development i» the Turtlecreek Area and in thosc areas of the City of Spokane Valley where development ctirectly impacts transportations systems witllui the `I'urdecreek Area are ider}tificci a.nci constructed concurrent wir.h the development and/or that adequate f~tncling is seeured co finance construction of such transportation iniprovements covcurrent with development, as required by RCW 36.70A.070(6)(b). . c. ' To ensure that clevelopment standanis applied within the Turtlecreek t1rea relating to allowable land uses, densities, streets, sidewllks, cu.rbing, drainage and uciliries are compatible 7oint.platini.ug Agreement Turtlecreek. • Page 2 of 17 and evolve towards consistency. The Parties agree to joinily dev-elop and implemeiit mutually agreecj upon development regulations, procedtues and stvidards related to khe review and approval of projects widi i❑ the above described Turtlecreek E1.rea. The Parties aLso ttesi.re to jointly establish and i►nplement consistent development regulations a.nd procdures goveming ttie pravision of all public facilities within said Turttecreek :1rea. The Parties agree to corninit sufficient st<i.ff to draft and fnalize thesE spacific regulations and proeedure,s in a timely manuer. 3. Aaplicabititv: 1'lie tlgreement shall apply to development proposals witlain the Turtl.ecreck A.rca and ttie City of Spokanc Vatley as defined in section (G) below. 4. Proiects affected: T1iis Agreemene a.pplics to new development proposals ili tile Turl;lecreek Area that are subject to the Nqtice of Application requireaients of RCW 36.70B as adopted by the respective Parties, including proposals subject to the State Fnvironmental r'olicy Aet. This AgreEmcilt futrther applies to new development proposals within the City of Spoka.vc Val.ley i6a.l are subjECt to tlie Notice nf A.Pplication i-equirements of RCW 36.70B as adopt:ed by the cespective parl:iGe, including proposals subject to the State Envi.roninental Policy Act, w6erE t}le development proposal dirzctty impa.cis transportation sysCems widiin the 1 url:lecreek A.rra. Direct impact, for t:hc purposes of this ageemenfi is dzfined as wniributing 20 or more pealc hour trips to arferial intersections withi.n che 'I'urClecreek Area as icfentifcd in the Trip GenEration Reports required in paragraph (5) (a) below. Noticc of Application, Nadee of Hearing and Noticc uf Decision requireci by RCW 36.70B and any enviroumcnral checklist, ELS or other cnvironmental docutnEnt required pursuant to RGW 43.21C f'or Developrnent Proposals as deftned in pararaph (4) above shall be provided io each pariy by the ottter party in a timeIy rnaucaer and in accorclance with applicable regulatiCns. The 1}arties furl:her agree they sbaU pmvide each other at least 7 days notice of any technical review mecting(s) with respect to a development proposal and to allow actd encourage eacEt otlier to attend any building permit preconstraccion conference and/or techniea.l rr-:view meetings. Such riotice shall be in the forzn oFstandard notice for such technical review meeting given by eitber party. Joint Planning Agreement Turelecreek . Page 3 ot 17 The Parties (or tHeir authori•r.ed designees) sha11 confer on developmcnt proposals as defined above in tlus paragr'aph (4) prior to issuance of ai}y final DvS, INIDNS or stafP report to the Hearing Examiner in an attempt to reaeh a consensus position/recommendation. For SEPt1. ciocumsnCs, the jurisdiction baving Jead aaency st~.tus shall include the consensus/collective reeomme~►dation anc~ any miti?ating eonditions, or thcir individual recommendations and any miiigatina conditions if unable to reach consenstu; as applicable; for projects proceeding 'to public liearing, both Parties shall include the consensus recommendation in their respective staff rcportlreconunenciecl conditions of approval to the He<u-ing Examiner or other appropriate heari»g body, or, iF unable to agree, their re~ective recommendatioiis. 5. Transpc►rtaL•ion: The Partie,s recognize t}iat devclopment activity within tlieir respective jurisdictiAns maY causc trat.asportation impacts au(I may impact h-ansporiation Ievels of service in nei,ghboring jurisdictions. To ensurE: proper identification and mitigation of development related transportation impacts, the Parties agree rhat: a. 'Unless ot[ienwise inconsistent witli la-vv, the Parties shall require applicanLs subject to the 1Votice ofApplication rcquirements to submit a lrip generation letter in counection witli any proposed development Qctivi .ty generatiiig 10 or more p.EU. peak hour trips Nvithin the'1'urdecreek Area or witliin the City af Spokane Valley. I.n all cascs withiyi ttie Turtlecreek tlrea and in all cases witliin the City of Spokwe Valley where the requirements of paragraph (4) arc met, where such trip generation letter indicates that the progosed development activity will generaze 100 or more p.m. peal: hour hrips, the Yarties shall also require the applicrwt to prepare a Traffic rmpact Study (TIS) qtta.ulifying the transportation i.mpacrs of ttiis dcvelopment acCivity, aod identifying potential mitigation of all siAnifca.zit impacts. Where a trip generation letter indicates Jie proposeci dcvelopmenC activity Nvill generaxe fewer ,;ood faith a netluest by the ocber Party than 100 p.m. pea}: hour trips, each of the f'arties shall consider in vo to require a clevcloper to prepare a TIS, but the ullimate decision on sucb applications as to wliether or not to require aT[S sball be decided by the Patty having cegulatory authoriCy over the subject application for development approval. The t;erminolagry TIS is defined in Section 1.30 of the Spol:ane County Road and Jointi Planning Agreement Turtlecreek PaDe 4 of 17 , Drai.nage Standards, a copy of which is attached liereto as Exhibit "B." 1'he Partiie^, tnndersu.nd fliat the terminology TIS may range from an in depth analysis oCche site (development proposal) generaleci levels- of scrvice to a cursory review of safefy issues; provided, in cases where a t.rip geaeration letter indieatcs a clcveloproent proposal will gecierate 100 or more p.m. peak lzour trips, the TIS shall cvaluate the itnpacts of thosc trips on thosc arterial roactways and intersections ictent&ied in Exliibit "C" at a miu.imum. In che event the Party mii:b.i.n Fvhose jurisdiction the devclopinent proposal is proposed detennines to nequire preparation of a 1'IS, the otlier paAy shall have an apportunity to participate in the scopiiio used to determ.i.ne the depttt ofanalysis. • b. Tn approving andlor making reconuneridations regardinb development proposals, • each of tlie P3rties shal.l require (or rccommend, as ttie case rnay be) constracl:ion o#'the tra.nsportation improvemcnts necessa.ry to mitigate traiisportation impacfs identified in the TIS concumcnt with development as required by RCW 36.70A.070(6)(b) azid/or the deciication of such land or paymec7t of money i.n lieu thereof tbat is necessary to mitigate such impacts to the jurisdiction whose transportahon system is fliereby impacted. Any sucla fees shall be held and encUmbered as provided in 1KCW 82_02.020. C. For development proposals as definecl in parapmph (4) above, where construction of improvements necessary tn mitigate idenlrGed direct transportation impacts does not tace place concurrene with tbe developrneut proposal, the Parties shall jointly establish a tani.forin tnetltocl Eor quantifiying appropriate finwcial contribution, among t1ie Ciry, County and sponsor/developer of the development proposal fnr impro<<ement:s to be made within 6 years of the approval of the developrnent proposal for iclcntifed direct transport:ation iinpacts. The Pai-ties rec4g»ize t[iax to implement I:his ' Agreemeitt some rnodification of existing re-ulations may 6e required and agee to ala}:e sueh mod't.fications in a timely manuer consistent wit}i any applicable law after establishment of awiiform a.nd mutoally agreed upon method fnr cjuanEifying appropriate financial conh-ibutions. d. Dcveiopment propossls as derined in paragraph (4) above sbaJl not be approvcd chat c..suse levels of service on loealty owneci transportalion facilities in either.jurisclietion io drop below the standards adopted in the transportaiion elements of the re5pective Parties' comprehensive plans, Joint Ylwnivg tlareemenc Turtlecreek Pagc 5 of 17 unless transportation iinprovemenLq or strategies to accommodate the impacts of ctevelopment a.re made conctLrrent with the developrnent proposals or the development proposal i; covditioncd io aecomplish concurrency. The pacties agree to (1) nolify each otiaer and (2) in good faith consider the other's conccrns «Tich regard to the consideration of any cbanae in their respective adopted levels of service that may impact the aperation of this agreement. ror purpases of this racluirement, "concurrent with the clevelopment proposals" sliall mean that improvemenls ar strategies are in place at the time af development, or tiiat a Finaneia.l Commitment is in plaoe to complete the necessary improvements or stmtegies withi.n six years. The Pa.rties furYher agree to identify development proposals i3hat fail to comply «+ith the concurrency stantlards oE eitber Party and to report their respectivre findings to the decisiou maker in written staff repaets. 6. Devel.or►menl• Standards: Thc Parties reeogmize that c1evelopmene iu the Turrlecreek Area witliout compatible dcvclopment regulations could &ustrate the purpose and intent of this Agreement. - a. Thc Parties agree tn assign the necessary staff to review applicable development ' regulations, including but not limited to zonino- designations, PTJD sfandards, lanc3scaping, sis.,~age, subclivision, road and strzet stancla.rds, sewer and water standards, bieyeie paths, jogging lanes, trail sysf:eTns applicaxion review procedures and stormwater drainage requirements_ Such review should include rc•presentatives frnm the privak~e sector wlto may be itupacted by auy sucti atnendinents. The process of identification and irnplementation of development regulations for the Turtleci-eek Area sliall commenec upon the siamino o.C Giiis t•lgreement by the Patties, aad sliall comply with the schoclule of events set forth in L.xliibit "D" hereto. The schcdule of evenis as set forl:h iu E.Yhibit `D" shall include laitg[2a.ge providing some flexibility to the I'arties in light of unforeseen cirouinstanccs wtuch might affect any agreed to schedule. b. The Parties agree to confer on tbe net.essity for and/or the location of any connector sCreet;s antt/ar the clitssification of any streeb within or adjacent to a Development Proposal(s) «itiiin t}ie TurtlecrECk Area. if, aft:er satisfying the Parties' respective obligations hereuuder, w Joi»t .Pla.t2ning A„ree;nent Tzirtlecreek Fage 6 of 17 aoreement is not reaclieci, both Parties may present their respective positions Co the Hu3ring ~Examiner, appropriate hearuic, body, or administrative official. c. Tbe Parties ag-ee to eonsult on Comprahensive Plarl/Zonin; categories, al]owable lanci uses and densities in the Turtleereek Area. Such constiltation shatl inclucte cansulLation on the elassification of streets and roadways oci the c;ouimon borders. d. The Varties agree to adopt and efiforee dEVelopment regulations, consistent with FZCDV 36.70A.070(6)(b) which proliibit development approval if the clcvelopment causes the level of service on,an affected bransportation facility in eiiiier jurisclietion to deeline below tlhe standards adoptcd i.n the transpo►rtation element of the comprehcnsive plan of eit6er of the Parties, unless uanspertatson improvemcnts or stratcgies to accommodale tl-ie impact's of development are uiade concureent wit:h the devefopment or the de<<elopment proposal is condiiioned to accomplisli concw7rency. Sirategies may ittclude inercased publie iTansportation service, ride sharing programq, demiwcl managerr►ent, and ot:her ti'snsportatiofl sysfems management sU•ategies. For purposes of tliis requirEmcnt, "concureent -,vich the developinent" shall mean tbat icnprovements or stra.teaies are in place at the time of development, or t6ae a fina,7cia1 commitment is in place to complete the uEcessary u-nprovenlenTS or strategies within six years. 7. Other RcEtclacinns: Nodiing in this Agreement shall supersedc or negate any existing la.nd use or cievelopment regulation of the Parkies. 3. AddiCiunal A.yreerneufs: The 1'arties contemplate future joint plannin- agreer.nents that tnay relate to other TJrUan Crowtll Areas. Nofliin5 in this A&meement is intendetl to prohibit the development of future agreements relating to either the impacts idenxi.fed abflve or otlier irnpacts tliat may now or in the future eYist_ 9. 1Lizhte Reserved: Nodhing in [his Agreemccit is int'ended to waive or limit die righCs of the Partie.s to reyuire fnitig3iion for any impact as allowed by federal, st,a.1:E or local law-s or ordinances including buc not 1'unified to environr.nential impacts aoverned by chapter 43.21C RCW or mitigaiion fees governed by RCW 32.02.050 et seq. Joint Plann.i.n~ .~greement Turtlecreek I'age 7 of 17 1.0. Chan6e in Standards or Or.dinances: Any change in the Parties respective (i) dcveloptnent regulations, (ii) comprehensive. plans, or (iii) official controls regardless of whether they ai3ect tiic Turtlecreek Ai•ea shall be forwardeci to the odier parfy within 21 days of passage. 11. Mediation of 1)isvtites: Aaiy disputes arising from this Agreement may be set for me.diation by either party within 30 days of notification of a ctispute. Prior to mecliatiou, t}ie Parties, rcpre.sented by dieir elected officials, sball flrst meet infonnally in ata attelnpt to reacb rESOhition. Yf a mediaior caunot be agreed upon by the Parties, cacli party shall select one iiiediator who in turn shall select a third meciiatbr to conduct the mediaeion. The decision of the mediation panel sliall not be binding on eittier pa.rty. Provided, however, che Parties agree to consider in good faifh the decisiori of d1e media.tion pariel. 12. Tndernnification and .T_:iability: , a. Spokane County shall protect, save harmless, indenmify anct tlefend, at its own expense, the Ciiy, its elected and appaintecl oi:ficials, officers, employeES and agents, from any loss or claim fnr diunEiges of any natw-e Nvhatsoever arisino, out of Spokane Cqunty's performance of this _ Agre:erncnt, including clzuns by Spokane Cowity's employe.e.s or third pariies, except i'or ttiose damages caxised solety by tlle negligeuce or wi!]ful misconduct of the City, ics electEd and appointed officials, offlcees, ernployffs, or ageiits. b. The City shaU protect, save harmless, i.ndemnify aud defend, at ies oNvn expense, Spokane County, its electeci and anpointed officials, officers, employees and agenf's, fropn any loss or claim for da.mages of any ciature wbatsoever arising out of the City's performance of chis Agreement; i.ncludin~ clainu by the City's einployees or third p~u-ties, except for those damages caused solely by che nc;liDence or willful uuscouduet of Spokane Councy, its elected and appointed officials; officers, employees, or agents. c. In the event of liability for damag-es of avy nature whaYsoever arisi.ng out of the performa.nce of this AgreemEnt by Spokane County and tie City, includiqg claims by Spokane Counfy's or City's owu o.icers, o$icials, employees, agents, volunCeers, or diird parties, caused by or resulting Joint Plarining Abreement 1 urtlecre.sk Page 8 of 17 from the concurrent negligence of Spoka,ne County and the City, each T'3rCies shall ouly be liable to the extent of t6at party's negliaence. , d. No Iiability shall be attached to Spakane County ar the City by reason of enterinb into t}us Agreement eYCept as expressly provided 6erein. 13. Severabilitv: If any provision of this An-ree.ment or its applic3tiou lo atiy person or circumstanw is held inva.lid, the remainder of'the provision..~ andlor the application of the provisi4ns to other persons or circutnstances shall uot be affected. In suc}Z case, tlie Parlies agree to meet and amend this Agreement as may ba mutually deemed nscessary. 14. Lntire tlereemenl:: This Agreement constitutes the cncire agreement beiween the I'itrties witii ►-esgect to the matters seC forHi herein. This A.gp~eement may be amendett in writing by muttial a.t~rccment of the Partie,s. 15. I3csignaCed Reuresentakive. The Parl:ics agree t(lat the City Manager or his/lier designee sha11 be the designated representa.tive of the City for coordination of this Agreement anei for receipt of any communiearions related to this ,Agraement, ancl the Chairman of the Board of Counry Commissioriers or hisJher dcsianee shall be the designaCecl m- presentative of the County. jVithin 30 days of Cbc Pai-ties' mutua.l e-<ecution oF t:Fiis Agreement, f:t►e desigpiated rspresentakives shall form working grotcps cotisisting of tlieir respective employees and assi€u such o oups responsibility For complyiug with the tunetable set forth in Erhibit "D" hereto. 16. .F f.fective Dqte and Duration. This Agreemenl s1is11 become ekfcctive folloNving tlie approval of the Agrcement by tlie official govemina boclies of each of the Parties hereta and the signiDg of the Agreement by the duly authorizeci representative oF each of the f'a.reies heneto, and s6a11 rEmain in ' eff-ect uuless temiinatEd. 17. ')'ermination. Isither Party may terminate its obl.igation under this Ao-reeanent upon one year advance written notice to the other party. Following a termination, tlie Coanty and City are resFonsible #'or fiilfilling any outst:ancting obligations uiidcr this Agreemeut, or amendment thereto, iticurred prior to die effective date of the t•ermination. Joint Plaiwing Agrcement 1 irrelecreck 1''age 9 of 17 18. Ffeadings. The parag-apb heacii.ng-s appearing in thhis Agreement 1iave Ueen inserted solely for the purpose of convenience and ready reference. In no way do they purpose to, and shall not bc deemed to dcfne, limit or extend the scope or intent of: the paragraphs to which they pertain. 19_ Counterparts. This A;reement inay be exectrted in z~u►y number of counterparis, ea.ch of whicY►, when so e.xecuted and t3elivered, shall be an original; bcie sucb couuterparts shall together consEitutc but one and the same. 20. I'ropcrtv ancl Fc;uipment. Tha wvvnership of all proper[y and equipment utilized Uy any Pariy to nieet its obligations under 1:hE terms of tliis Agreement shall remain with sucli ParCy. 21. Venuc Stipulatiun. This Ageeement h~Ls be:£n and s}iall be construeti as havi»g been made and delivered witkin the State of Waslungton an<I iC is mutuaily understood and aJ`reed by each Party that this Ageement shall ve governed by the 1aws of ctie State of Washington both as to inteipretation and rerformauce. Any action at law, suit in ecluity or judicial proceedings i'or the enforcement oFlhis Agre.eanent, or any provisions hcreto, sha.ll be instihited only in courts of competent jurisdiction within Spokane County, Washingten. 22. ]N?otices. All notices or other cammunic.ations sriven 6ereunder shall be deemecl given on: (i) the day such notices or other communications are receivecl wIjen sent by personal delivery; or (ii) the third day following flle day on whicta the same have been maileci by certified mail delivery, receipt requested and pvstagc prepaid addressed to the Parties at Uic adciresses set forrtli. belo-w, or ar such other address a..a the T'arties shall from tiule-to-time desigmaie by notice ul writing to the otlier Parties. COUNTY: Ctiairman of die Bo3rd of County Commissioners 1116 Arest Broadway Avenue Spokane, 4Vashington 99260 CTZ'Y: ' City of Spokanc Valley City Manager or his/her authorized . representative City f4all 11707 East Sprague Avcnue, Suite 106 Spokane Valley, WashinLtoa 99206 Joint Plaalning Agreement Turtlecreek Pagc 10 of 17 23. IZC« 39.34 Required Clauscs. A. Punosc See Paa'agraph 2 above B. Duration See Paragrapli 15 above. C. Organizaeiou of scparate entit~, and its powers rfo new or separat:e Iegal or administeative entity is Crec11'eo[{ L'O administer the provisions of this Aareealent D. Responsibilities nf tbe 1'iu-ties. See provisions above. F. Aareement to be tiled. The City slaall file this flgreemeat with its City Clerk. The County shall place this Agreement on its web site. F. Financing. Each Pzrty shall be cesponsible for tlle ¢uiancing of its contractual obligatiotis under its - nonnal budgetary process. G. Ternination. See Parsgraph 17 above. 24. Evcnts oMefault. It sliall be an "Event of Defaulti" under th.is Agreeement if eitlier of the Par[ies f3ils duly to perform, observE or compty witll the covenants, agreements, or conditions on its part contained in this Agreement, and ,uch tteTault shall contuiue for a period of sixty (60) days ai3er written nat:iee oE such failure, i-equesting the same to be remedied, shall have been given to the pafty in ctefault by the von-deFauit:ing pariy, provided hotivever that sucb fa.ilure sliall not be an EveQt of llefau1C if it is kno-vvingly wd intenlionally waived by tlie nou-defaulting party. 25. Reinedies. Upon the occurrence and continuance of any Event of Defautt, the non- defaulting party's exclusive reniedies sha]1 be specific p£rformavice, dcclaratory judgment and other equitable remet3ies. 26. Lthibits. Fx,hibit "A" Map of Ciie Turtlecreek A.rea Exllibit `T3" Section 1.30 of ti.ie Sl3okane County Road and Drainaac Stajidards Exhibit "C" Atl:erial R_oadways and l',ntersections Joi.nt Planaing Agreement Turtlecreek Page 11 of 17 E:thibit "D" Process Description for interlocal agreement for UGA developrnent regulations for Spol:anc County/City of Spokane Valley UGt1IT1'A TN WUNTESS WHEltE0F, the Parties have caused dtis Aareeme»t to be execttted on the date and year opposite t}ieir m, spectivc signaturc blocks. BOARD OF COLNTY COVftii'BSSIONERS pF SPQKA\fF COU1'TY, WASKINGTON Xaf nate / BOrNIE IvAGER, Ch~tu Aate/ TODD MIELKE, Vice- ~o~,~;u patc ~1.RK RICHIIRD, Commission er p~~ •~iE epG ~~t~~'~~ •I' SF1~L , Daniela Erickson Clerk oPthe Board CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY ~4B sy: Da.t ~ Tit1e: ~ Approved as to form: City Clerk . City Attorney Joint Planning F1€reement Turtlecrcek Pagc 12 of 17 Fixliibft "q„ tJye Tur-1.lccr,~ek Afrs = a = ~ _ ~ - - ~ - ~ a • • i-v I , Pi~ , . , 4°1 i ~ 1 . r F , . J 4 d. I' I ~ p ,xLy- ~r - - - ~ - , y~ , "'-I - 4 •.7 ~ 'f-,4 E~f F- j c~~~~''I• 1 I ~ T - ~ FL J~.~int Planning Agrmmeut Turderreek Page 13 oF 17 E-xhibit "B" Section 130 of the Spol:ane Cowity Road and I7rainage Staudards 1 A street that lies diagonally to the east-west, north-south grid system and is an arterial or collecltor street shall be called a Boulevard. 2 A street that has its ingress and egress on the same s#rzet shall be called a Circle. 3 A priva#e road shall be called a Lane. 1..17 -1.19 NOT USED 1.20 LEVET..S OF SERVTCE The County Engineer has establishcd acceptable Levels of Service (LOS) for traffic at Spokane Cowity i.niersections. T.,evels Of Service are usEd in detei-muung the impacts on the road system Uy land developnie•nt proposals. The m.i_ni.mum acceptable LOS are: 1 signalized-"Ta" 2 unsignalized-"E" 1.21 -1.29 NOT USED 1.30 TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY Prior to a land use action, the Sponsor shail perform a traffiic impact sfudy when the project meets the criteria of one or more of the items listed below. A specific scoping by the County Engineer may range from an in-depth analysis of site generated levels-of service to a cursory review of safety issues. Tha County Engineer shall determine the specific project scape. The Sponsor shall submit a trafFc report signed by a Professional Engineer, licensed in the State of Washington. The traffic impact study shall be performed in accordancae with Technical Reference A of these Standards. 1 The Coun4y Engineer determines that the proposed development will generate enough peak hour trips to lower or aggravate the minimum acc-aptabla LOS. 2 The County Engineer determines that driveways from the land development proposal have the potential to generate traffic safety problems on the adjacent public raadway. 3 Thn County Engineer determines that an existing route with a history of traific accidents will be further impactzd by an increase in traffic from the proposal. 1.31 -1.39 NOT USFD 1.40 SEVERABILITY If any part of the Spokane County Guidelines for Road and Sewer Construction as establishsd by ordinancz shall bs found invalid, all other parts shall remain in effect. Spokane Counfy Standards Page 1-11, 9-92 February 2001 roint Planning Agreement Turtlecreek Page 14 of 17 EXIMYT C Artcria[s• Barker IZoad Sprague Road S-allivan Road Intersections • A.pplEway/l3a.rkcr Sgrague/Barker S /Barker - SaltescJSull.ivan Joint T'lanning Agreemenl Turtlecrcek Page 15 of 17 Exhibit "D;' Process llescription for interiocal aa7-eemEnt for TJGA developmene regulations for Spokane County/City of Spokane Valley UGA/JPA. Gosls/Actions Process Description far interlocal agreernent Start Date End Date for UGA development re;ulaHons for Spokane County/City af Spokane Valtey UGA/JPA ' Action Development IZegulations Coordination Strategy ranuary 15, ?+pril, -This task includes work by the Parties to select 200$ 200$ one coordinatian stratEgy from the Collaborative Planning: Spokane County's Metro Urban Growth A.rea-l~.epork. Find'uijs aod a report to guidc the process for adoption of regulations will be developecl. Action Report and findirigs adopted by the :k'arties .April 15, May 1, throuah an interlocal 2008 2008 Goal Completian oF interloeal agreement for UGA development regulacions for Spokane CountylCity of Spokane Valley UGrUJPA. Action Facilitat7on -Work with the Parties to identify the May 1, 200$ August 1, scope and details of development regulations 2008 (i.c., zoning, subdivision, PUD sip, etc.) that will be adoplecl. Action Implernentation -Work with the Partics to August 1, March 1, prepare necessarv ordinanees to be considered by 2008 2009 tiie City of Spokane Valley and Spokane County; conduct a public participation pmcess; adoption by the City Council and 13oard of, County Commissioners as appropriate. Summary of differences in sCaadards uf Spokane, Spokane Va[ley, AirFVay Heishts, Libe.rty Isake and Spokane Caanty from the report titied: "Collaborative Plannina- Spokane Countv'S Vfetm rban Grovvt:h Area" 7uly 2007 The report iiivestiagates die development reaulations and street standards employed by these jurisdictYOns; focusing on rhose "edaes" where unincorporatEd land exists between the City limits and the outer bowidary of the UGA. Tt discusses the various issues the jurisdicfions face when considering land use applications in t6ese areas, and then suggesEs a range of strategies to ensure the land use review processes effectively promote public health, safety and welfare, and provide for a fair and consistent development environment. 7oint Plannin~ Agreement'"~u-tlecreek PagE 16 of 17 Vfany of the development standard.s adopted by the four cities and applied to areas near their city limits are genera]ly consistent with Spoka.ne County's urban zoning standards. Densities, lot sizes, permitted land uses and other requirements typically rciai:eh, with wiiat is permitted on one side of a eity limit luie mircored on the other. There are exceptions, of course, Uut thc Ceneral rule is that what is within the UGA is exp°ctcd to be urban. 7onin; districts, eittler wiChin cities or witliin the uni.ncorporated county, rcflect that consistent vision. , Stre.et standards are also similar. Roads constructed to curreiit standards Nvill look and function pretty much the same Nvhether they are witliin city limits or within the County's unincorporated UGA. Conflicts tend to cmerge frorn fliings development regulatioiis do oot address. They appear in arzas wliere subdivision pattems frorn one neigliborliood to the ne1t do not match, even though zonuna standards may Ue quite similar. Thcy appear w6ere seNer service is unavai.lable, r2quiring lots to be large enough to accommodate private septic systems regardless of zoning lot siz,e sEandarcls. They appear where development occurs in ditferent eras, wherc market cEemand changes over time, resuIting in arcbilectural or tiechnological shifts. And tJley appear in processes thc jurisdiction use to consider land use actions. Joint Planning Agreement Turtlecreek Page 17 of 17 . . ~ .t Y ~ 1 . ' s S P O K A N E C O U N T Y 1 Omc.F or- Coi►nro7, Ca-%«rssroxEiu TODD \f►SI,.K3?, t,rr uisiRIr_ r•\LARK RICKARD, 21'DDiSTR[C]' • BONIn'IL \Z?GI:R, 3HD Dih"1RI(.T vlay 6, 2008 Chris Bainbriclge, CNIC City of Spokane Valley . 11707 F. Sprague, Suite 106 Spokane Valley, NVA 99206 Re: Lnterlocal Agreement .RegardiMg Joint Plunning Betweera Spokar2e Courity aMd the City of Spokane Valley Coricerning Turtlecreek.. Ms. Bainbridje, Enclosed for your file is an ori€;inal ag,reement (as referenced above) approved by thc Board of Spokane Cauntv Com.uiissioners uncier Rcsolution vo. 2008-0312. Sincerely, Ginna Vasquez, Office !~ssistant Enclosure (1) 1116 WEST BROAD4VAY AvENUE • SPOkANE, WASHINGTO' 99260-0100 •(509) 477-2265 . , ~CITYO~ane . • • . . ~ .;00OValley ° . 11707 E.Sprague Ave. • Su'ite 106 • SpokaneValley,WA99206 (~09) 921-1000 ° Fax (509) 921-1008 • cityhall@spokanevalley.org April 17, 2008 , . Daniela Erickson, Clerk of Che Board Spokane County Board of Commissioners W. 111613roadway Avenua • Spolciuie NVA 99212 . R.E: Interlocal Agreement Regarding Joint Plan.ning Behveen Spokane County and tha Ciiy of Spolcane Vailey Concerning Turtlecreek • :faear Daniela: . I have enclosed two original Tnterlacal Aa eaments for Cho Turtlecreek J`PA. Once ail signatw-es have been secured, please send me a fully executecl original for my files. Thanks as always for your assisfance. . Sincerety Cliris Ba.inbridge, CMC Spakarie Valley City Clerk /cb ' Enc. " . ~ Exhibit C Page 1 of2 Patti McConville From: Mike Connelly Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2008 11:27 AM To: Patti McConville Subject: FW: CTED Grant Overview Attachments: Overtay-intra070808.pdfi Spokane Metro Collaborative Planning No. 1.pdf; Spokane Metro Collaborative Planning No. 2.pdf Mike Connelly City Attorney City of Spokane Valley 11707 Fast Spraeue F1ve. Suite 103 Spokane Valley, WA 99206 Phone: (509) 688-023$ Fa.x: (509) 688-0299 Coniidentiality Notice: The infonnation rontained in this email and any accompanying attachment(s) is intendecl only for the use oFthe intended recipient and may be coofidentisl and/or privileged. lf any reader of this communication is not the intended recinient, tmsuthorized use, disclosure or copying is strictly prohibited, and rnay be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please immecfiately notify the sencler by return email, and delete the original mcssage and all cUpies from your systerri. Than}: you. From: Mike Basinger Sent: Thursday, ]uly 24, 2008 11:24 AM To: Mike Connelly Subject: CTED Grant Overview Mike, The collaborative process began in 2006 with the development of a working group comprised of Spokane County and the Cities of Spokane, Spokane Valley, Liberty Lake, Millwood, and Airway Heights. The group determined there was a need for coordinated planning within their shared Urban Growth Areas (UGAs). This was an outcome of the metropalitan cities concems regarding develapment in the UGAs adjacent to their municipal boundaries. Likewise, Spokane County has had apprehension in relaGon to annexation and lost revenue they may incur. In 2007, the work group captured funding through a competitive grant offered by the department of Community Trade and Economic Development (CTED). Funding from this grant was used to evaluate differences in land use (zoning) and development standards, identify fiscal restraints related to annexation, and explore service delivery options within the metropolitan UGAs. The working group determined the first step in establishing a basis for coordinated planning was the development of mutually aoceptable interlocal agreements. An outcome of this initial work was a comparison of existing land use and design standards used by the aounty and the cities vrithin UGAs to develop an understanding of commonalities and differences in standards. The group thought this further understanding would improve the level of communication between the regional electeti officials and would remove a major impediment to the development of the interlocal agreements. The success of future interlocal agreements was determined to be oontingent upon balancing the cities desires to monitor gravrth and allowing the extension of city governance in the UGAs (annexation) without negatively affecting the County's fiscal sustainability. 7/24/2008 Paee 2 of 2 Based on the preceding work, the group determined a need to develop a foundation for a service delivery and revenue solution that could put the metro cities and county in a position to be successful in the long-term. To accomplish this, the workgroup is applying for a CTED Emerging Issues Grant to continue exisUng work outlined in the Collaboration Grant awarded in 2007. This work will identify potential efficiencies and/or revenue solutions that will enhance the County's fiscal sustainability and identify what regional and local services it will provide to unincorporated areas. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Mike A9ike Basinger, AICA Senior Planner City nfSpokane Vtilley (509) 688-0045 >>orce (509) 921-1008 fax mbasirtgerQspokanevalley. org 7/24f2008 Development Regulations and Review Process for the Metro Urban Growth Area Intent cmulsting ccgulztions of ncighbaruig jurisdictions. Thc secaad optan is This cepoct builda on Phasc i of thc fiorc pmccu-nrtentcd. requiring thc CTkD Collabocatire GranL That phi►se impkmcniation of adjacent city Rgulationa sturcRd the dcvclapmcnt regulatious of within thc mrtr<> urbnn gmwth area. uch jurisciictinq idcnrifying similaritics and diffczencss. 5pctific ucu of rnnccrn MeUo Urban Growth Area Over- include coancctivity. lind use, strcct;, tandsrsPing, dcsig°, dcnsnY• and secbacks. lay Zone 'Che dtffcrcnccs in the rcgulatwns from Mechanics jurisdktion to jurisdiction creatc lcss prcdictihility in dcci9ion making, whith Initial}y. it xppcarcd tlut a simplc cstcnsion an result in delays thnt acc timcty and oE city devek►pmcnt rcgulations - cost}y fac appliunts. Furthcr, thc lark particulady as theq pertainad to land usc, of consistrncy in standards and protcss deve}npttunt stindanis ind stcert dcsign crearc au uncooidinsted incompatible built - would bt An sppropriate solution far cnvizonment_ appliattion across thG entircty of thc urban Azaavth a:ea. Aftcc cccicaring thc ciisting "1'lle intcnt of thi: repatt ts ro procide land use context in mrue dctzil, hnwevcr, informatian on tvro options thnt ptovidc it becsTne apparcnt thzt city drrclopmcnr for campitiUle dcvelopment reguliuons and a I ur.~..r~... f . r COOLCil1l1Lr-d !t\'1Ct1V process in the metro utbaa gtowth arei ; - ' C. aC Spolunc Count}•. This inctudes tbe ~ unincorPotattd utban growth arra sdjoiniug 4, • ~''►'Oj . . tlic citici of 5pokanc, tipokine i'alkq, Airwac Hughts, Libcny Iake, • ; I ~ uid Millwood (Figurc 1). -rhe firsc optiofl ~ .._r _ cstahlishcs vanous - (:ounty-adopted tnovctln' dtstziCtg F4t°'~ 1: rht unaaa°rP°~nh+~ w!~°n x nrurIh ur_•a: ruhlr, f nr zc~ttK tlae. mehwrkitdaa mlfuhrrrvhcm opfinns, tcgUlations aluac auy iiut addtcss a11 oC the 7'he cn•rilay ctould include 8oor atca rxti0s UItJA1I gfUWltl Att35 likcly conflicts and be (FAR) foz xIl commercial districts ss well sensitive bo auince in land usc and etrect as foc ]rnv tnd medium-deasiry tuidencial dcsign stnndard< districts. Current County crgula[ions havc an FAR rtquurmcnt for Qn}y the Afixcd Usc -1`hc uvulay cncrnnpascs a numhcr cIt zane - a cequitcment thai urould remaip differcnt County zontng types: residenttxl, unchAIIBed by the orcilay. commctcial. cnizcd-use iLnd iodustriaL Each Spalcane Cauaty zoning distict, cvithin the Subdivisinn and aite deiign scinduds wouid meuo wbaa growth area, has an rn-ccLaF crrate a consistcnt fxbrx of cidewalks, zone chu applia eundnrds found 'w the plantiag stzips, atmt trces, lightirtg, and e:istiag ardinaners of ad'pcent ucies (7'sbk bbck Iength. General requicrmeats aiid i). In essenoe. the overLy zones modifp spccific uquirements for resiciencial, Spo{cnnc Caauty standards tn bc compatbk cammcrciil, and indsiscrial districcs a-nulcl with thnse of the adjaceae cities. tlso be created within the avecl3r !n sumc insunces, tlic ovedaq would aher Street ttAndards ceould be derivcd fiom the pcrmitted laod use ta6le, ti►iloring 11nd the Citf of Spolane snd the Ciry oE use tn tnore closely match the uses in the Spolcane Yslkp. The Spokane Regionsl adjoining dtics. TransportACbon Counal (5RTG) is studci,ig the ptcvailing street stancfaids nrnv, and Ucnsity standards would be updaced and thu section wiU be coordinatcd ori cn=.iirc replacc the undcrlping zuning rcquircmcats CO°sistenty with SR'1'C findinp. eo c.crate a built rnrironment matching citp maximum biuld-ouc. T-his scction marricn Implementaticm Caunty miaimum Lcquinmeuta with aiy masimum cequicen►rnts Io o~~ ~»PIemcnt t1~L altcrtiau~•c, SPokAne Councr u-i,uld adopt thc urbAn Fabk 1- nvrrlay Zunieg Districts and their Underlying County Za+es Low Density itesidmHal Plus (LDR-P) UGA Low Denslty (ULD) Low Dcnsity Residtntial (LDR) UGA L,ow Density (ULD) Medinm Density Jirsidential (MDA) C1GA Medlum Density (UMD) 4 High peasity gesadential (HUR) UGA High Density (UHD) + Neighborhowd Commerciel (NC) UGA Neighbodiood Comn+ercal (UNC) Coaimnnity Commcrciel (CC) UGA Community Cnmmutial (UCC) Regional Cnmmrrcial (RC) IJGA Rcgianel Commercu! (URC) Urban Activity or MixPd Use (ML) [JGA Mixed Use (UMU) , [.isht Industrtal (L!) UGA Light lndustrlal (L1L!) ~ Heavy industriel (tiI) UGA Heavy Industrial (UHn _ I ,Meuopolitan Urban Grrnvth Area Coflatwratlon 2 groK•th nrcn octclay intu chuc zenin5 Thc Cin• Cudc opuun rcyuires chc rcgulatioaa, and would admiaistez it County to rsevalustt eomgrehensire !anc! Similarly to its other overlays. Currently, the use designatioas and zoning districu CauntS hts 2n Airpon Overliy, Plmncd and idcatify cisq laud usc dcsignatian+ Unit Dtvelopmcnt, and in Acsthetic and z4aing within the metrapalitan C_omdat Ch•erlaq. This would bccvmc the urbsn grvwth Qrca. This would cnsurc focuth overLy uadcr `loae Clasufi~ati++~, dcrclopmmt arithin the meuopolitiu ►u6an rhaptu 14.600. Thc County's undctlqing growth uca u cQnsistrnt with dcvdopmcnc zaningwould remain in placc in the ineide c:ty limiss -Sit:r_c :r u'tlllld uulizc the urban gtoWih ttea, but the ovulay wu«1d +3inc rulc'. modify maay of in pravisioaa to rnsurc compulbilicy and consisuncp with 11:t (:~z~• (:u.i~ c!~u~:n u. lu1d rcqutrc dertlopmern cxtumng in the city. the Countp ro notif} the appropuace muaicipiliry vchcn a developmrnt Caunry Su►#f aould Eolluw the siLne process applicatiun is mndc within the metropo>tci a!, for permitting as cnriently Followed, but uzbin g:awth arca. Once natified eithcr whw a propasxl u within the metrvpolitan the atp oc the County would revien r i i c 1?GA, the arc~day requircmrncs vrould also applicauon pcz the citq's dtveWpmcnc apply rtgulitinaa. The decails of the decisi(ill making iuthacitp, appeal rights, and c,ri;cr administntive issues ~uld bc idrnutic~i in City Code Option the in~mloc,l ,~~emenIS. Nlechania implementation T1us optioa pcoposes uaing the vuious eiiy codes far prucessing land-use permits in ~~~~s would nccd to zdopt intcc-lucal che metro nnincnrporated utbnn gcowth agtecments that eichci transfu authontp arca. Th'sa optioa aould require inteskxil athe ippropriace citics CQr the cevicw and :igtermrnu becwcen the Counry aud clic Psacess of land usc applicati0115 or have rhe various cities. The agceetncats would deFine Cauury adUpt appcoptiate city regulatiovy and assign unincarponud urbsn gcowtb Eor unincorpacatcd urban gsowth irru 11t95 QD ViSiOu3 d[Jti. T}I[ AgftCIiltIILf TbC 1$ftt.iTiCf1LS wOL1Id IItt[I CO II1dlG1[t [haL wauld also aesd to outline the responsblc atl rspes of land use paraica nre subject ro partiea for the ptocessiag and actian of land- city provisioas, including comprehensne +.ue petmita. There are four zpgraaehes that p1itn amrndmrnts and rexcmes- to enseuc criuld be used to carrp-out this optiun: that proposals ue consiatrnt with the aucs' visiona. In addicion, the iLg:ccmcac wuuld • Citp Revuw and City Action nted to include prcrvisions Eut the shuing (if • Ciqr Revicw and County Action development agplicanc)o fcrs. ' Counry Revicw and City Aetion, or Rcgudlns of w}f0 pTUCC55c5 CL1C lIIt7C{ • CUUftT Rct•icu- and Ct;usttv Action usc appticatinn nermit, appropiiate ciristufi aould nccd ra hc aVailahlc to cIihcr S1udb ■ i Mrtrnrnlilan Urban Grrntith Area Collafxiration CusC~Od~ - f j T_t { , ~ , 1 : 01 L~C tLC}lf]IC3~ 6i1 F~ Ip! 2.: f►ffq1lt14r dia~nm ,if T'LinniltapR►ti~tr~ tn [ C~![W 6T PfUYI PFoI[ foI roQlarrt~+r~o~aiaee/xi►r+ perm apPUstions. naaitionauy. pooenrial pcaject pcojonenty oc existing applicants PJ,n eotlaboracivelf. "I-his ciforr wiI1 maq nscd to cantsct appropriatc eity staff doyetail with other tishs the jurisdicuons ducing project rcvicav. The juris+dictians are pursuing, including the adoptian woulrl nced to expect and support a high intrrlocal agrecmcncs to aJdress poccnual IcCel nf staEf dedicatinn. anncxation of the urban gcawth xrca to 2djoinieg titica and plans for prociding Thc devebpment rcview pracessea wotilci utban sect-ices. In addition, thu amrl maF nced to bc enocli6ed to xewuat 6or the help inform the County's strategic planninK additional cime thac m;ghr be neccssary to proccss. accammodxtt thia c:tta lcvd af projcct ret-iew. Thc modtfiestion of timipg mould RieciiRimcndatir>ni for devclopmcnc stiil necd co m«t thc requurmesus of suee regWations smtegies will be pcesentcd at lauw. In mIIUy caaca the additwnal m-icw in areawide aserting in Septrmber. \Ve wi]1 pcriod map pose limitations oa technical contact all arti ~ a utions ~nd suppoct &om cichu city ot county atafE P uttnd itrvitations wcen we hacc scheduicd the lncatioa and tiune_ Next 5teps Spoltane County and thc fitic citics within t6e cnctzo acban growth am wiq conciuuc to wnrk as uonsistent derelopment rcgulations as p:irt of thcir oecrall gc121 tn ~ Me,ropxilican Urban (:rowth Area Collaborahon a . • • r * Wo on p e EPA Processes - , ~ ~ ~ "~'6 r~ . - . i. + ~ ~00' i , - WA Department ot Communlty, Trade, and Economlc Develapment Gtant Na COB-63200-444, Qellverable Na 2 CollaboratNe Plannlny Grant far Spokant Counry, ttty of Spokane, Ctty ot Spoknne Valky, Ctty ot llbeny Lake, Ctty of Alnway Helghts, Town ot Mlllwood Junt 1;, 2008 • on evenuean! Costs and GIS-based , ! - i~ ' •t+ '~i:._ ~ ~ lf.~ ~ _ 1f '4 ~y►~ 1~ • •F'~ ~ - - - ~ , - ` • f~2~C7Lt.` Exhibit D Discussion 1'opics - Interlacal Agreement between the CitY of'Spokane Va11cY and the Spokane Transit Authoritv June 24, 2008 Prepared by Mike Coiuiclly City Attomey, City of Spokane Valley 1. The parties recognize that the Ci/y of Spokane Valley and Spokane County are currently in litigacion concerning the oAnership oF the unbuilt portions of the Appleway right of way ea..st of University. Nntliuig in this agreemeut should be constt-ued to adversely impact the position of the City in that matter. Further, np aetion taken or consequence resulting from this aereement should adveiscly impact the City's interest in that right of way. 2. The City of Spok.ane Valley desires to build a roadway approaimalely 72' in width within the Appleway corridor; STA desires to reserve approYimacely 28' of tlvs corridor for the purpose of hi€h capaci[y traasit. '1'he city is also ui the process of enacting a subarea plan for the Appleway and Sprague corridors', incluciing the development ot•'a cit), center. NOtlung in this aD eemcnt shauld impair the planning and construction Uf these projects. 3. The acquisition orROW should generally bc located on the south sicle of the ribht of way ui question aiid should not exceed 25'. It is understood that de.pending upon the actual alignment of the 100' corridor and factnrs sucfi as cost and feasibility thac it may be more advantageous to acquire property on the north sicle of the riglit of way as well. Such acquisitions should not adversely effect the construction of a roaciway in the Appleway corridor, or the development of the Sprague Appleway design plaii and/or the city center. 4. The STA shall providc the Ciry of Spokane Valley witli a specific descriptioci of future right of way the agcncy ,v7thes to acquire to preserve a route fpr hioli capacity trailsit in the Valley corridor. 5. The City shall incorporate into ils lajld use ordinance the specific area requested as a potential firture acquisition arca. 6. The City shall prpvide noticc to the STA of any land use permit requesced for the arca in questipn or adjaeent to the sauie ineluciing residential and conunereial builciing pennits or pennits to build any pennanent structure. 7. S'1`A has the burdcn to contact the property oATier and negotiate for the property ui question. S. STA agrees co purchase any such property establislied as a future acquisition area ,A6 t}un days of it being so ideiitified by title notice. y. Property acquired pursuant to this agreement should be held as riaht of way by thc City of Spokane Valley until such time as a high capacity trailsit corridor is conslructed. 10. City shall reserve any acquired right of way pursuant to this agreement for lugli capacity transit unless it is agrccd by lhe parties to locate the high capacity transit corridor al anodier location. /7;S Exhlblt E I ~ ~ 1 ~ i~ - - 1 y , 1 IH, P73'~~ 21113 1 7 , . n.r. { ~ a ~ - w , f` p e Clt,~~ p a e Yal ey r"' u" rn . ~ ~ _ ~ f I w M tU f~r ' ~ ~M tia 17A = ~ 11~ dw ~ ! ~ Ir 1 u~j ~ t!' r trd rr ~ as r.s 0 City of Spokane N 3M „ ,w City of Spokane Vailey ~ 32M ~ Town of Miliwood ~ UGA ~ Exhibit F (As aznended and approved by the Steering conannittee on JanuarY 18th, 2006) " , ?VIOTION RECOM~MENDING JOI' TT PZ,.Ai ~~I''~INING FOR DaST]NIG URI3AN CiROWTH ARE.AS AND FURTZ-iER RE.CO~VI`ME. NDING THAT JONT PLANNU\TG AGREEiN4EWS SHO*[.TLD BE IN PLACE PRIOR TO A.PPROVAL OF FCJTURE ' URBAN GRO W'lZ I A.R.EAS Whereas, the Growth. Ivlana.gement Steering Committee of Flected OOfCcials (Steeri.ng Coxnn.mittee) has formed a sub-comnniftee to review issues surrounding joint planning and urbara growh:h areas; and - Mhereas the subcoIIimittee has met on the 10th of August, 2005 and 9th of September, 2005 to,discu.ss th.ese issues; and Whe.reas, the Steering Committee recognixes ttiat urban developulent wittiout }oint planiii.ng may result in uafunded impacts to adjacent jurisdictions as well as inconsistent development sta.,u.dards in areas where future annexation is possible; and Wliereas, the Steering Conmuttcc recoguzes that a number of UGA's are adjacent fio a single jurisclictions and joint plann.ing would clearly be appropriate behveen Spokane County aud that juzisdiction; and 'Whereas, the jurisdiciions fuu-thcr recoguize that other UGA's may i.mpact both Spokaue CoutlTy and more ihan oIIe muzuCipal jurisdiCtiAli requiriIIg joult p1am.i.Ltg between a11 affected j urisdi ctions; and NVhereas, the jurisdiciions rccogna.ze that tying the issue of joixiti planning agrcements to the issue of future aunexation has resulted in disagreements as to speciiic applications of the ]aw and signif,ycaut contlicts over future revenues with the end result bcing a collectivc inability to draR and fi,nal.ize necessary joint pl ninu aizreements; attci Wliere:as, the Steering Committee wish's to separate, without prejuciice to any jurisdiction, the issue o£ future anneaafions and the l.egal authority and zight to pursue such annex.ations from the issue of joint planning to facilitate the drafting and execu;tion of joinc planning agreen7ents; Now, Therefore, the Steering Conzniittee recommends the follawing: 1_ 7`hat all juri;dictious imniediately bep n the process of drafting and fimali.zing joint planuiiig agreements £or existing Urbau Grovvth Areas. Areas where a sungle municipality and Spokane County are the iuterested jurisdictions should be completed ,Ari~ui 6 rrionths of passage of thas motion. Arcas -where two or more mun.icipalities have an inferest sb.all withi.n 6 months of passage of tbis motion identify the zones where conarnon interests lie and within 12 montlas of passage of ihis motion coasplete and - execute a joint planning agreement. If is understood tliat these initial agreements may not be compreheusive or identify and resolve all joiaz.t p.lan.ni.na issues but should address _ at a mi.n,imum the issues of transportation impacts and design standards. It is intended ~ that the parties continue to review and revise i:hese ageements as needed. 2. Tllat, noiwithstan.diug language coniained i.n the County-Wide Plann.ing Policies for Spokane County, Glossary Countywide planui.ng Policy Terms defxnina "Joint-Planning ' Areas", wluch states: Joinr Pl$nning Aseas - areas desi,,~nated as Urban Growth Areas a,ssF nerl to a city or town for future urban development bu4 located i.n the unincorporated eounty wbere a coordinated planni.ng process betEVeen the citaes, Cowns and the County will be. conducted." at pa;e 47 The adopfiion of a joint planni.ng agreement shall not be considezed as evidence i.n support of or i.n opposition to, the fufure annexation of any speci.ic area nor shall any jurisdicfiion , enieri.izg into such an agreement waive auy rigbt to appeal andlor to pursue oz oppose annexation effor[s or any other cause of action available under state or federal law unless specifically restricled by the cerrns of auy sueh agreemenf. 3. That further; prior to final approval of any fuiure eactension of Urban Growtb Boun.daries Spokane County require that a joint planning agreement be executcd between ~ jurisdictions that are decmed ta be affected by reasonable modeli.ng srtandards. 4. Tt is recommcnded tltat appropriate dispute resolution proccdures are identified by the Couniy Com.r.nissioners. Exhibit G fiE11TLATE (.4s approved by the GbLN Steering Corsaxnittes on llecember 20, 20U6.) Iuierlocal A-ueement ReeardinQ Toint Plannintr between Spokane Countv and This agreement is entered i.nto on the day of , 2006, by Spokane Couniy and the City/Town of , hereinafter referred to as "Parties". Whereas, a Goal of the State Growih Management Act is to ensure coordi.nation between. cominunities and jurisdictions, including sgecial districts to reconcile couflicts, and NVhereas, RCW 36.70A.210 sets forth cerCain requirements for County-wide J?la.aning Policies, includi.ng that cowaty-wide plarining policies shall address policies for joi.nt county aud city planning with.in urban growth areas, and Whereas, 'Ihe Coun"ride Alanni,ng Policies for Spokaue Countty adopted puzsuant to RCW ' 36.70A.210 contain policies for a joint planning process intended tci resolve issues regar.ding . how zoLlilig, subdivision and otrier land iLse approvals in designated joint planning a.reas N'vlll be eoordinatad, and thafi such joi.nt planning may be accomplished pursuaut to an interlocal agreement eniered into beiween and/or arnong jurisdictions aud/oz special purpase disU-icts, and NVhereas, i:be Pa..rties aze desirous of re,solvi.ng. how zonine, subdivi.siom and other land use approvals in designated joint planning areas «-ill be coordivateti, and 1 Whereas, the Parties wish to segaratc, without rr.ejudice to eitI7er Party, the issue of potential annexatious and the l.egal autharity and right to pursue or oppose such annexations from tlus agreement and the execuxion of the same; Now, thErefore be it R.esolved, towards addressing how zon.i,ra.Ly, subdivision and other land use . approvals for joint' plaiining will be coondinated; to ensuue that transportation capacit5, for . cievelopaient rneets concnrrcncy requirements and that c.oDsistent developmcnt standarcis arc used, the Parties agree fio cooperative joint plan.ning in designated areas pursuani tio the followi,ng: 1. Legal basis: This agree.r.uent is cntered into pursuant to RCti'V 36.70A.010; 020(3); 210 (3) (a), (b), (d), and (fl; RCW 39.34; Countywide Plannine Policies For Svokane Couniv (Plaznnu?g Policies) Topic 2, Overview of Growth ManaSemen.t Act (G-MA) R.equiremcnis, Topic 2, Policies (1) az►d (2); Topic 5 Transportaxion, Overview of Crawth Managemeni (GVIA) Requ.irements; Glossary Countyulde 1'lami.ing policy ~'enx~s, Joint Plannana Areas; the Snokaue County Comprehensive Plan. and ihe Coinprcbensive Flan of the City/Towzi of 2. Intent: Tt is the b-ifent of the Parties 1) to provide for coozdinated planniug for trausporration and developmeni stan.dards i.n tae UGA; as defined' i.xz this agreement, 2) to ensure that tra.nsportai7on improvernents iiecessaty to itlitigate fransportafiion i.mpacts resulting from dcvelopment are identified and constructed concurrent %A7th the developznent andlor that adequate funding is secured to ~'ina.nce consiructioH of such transporrtation improvcmenYs 2 concurrent w-itia development, as r~quired by RCW 36.70A.110.070(6)(b), and 3) to ensute ~ i:haf development standards applied within the UGA relating to allowable land uses, densities, streefs, sidewallcs, curbing, cirainage and utilitics are compatible and ceusistent with the Parties compreheusive plan and developmenf standarcis. Thc Parties desire to jointly dcvelop and implement dEVClopment r.egulation5, proced►.ues aud standards relatcd to the review and approval of project.s within the UGA, a., defined in this agreement The Parties al.so desire to jointly establish and implement consistent development regulatiov.s and prncedures gnvaraing thc provision of all public facilities -vNZthi,n said UGA. . The Parties agree to commit sufficient siaff to draft and finalize these specific agreements iu a timely manner. (Mention of the CTED GTOwth Manajement Services Grant could be i.n.serted here.) 3. Appticafiility: 'T'he agrzeznent sba].1 apply to development proposats w-iihin urban growih areas., as identified iu Exlubit "A" hereto (the "UGA"). 4. Projects affected: 1'his agreeuient applies ta new development praposals in tlie UGA fihat aze subject to th.e Notice of Application aequh-ements of RCW 36.70B as adopted by the jurisdiction, including proposals subject to the State Environmental policy Act. Notice of Application, Notice of Hearing and Notice of Decision zequired by RCW 36.70B and any en<<i.ronnzental checklist, EIS or other environmental docun.zenf requirEd pu.rsuant to R.CW 43:21C sha11 be-provided to the Parties in d tYmely manner and zu accordance with applicable 3 rejulations. T1iE Parties further agree tliey shall provide each ather at least 7 days noiice of, and are a.llowed and' encouragcd to aiten.d any, buildimg peraiit praconstruction conference and/or land use predevelopment or techziical review mectings. Such notice sliall be in the forrn of siandazd notice for such conferenceslmeetings Qiven by the jurisdiction. a. The Parties sliall consult (clarify) on proposals outlincd above priar to issuaucE of any final DNS, -NID~TS or sld.ff report to the Hearing Exaavi.ner in an aifempt to reach a conscnsus positi.on/reconimenddtion. For SEFA docu.meats, the jurisdicfion ha«ng lead agency status shall i.nclude the consensus/collective recommendation and any rnztigafing conditions, oz their i.ndividual recorumendations and any m.itigating conditions if unable to reach consensus; as apPlicable; far projecfis proceeduig to public heari.ug, both Parties shall include the consensus recommend.a:ion in their respective staff reportlrecommended conditions of approval to the Heari,rag Exaininer or other appropriate hearing body, or, if unable to agree, their respective recommenddfi.ons. 5. Traiisportation: T7ie Part.ies recognire that development aci7~iiy lAithin iheir respective jurisdictions w111• cause tran,sportatiou impacts an_d may impact transporta.tiou lcvel.s of service in neighboring jurisdictions. To easure proper idezitifica.tion and m,iti-atiou of development related kransportation impacts, the Parties agree filia.t: a. Un]ess otherwise inconsistent lArith law, eii:her of the Parties may require preparation of a Traffic Inpact Analysis (TIA) quantifying the impact of any new "developmcnt uztlun the UGA. Tn each such case, both Parties shall have au opporiwzity to contribute to the developnicnt of the scope of sucla study. The Pariies may muivally agree in 4 writing to waive the requirement for a TTA Arith resp-ect to any particular development propos,al. - b. Iu approving andlar mald.ng zecomnaendsxions reganling development proposals, each of th,6- Parties shall require (or recommend, as the case may be) consfinzction o£, the trpsportation miprovemenfis n.ecessary to mitigate transportation unpacts identified iaa the TIA concurrent ~ARth developznent as required by RCW 36.70A.070(6)(a) ancUor the dedi.caiion of svch land oz payment of money in lieu thereof that is necessary to mitigate such impacts w the jurisdiction wbose transportation systen.z is therehy impacted. Any such fees shatl be held and eucumbered as provided iii RCW 82.02.020. c. For dcvelapment projects in the UGA wlierc construction of i.niprovemenis necessary to nutigate identified direct lransportation impacts does uot take place concurrent N«t1i . project development, the Parcies shall joiutly esfiablish a uniform method for quanti.fying appropriate financial coniributions for i,mprovements to he made Rnthi.n 6 ycars of project approval for identified direct iaransportation impacts. The Parties rer.ognize that to uuplement this agrecment some mociification of axisting regulations may be m.quised aud agee to make such modifications in a tinely manner after establishment af a unifornl and mutually agceed upon method for quantif}7ing appropriatz ftnaucial contributions. . . d. The Partics further agree to jointly recomnzend denia1 of any development proposals rhat fail to comply vvitl.i the concurrcncy standards of eitli.er parcy. j e. 'Z'fae Pa,rties furtbez agree to incorporate the findings and recommendatinns ozi concurremcy beizi; prepared by the Spokanc Region~.i Transportation Council (SRT'C) into this Joini Planning Agreement, to the extent agrccd to by the Parties, by fa.rmal amendmenf at sucb, tiu.ie that the project is corrapleted. 6. Devclopmeint Standards: The Paities recoenize that development in dze UGA w-ithout . common developnient regulations could frustrate the purpose and infent of this agreenient and the procedures established. a. The 1 azties agnec to assign the nece-ssary staff to review applicable development regulations, including but not li.mitad to zoning designations, PU-D standards, landscaping, signaae, subd.ivision, road and street sfandards, bicycle paths, jogging lanes, trail systems applicati.on revieiv procedures and sfiomawater dra,inage requiremenfis. Differences shall be identificd and a consek,sus or compatible standard recomjuended., after wluch mutual recornmendation NNrill be processed as an amendment to each Parfies' development regulationS in a lawf,'ul naan.ner towards the end of developi,ng l.in.ifornuty in s,aid dcvelopment standards. Such review should iucl.ude representatives from the private sector who rnay be inipacted by auy such amendments. 77he process to identify individual jurisdiction differences shall conZmence upon sisming of tli.is agreement, Nvith a . goal of corx►pleting the identifica.tion of differences withi.g 6 nZOnths, of sig+,;ng. Recommendation for consensus standards shall follow. (The CTED Gro~~=th Management Services Grant could be men.tioned here.) . b. The Partics agree to coufer on the necessity for and/or the locatiou of any eonnector streets andlor the classificatzon of aziy streeets Nvithin or adjaccnt to a proposed 6 d.evelopment or adjacent .to the border benveen the Parries. If agreement is not M rcached., both Parties s1a311 prescnt shall present their respective positions to the Hearing Examiner az ather appropriafe hear.mg body. c. The Parties agree to eonsult on Comprchensive Plan/Zoni.ng categories, allowable land uszs and derasities in the L7GA. Such consultation shall include consultation ou the classification of ztreets and madways on the conimon borders. 7. Other Rebulations: Noihing iu this agreement 5hall supersede or negate any exisfiing land use or development rzgulation of the PartYes. • 8. Addihonal Ab eements: The Parties contemplate fuiwe joint plantung a.greements that may relate ta the UGA or other portions of Spokane Count), andlor the CitylTown of - ' , Niothing in this agreemenfi i, intended fio prolubit ihe developnzent of fuiure ageemenis relatinD ta ea'ther the i.napacfs identified above or oiher impacfs that nay now or in the future exist. 9. Rigfits Reserved: Nofihing in this agreenieut is imtendcd to waive or liinit thc rights of the Parties to zequiz'e mitiga#ion for any impact as allov,'ed. bY £ederaT, state or local laws or ozdinanc;es iucluding but noi li,mited to envimnmental ixupacts govemed by 43.21C et seq. 10. Chan;e in Staredards or*Ordinances: Any change in the Parties standards or ozdi.nances relied upon iu ttus agreement; or modified pursuaut to this agreement, sball be fonvarded to ihe othEr parry with.in days of passage. Lf the Parties cannot agree to the . 7 implementation of such standards A7thin 30 days tl.ie issue niay be set for mediation by . eithcr party. 11. vIediation of I)isputes: r'13y disputes arisiug from Lh.is agreement, includ.ing the failure to ' agree as to new standards and/or applicable ordinances as is set forth in paragapk 10 above, may be set for mediation by either party within 30 days of notificatian of a dispute. Prior to mediation, the Parties, represented by tl-ieir electzd officials, shall first ineet infnrmally in an attempt to re,a.ch resolution. If a mediator cannot be agreecl upon by the - Parties, each party s}iall selecf nne mediator who i.n lu.rn shall select a third mediator to conduct tlie mediation. . 12. IFedeffinifieatiun and Liability: a. Spo):ane Counfy shall protect, save harmless, inde=,if.y and defend, at ifis oam expense, (City/Town), i.ts elected and appoi.nted oflicials, officers, employees and agents, frozn uny loss ar claim for damajes of any nature whatsoevcr arising out of Spokane County's performance of tlus agreemeut, including claials by the Spokane Couniy eiuployee's or third partYes, except for those damages caused solely by tlie . negligence or willful m.isconduct of (Ciiy/Towni), its clecied and appointed pfficiats, officErs, employees, or agents. b. (City/Town) shali protect, save harniless, indemnify and defend, a.t its own expen5e, Spokane Couniy its elected aad appointecl officials= ofCicers, emplnyees and agents, from any loss ar claim for daiiiages of dny nature whatsoever arisuig out of (City's/I'otivn's) performance of this agreement, iracluding claims by the (Ciiy/ToAm) 8 employee's or diird parties, except for thosc damages caused solely by the nea-ligence or Aillfizl misconducfi of Sgokane Counry, its elected and appoi.nted officials, officers, employees, oz aaents. c. Ia the evept af Li.ability £or dama.ges of any mature whatsoever arisuzg out of tlie perfornauce of this Ageemenf by Spokane County and (CityJTowra), including - claims by Spnkane County's or (City'slTown's) oRn officers, officials; exuployees; agents, volunLeers, or fbard parties, caused by or resulting from the concurrent negligeuce of Spokane County and (Cify/To«•n), eacla Parties liability hereunder shall only be to the extent of that party's negligence. d. No liability shall be attached to Spokane County or (Ci.ty/Toarn) by rea.son of entering into this agreement except as expressly provldeci hexcim - 13. Severability: If any provision of thas agreement or its applicauon to any person or - cixcumstarace is held ivvalid, the remainder of the pmvi.sions and/or the agplication of the provision5 to othcr persons or circumstances sball mot bc affecfed. In such ca5e the parties agree to nieet and amend tlus agreement as may be mutually deem.ed aecessary. 14. Entire Agreement: Thi.s ageement constitutes rhe cntire agreeineuf betwe,en tlie Pa1-[ies with respect io identified propeTty. This agreement may be amended in writing by mutu3l agreement of the Pariies. 15. Designated Representsetive. The Parcies agree that (posihon) shall be the designatr,d representative of the Ciiy/Town for coordinaiion of this agreement amd for 9 r.eceipt of any communications related to this a.greement and (position) _ shall be the designated represenlati.ve of the County. 16. Effeetive Date and Duratian. This agreenzent shall become effective follo«ing fihe ' approval of thc agreemenfi by the official goveming bodies of each of the Parties hcreto ar.►d , the signirig of the agreement by the duly auttiorized representative of cach oF rlie P3rties hereto, and sha11 remain in effect unless ternii.nated. 17. Term.ination. Either Party may terminate ifs obligation under this agreement upon oae year advance written notice to x}.i.e other Party. Following a tenuiuatioH, the couAt,v and City are responsible for fiufilling any outs-tanding obligations under fil.iis ageement, or aa-nencment tbe-reto, i.ncurrcd prior to the effective date of thc tenmination. 10 - No. 8 063'7 BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SPOKANE COUNTY, Vi/ASHINGTON • IN THE MATTER OF AUTHORIZING j COAAf[MMENCEittfENT OF NEGOTIATIONS . ON A SERVICE CONTRACT FOR THE ) DESIGN-BUILD & OPERATION OF THE ) RESOLUTION , SROKANE COUNTY REGIONAL WATER ) RECEAMATION FACILITY-PROJECT NO. P5451-3 } . WHEREAS, pursuant to"the prov'tsions of-the Revised Cade of Washington, Section 36.32.120(6), the Baarc1 of County Commissioners of Spokane County (heneinafter the "Board") has the responsibility for the care of County property and the management of Counfy funds and business; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of RCW Chapter 36.94, the Bearcf has the authorifiy to oonstruct, operate and maintain a system of sewerage pursuant to the adopted Comprehensive Wastewater Management Plan; and WHEREAS, Spokane, County has camplsted Wastewater Facilitiss Planning . Documents - recomrnending construction of a new Spokane County reg€onal water _ reclama#ion facility (SCRWRF), and purchased a site commonly known as the Stockyards; and = WHEREAS, the County has evaluated alternafive delivery methods for the pro1ect and selected a private public partnetship using design-build-operate, (DBO) as the delivery method for the SCRWRF; and WHERFAS, DBO is a delivery method speciftcalfy authorized for Spokane County . under the 1Nashington State Water Quafity Joint Development Act, Chapter 74.150 RCW; and WHEREAS, Spokane Caunty issued a Request for Statzment of Qualifir.ations pursuant to Chapter 70.150 RCW; and WHEREAS, Spokane County received Stetements of Qualifications from two firms; CH2M HILL Constructors, IRC and Veofia Water North Amsrica; and. ' WHERFAS, Spokarte County determined that boffi firms are qualified respandents to provide the requested services as defined by Chapter 70.150 RCW, and in conformance with the minimum quafificafiions defined rn the Request for Stafement of Qualffications, hence designated botti fiRns as Selec#ed Responderrts; and Fage 1 of i [vo. S 0637 . WHEREAS, Spokane County issuecf a Request for Proposals to thQ Sefected Respondents pursuant to Chapfer 70.150 RCW; and WHEREAS, Spokane County established a seven member selection cAmmittees oomprised of Matt Ewers, Neil Kersten, Sfian LeSieur, Larry Luton, David Nioss, Mike Petersen, and Bruce Rawls (acting as the County's Designee) to assist in evafuating the propasals reaeived; arid . ' WHEREAS, the County set farth selecbon evaluation criteria in the Request for Proposals, consistent with Chapter 70.150 RCW, including Qualfications and Experience, Design Approach, Design Buifd Plan, Conshuction Planning and Sequencing, Operations • and Maintenanoe, Business Merit, and Cast; and WHEREAS, the County received ProposaEs from the Selected Respondents on March - 14, 2Q08, and , VYHEREAS, the County has conducted a Bidders Conferenoe, and received a Bsst and Fina! Offer (BAFO) following reoeipt of proposals from both Selected Respondents, as required by Chapter 70.150 RCW, and WHEREAS, the Selection Cortimittee has taken the fol{owing actians in their review of the Selected Respondents; Reviewed arid scored written proposals from each firm, visited two exarnple projects for each of -the Selected Respondents, conducted an interoiew of each Selected Respondent, and reviewed the BAFO submitbed by each Selec#ed Respondent; and WHEREAS, the Se(ection Commiftee, after considering the criteria set forth in tEie , Request for Propasals, -has recommended that the firm of CH2M HiLL ConstTUCtoes Inc be selected as the most advantageous of the Seleded Respondents fo Spolcane County, aRd recommends to the Board of County Commissioners, that negotiations commence with CH2M HILL Constructot's (nc. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County that the fitm of CH2R11 HILL Consfructo►'s Inc is selected as the most advantageous of the Selected Respondents, and that the Designee is hereby directed to commence rtegvtiation of a Service Contract with CH2M HILL Constntctor's Ine under the oversight and direction of the 6oard of County Commissioners. BE [T FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Spokane County that if the r►egotiation is unsuccessful, tfie Qesignee may commence negofiation wfth the other Selected Respondent. BE iT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Baard of County Commissioners of Spokane County that upon the completion of a final draft Service Contract, the Designee shall submit the finaf draft Senrice Contrac# fo the WashiRgton Sfate Department of Ecology for revi2tiv and approvat, shaf( conduct a pubtic hearing on the fina[ draft Ssrvice Contract, . Page 2 a` 2 No. $ 063'7 and shall submit the final ciraft Service Contract to the Board of County Commissioners for final approval, afl as pravided for in Chapter 70.150 RCW. APPROVED BY THE BOARD this 1st day of Jufy 2008. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF SPOKANE COUNTY, WASH[NGTON aQ co~k,~, . O. ~'s~O~,~lD rC'~ O~ y4C ~ ' Bonnie Mager, Chair ~ ~ o ~ ~1L'.-',4~ • ' ATTEST: ty.,.! r~•~` To ie[ke, C air Daniela Eridcson, Maric Richard, Co issioner Clerk of the Board ' . s . t . ~ ~ , ? Page 3 of 3 8 0637 S P O~ A 1.V E - C OU N' T Y . t=u= t~n~~ov A DnWoN oF rxs Pvruac WaaIS aEPAKrNENr N. Orucc Revcts, Y.E-, Litffities L)irecmr July 1, 2008 Honorable Board of County Commissioners Spokane County, Washington Re: Spokane County Regional 1Nater Recfamation Facli'►ty Selection Commfttee DeteRnination and Recommendations • . Project No. P5451-3 Background ' Spokane County (the "County") has completed Wastewater Facilities Planning Documents recommending canstruction of a new regional water reclamation faci('tty ("SCRWRF°), and purchased a site commonly known as the Stockyards. The County has evaluated a{temative delivery meihods for the project and selected a private public partnership using the desigrt-build-operate ("QBO") delivery method as the delivery methQd for the SCRWRF. DBO is a delivery method specficaliy authorized for the County under fhe Washington State Water Quality Joint Development Act, Chapter 70.150 RCW. . Selectton Process - The Couttty issued a Request for Statement of Qualifications, as stipulated in Chapter 70.150 RCW. The Counfy received Statements of Qualifcations from hvo firms; CH2M HtLL Constructors, Inc. and Veolia Water North America. The Counry determined that both firms are qualified respondents to provide, the requested services as defned by Chapter 70.150 RCW, and in conformance witfi the mini:rnum quaffications defined in the Request for Statement of Qua[ifications, and henc;e designatsd both firms as SeleGfied Respondents. The County issued a Request for Proposa(s to the Selec#ec( Respondents pursuant to Chapter 70.150 RCW. The County established a seven member selection committee comprised of Matt E%vers, Neil Kersten, Stan LeSieur, L.arry Luton, David Moss, Mike Petersen, and Bnlce Rawls (acting as the County's Designee) •to assist in evaluating the proposa(s reoeived. The Courtty set forth selection evaluation criteria in the Requsst for Proposals, consistent with Chapter 70.150 RCW, including Qualifications and ExperiEnce, Oesign Approach, Design Build Plan, Construction Ptanning and Sequencing, Operations and Maintenance, Busirtess MeriE and Cast. The County received Proposals from fhe Selected Respondents an Merch 14, 2008. The County has cc3nducted a Bidder's Canfercnce, and received a Bes# arid Finaf Locat..d at: 1026 W. Bmadwzy, 4th Floor 2EI25 W. Scoa<lVVay • Spo:cane, WP. 4926Q-"33 e7?F 153:D. i (509) 477-3604 a FAX: (509). .4-7rl-47I5 a TDO: (509) 477-7133 . , , ~y Offer (NBAFO") following receipt of proposals from bofh Selected Resportdents, as required by Chapter 70.150 RCW. The Se(ection Committee has taken the foilawing actions in their review of the Selected Respondents: reviewed and scored writfen proRosaEs from each of the Setected Respondents, visited iwo example projects for each of the Sslected Respondents, conducted interviews of each Sebcted Respandent, and reviewed tine.BAFO submitted by each Selected Responderrt. Detennination and Recommendations The Selecfion Committee, after considering the criteria set forth in the Request for Proposals, has determined that the firm of CH2Mf H1LL Constructors lnc, is the most advantageous of the Selecbed Respondents to Spokane County. The Selection Cammittee recommends ta the Baard of Courriy Commissioners tha# Regotiatons commence with CH2M HILL Constructors Inc. . The Sefection Committee further necommends that if the negotiation is unsuccessfui, the Designee should commence negotiations with the other Selected - Respondent. Respectfully submitted, N. Bruce Rawts, P.E. Director of Utilities, County Designee and Selection Gommittee Chair 5.'Sf353D.; Subm[t to Clerk of the Board wiEh accampanytng paperwark (Resotutioo, Agreemertts, etc.) AGEWDA SHEET ' St16MtTT'IP1G DEPARTMENT: Division of UdU6es COIYTACF PERSON: N. Bruce Rawls PHONE NUMiBER: 477-7269 CHECK TYPE OF. MEETING 17EM BE:LOW; BELOW FOR CLERK'S USE ONLY: Z:QO PM CONSEPITAG£NOA; N ' Clerk's E2esatutlan Ho. 5Y LEA~ ❑ Approvsd: MaJoAtyNnaniRtous Denied: tNorttyNnanlmous S:OA PM LEGIS 7NE SESSION: ❑ RenewsslAmends No. BY LEAV£; f7 PubJ1G Works No. SCF3WRF Purehasfag Dapt P!a P5451-3 SPEClAL SBSSEOk: ❑ . , AGENDA TfTLE (n the Mat2er of Authorizing CommBncement of Negotiafions on a Service Contract for the Design-Build and Operatian of the Spokane County Regional Water Rec[amabort Facllriy = Projed No. P5451-3 BACKGROUND; Spokane County issued Request for Qualfications Na. .P5451-2 for the Design-Build- Operation of the Spokane County Regional Water Reciamation Facility (SCRWRF) and received Statements of Qualifications from h-wo fircns; CH2M HILL Constntctars, Inc and Veolia llVater North America. Spokane County suasequently determined that both firms were qualified rBSpondents and designated both frrms as Sslected Respondents. Spokane Courrty issued a Request for, Propasais to the Selected Rcspondents and received pTOposals from each. Following receipt of the proposaGs from the Selected Respanderrts, the County canduded a Biddees Conference and received a Best and' Final Offer (BAFO) from both Selecfed Respondents. The Cou►rty set forth seiection evaluation criteria m the Request fer PropQSals, which included quafifications and experience; design appmacfi; design build plan; constnuction planning and sequenang; operations and maintenance; business merit and, cost. The seven member Selection Commiftee has taken the foliovring actions in ttieir reviev/ of the Selected Respvndents: reviEwed and scored writtcn pmposals from each firm; visited hva example projects fof each of the Selected Respondents; conducted an interview of aach Selec#ed Respondent; and, 2viewed the BAFO • submitted by each Selected Respondent RECOAEIMENDATION: (1) That the firm of GH2M HILL Constructors Inc. ae sBfected as the mast advantageaus of the Selected Responderrts to Spokane County; and, (2) that the Designee commence negotiatians wi#h CH2M HILL Gonstructors Inc. . FiSCAL IMPACT: Budgeted Fund 434 (SCRNfRF Fund) expenditure. SIGOVATURES: ~ A &t,, Departrnent HeadlEiecfed Officfai or Marshall Farnell , Designafed Authonty (Requesfing Agenda ttem) Chief Executive Officer. DISTRa3i3Tit?N t!F'!"ER CO.MMISSt0N~Et r4GTtOiV: Uti;ifies &Ptrcfiasung. ~ 7fris itc;rt needs to be cadiflert in the Counfy Gada Soak . . ~ e ~ CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Request for Council Action 1Vleeting Date: July 29, 2008 City Maniigcr Sign-uff: Item: Check sll thal app[y: ❑ consent ❑ old business ❑ new business ❑ public hearing ❑ infomiation X adniin. report ❑ pending legislation - AGLN'UA ITEM TITLE: "1'ransportation Benefit llist7-icts GUVERNING LEGISLAZ`IQN: RC;W 36.73 PRLV10US COiJ11CIL ACTION TA.KEN: Discussion at winter retreat January 12, 2008; adlninisirative reporl January 15, 2008; administrative reporY Febniary 12, 2008; Counci.l discussion about infiastrucfure funduig options, uistruction to st3ff to Prnceed with draftiug legisiation allowing for establishment of a transportation bene.fit district; April 8, 2008 discussion and update on formation of 'T13Ta, discuss draR ordina.ncc; April 15, 200$; admiuistrative update June 10, 2008; Jlily 1, 2008 to update Cnuncil on propnsed language change to the Spokmie Regiona1 1'ransgor.tation Counci.l's (S1ZTC) 2007 Metropoliian Transportatidn Plau (MTP) regardiug use of TBI7 funds :for ma.intenance of existing City raad systcm. RACKGROUND: As our Council is aNvare, staff has provided a substatitial amount of inform.a[ion rcgarding the ability t4 use a transportation bcnefit clistrict for fundina street capital Prajects and for maintenance of the existing road systcm as well. Thc Council's asked staff', la present infarmation on utilizing a 1'BD affier the Lcgislacure a.mended RCW 36.73 to allaw . iuiposition df vehicle tab fees as a funding source. Stat~f' has brought fonvar.d i.nformation and a draft ordinaace for discussiov by the Council previously. 1lus jAint meetiug tivith lhe City of Spokane City Council provides an appornuiity to Step back and look at the various parts that have becri introduced at cliff'erent tunes; now ui a more comprehEnsive format. A brief background on TBl7s may bc helpFul. The infprmation contained iu tlus tnemozandum is based upUn a review o:f 1ZC;V✓ 36.73, a jouit informatioual memorandum from A.WC and WSAC (`Vashington State Association of Coturties), ancl numcrous disciassions Nvith Asliley Probart o.f AWC and Julie Miirray of the WSAC. A. Intracluction - A TF3Ta is a quasi-municipal corporation and independent taxing district creatcd for the sole purpose of acquir.ing, coiistructi.ng, iuiproving, prmiding, anci fundiug transportation improvements within a defined district. A distriet can be created by either a county or a city, or a eombination pf eities, counties, port districts or transit districts. If morc than o.ne jurisdiction is involved, an interlocal agreement is requued. If the TF3D is entirely ~%7thi.n one jurisciiction, the leDislative body cdmpriscs the TRD governing board. If more thau onc jurisdiction, thcn each of the jurisdictions must tiave at lcast f.ive membcrs, witli at lcast o ne elected person iiom each jurisdiction on the goveruing body. B. Adoption mechanism - The crealion of a'l:F3D is done througi ordinance, which describes the bounclary of the district, that it is in the public's intcrest to fc7rm, a dcscription o:F the unprovements to bc done by the TBD, and the proposed taxeslfccs/charges thal the '1°BD will impose to raise revenue for the unprovemenis. C. T R.D fiinclin limits - Subject to voter approval - Thcre are four £unding options a>>ailable ttiat are subject to voter approval: 1. Imposition of property ta,Y - a 1-year excess levy or an excess levy for capital purposcs; 2. IJp to 0.2% sales and usc ta.Y; 3. iJp to $100 aiulual vefucle fee per vehicle registered i_n the aist-ict (but sce below). The fee is collected at the time of vehicle tab renewal aud has additional restrictinns relating lo LLse t'or ferry service. If a count), crcates a l13ll to iuipose up to a$20 fee, it m.ust fir5t allempt to impose a countywidc fce to be shared Nvith cities by interlocal agreement. 60% of the cilies representing 75% of the incorporatcd population must approve the uiterlocal agreemen.t i.'or it lo become ef#ective. If such an interlocal agreement caunot be reached, theii the county is aulhprizeci to create a TBD and imposc the fce, but on.ly ui ttie uniacorporated Partian of the counly; and 4. Velucle tolls on speci_f ied rpads. Not subjcct to voter approval - Tliere aa-e h%.-o dptions lhal are not subjecl to voter approval, but which are subjcct to additional conditions. Please note that while a vote is not required, a city niay still choose to put it to vote. 1. Annual vehicle fee up to $20 per vehicle red ster.ed in the district. 2. Transportation impact .f.ees on commercial and industrial build'uigs. Residentixl buildings are excluded. In additian, a city must provide a credit for a commcrcial or industriat transportation impacl if'the city ha.s already imposed a transportation impact. fee. In sLlort, tlo double dipping nn impacC fees. D. 1'ruiects thut are "quali &ing transportation improvemenls"- N'or a prajecl to qualify for "1"1317 futtdi.ng, it musl meet several criteria. A T13ll e:cists solely foz the pucpase of acqui.ring, constructing, improvi.ng, proviciing, and funding "transportation improvements" Arittun the ciistrict. 1"he ordinatICe adoptuig the TBD must .idenlify the lransportation improvemcnts that would be subject to T.Bia. To be a"qualifying transportation improvement" -Mthi.u the conternplation of RCW 36.73, it must meet the follovving: 1. The iulprovement must be located within the bpundary of the TBD; 2. lhe improvement is nece.ssitated by ex.isting or reasonably forescEablc congestion levels; 3. The improvement is contained in a state or regional transportation plan; Nvhile at the same time be more responsive thaz► a trend linc projection of lustorical data...... Aft-er consultiug Nvith Glenn Miles, Director Uf SIZTC on Junc 11, 2008, he agrees with the proposed changes, a,nd stated tLiat the text a.mendment would fit in well with other changes bei.ng contemplated this year for adoPtion in the fall. E. I.s the furmation of a 7BD subiect to a ref_erendtmi vote? Pu.rsuant ioR.CW 35A.11.090, thcre are a number of actions which are exeiupt from referenduni. [t may be that formation c>f a TF3D by the City is exem.pt under the items listed, bul not certain. There arc addiiional means by which a leo slative action is dctcrmined exempt. Here, thc- authority to fnmi a TBU is cxpressly set forkh in RCW 36.73.020, and is granted to "the lcgislafive aukhority of a county ar city". As such, the power to esl:ablish or cle-establish is reserved eYClusively to the city council. 1f the authnrity was .f.nr "tiie peoplE of a city", or "a city", then it most likely would be subject to referendum. As such, the forrnation oFa'TI3Ta is not subject to referencium. F. Adn:inistraliori of the TI3D - 1. ln the event of prnposed major changes to the plan adopted by the 1BD Board; the TBD must develop a matcrial change policy to address the delivery of the improvement ar the ability to finance the plan. The pnlicy must include a public hearing lU splicit eomments ou how the cost changes should be resolved should anticipated costs exceecl its o.rigi.nal cost by more than 20%. 2. A 'I'BD must issue a.n tuunial report inclicating the st:alus of transportatiou improvcmenl costs, expenditures, reveuucs, an d eonsiruckion schedules to the public and to newspapers of record located in the TBD. 3. If' the TBD proposcs runctions or transportation unprovcments thal are oulside tliose specified in the ariginal nolice of heaeing cstablishing the TF3D, the TBD must go tluough the notice, public heari.u;, and ordinancc process again. OP`1'lUNS: RrCOi +'NDED ACTIOni OR MOTION: BUT)(;T.T/rlUNANC1AL 1MPACTS: S"1'AFF CONTf1CT: Cary Driskell, Ueputy City Att4rney ATTACffiV1EN"1'S: 1. Uraft ordinance establislung '1'E3D; 2. RC`V 36.73; 3. Washington Dept. of LicEnsing document sh.owing affected velucles. 4. 'When selecti.ng the iniprovement, the TBla governing baard must c;onsider the fdllowing criteria, la the exlent practicable: - reduced risk of lransportation facility Failure and improved safety; - improvcd travcl time; - uuproved air quality; - iucreases in daily and peak period trip capacity; - imProved modal connect'ivity; - improved freight mobility; - cost-efi'ectiveness of the investment; - optunal performancc of the systcm through time; anci - Other crileria as adopted by the goveruing body. Tt is also imporl:ant to remember chat the statutory definition of a"transportation i.mProvenient" under RCW 336.93.015(3) is quite broad, and includes state, regional, and local tra.nsporta.tiou facilities. EYamples include: - new or c:cisting highways of statewide significance; - principal arterials of regional sigilific,ance; - high capaciry transportation; - public transportation; - transportation demanci management; or - other transportation projects anci programs af r.egional or stateAide significancc as defined or amendeci inta the r.espective regional or statewide transportation Plan) While 'T'1317s have traditionally (although rarely) been u.seci fbr sfreet capital. projects, the recent amenc3mcnts in 2007 provided jurisdictians the oppartwiity to use T13D funds for maintenance of the eYisting street systern. Such iLse would fall uncier "other lransportation projects azld programs", and would liave to bc providcd for in either the state tr.ansporlation plaii or the Spokane Rcgional Transportation Council's 2007 Mekropolitan Transportation Plan. We lhc>keci at the 2007 MTP to deterroine Nvhettler the languagE met the requirements 1or specificity in calling out street maintenance. There was a differeuce of opuuon as to whether the exisling language was Suf_fcient, so SRTC was appro3ched about amEnding the MTP this Septembee to curc any issuc. nce proposed changes wroulci be in Section 6, page 11 as follows: Local Option Yehicle 1zegistration I%ee. 1`his local oplion considers the impositiou of an up to $100.00 (the maximum alloweci under RCW 36.73) an.nual velucle registration fcc f'or vehicles registered in Spokane County. The fiuids can bc used for projects or programs that support local road eonstruekion, rehabilitation; afid maintenance, pr.eservation, or the operation of local transaortation systcros 'T'hese funds can alto be used for state lu iwa ys bridgcs rcQional arterial5 hiQh capacitv transportaCion public transnortation, and transportation ciemand management piuposes For ttic purposes of this analysis, SRTC cornpilcd the actual vehacle zegiskratians in Spokane County from eslabli.5hed :forecasts tn 2030 using a rolluig average tustorical groAA'th rate. The premise beuig that a rolling 20-ycar average will have moderate peaks and valleys in gowth, C1TY OF SPUKAT'F VAi,LEY SPOKAVL COUiNTY, WAS.FT.iNGTON ()RDINANC.E N0. OS-*** AN ORlllNANCF CItE;ATIiNG A 1`l7ANSPOR'fATIQN RENEF1T DISTRICT, SPFCICYING TH~:' BOUNnA.RMS FOR TTM TRAn'SPORTATlON BFVFFE'-YT DISTRIC'1', AiND SPECIFYINC. TIIF, MAT~1'~"FNAI~'CElPFtFS~kVATIQN QF . EXISTlNG TRAn°S.PORTA'TION T1«'RUVEMFNTS ANb TRANSPOl'2"1'ATiQN IM'PRQVFW iNTS T() BE FUNllED RY 'I HE 'I'I2A.NSPOR`TATIQN RTTTEFiT DIS`1l21CT IN T1" CITY OF SPOKAiNE VALLEY. VVEM1tEAS, the City of Spokanc Valley has the care and custody of all public ways within the corporate limits of the City pursuant to RCW 35A.11.020; Fuid NVBEIkEAS, proper eare and custocly oF the public ways reqtiires maintaining/preserving existing transportation imj?rpvemenis to avoid catastrophic failure of the imprnvements which would require signifcant additional fimds to reconstnict; and WWFR.Ct1S, the State of Washingtan provides approsimalely $2.1 million annually in funding for maintenance/preservation of transportation improvements to the City. MaintcnaneF:/preservation Q# transportation improvements includes snow control (plowi.ng, sanding, de-icing), pothole patc6ing, street lighting, shnulder repair, pavemenl remo<<al and replacecncnt, craek sealing, road snd bridgc inspections, weed contml, as well as other miscellaricous activities; and WI-1TR.rAS, a conservative eslimate of the arnounC of funds necessary for adequate maintenance/prescrvatio❑ of existing transportation improvemcnts in the City fae 2009 is $4.6 million; and WEiFRrAS, the City has limited tCaI1Sl)QPt3tlOil fLinding options to pay far necessary transportation imprnvement maintcrrtnc:e/preservation, incluciing forniation of a transportation Uenefit district pursuant to RCW 35.21.225 and RCW 36.73; and WIIERI:A:S, the City desiees to farm a'1'ransportation Benefl District which includes the entire City of $pokvie V111ey as the boundaries currently exist or as they may exist in the tiiture following annexalion pf. aciditional areas; and WIIERGAS; the 2007 Metropolitan Transportatioii Plan adopCed by the Spqkanc Rubional Transportation Council stat:es in Section 6 thal roaintenvnce of existing rotid facilities is an appropriate usc oCFees generated by a local lransportation bencGt: district; and V«1tEAS, the 2007-2026 VJashingtoti Transportation Plan adoptcd by the Washinoton Transportation Cotncn.ission, identifies in Section II that there is no more fimdamental transportation invesmient xtian emsting system preservation, to keep the physical infTastructure ui safe and efficient opcrating eondition; and 1URERrAS, the City does iiot ctirrently have sufficicrit funds with whicb to pay for transportation capital improvements that are identified as nccessary in the City's Comprehensive Nlan, by the Spokane Kegional Transportalion Council as a project of regional sigiifcance, by the 2007-2026 Orclinuncc 08-00• Estublishing TrnnspnrUstian Bcnc&t DisU-ict - 1- 1'Va.sliington Transportation Plan, and which are necess-iry to address existing or reasonably foresceable congestion levels duE to anticipated population and/or density increases; and NWERF.AS, preserving/mai.nCaining existing transportation i.mprovemenTS is the most cost- effectivc way to address increasetl demand on tlte traiisportation system; and WET1rR.FAS, the City Council will prnpose a btillot item for imposition of an annual vehicle fee for qualifyir~g vehicles in the amount of as seY forth in RCW 82.$0.140. Of diat amount, an estimated$* will he used for street maintenance/preservation, and ari esti.matecl will be used for capital projects i.ri the City that are of regional sipifcance which arc raccessitated by existing and reasonably fareseeable congestion; a.nd WI-i:EREAS, the Gity Cotmcil shall establish a govcrning body comprised ofthe City CounciL NOW 'CHEItENOKE, the City Council of /he City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, VVashington, nrdains as follnws: Seetion .1. Pu. The purpose of this prdinance is tq establish a Transportation Benefit Taistrict pursuant to R.CW 3521225 and RCW 36.73, as the City Council finds it is in the public interest to prqvide adequate levels of funding for transportation improvement and mAintenancelpreservation in the City of Spokane Valley. Section 2. Creation of New Chapter ProvidinQ for Fonnation of a Transportation }3enefit nistricr. Tt,c Gity of Spokane Valley adopt~s a new chapter to the Spokane Valley Municipal Code, 3.85 entitled "Trans~.~ortatiqn Benefit District", which is set forth as follows: 3.$5.010 Establishing i rtansnort4itiun ReneliE District. There is created a transportation benefit district wilh geographical boiindaries eomprised of Che corporti[e limit's of t:he Cil:y as they currently exist or as they may exis[ following futLire annexaCians. 3.$5.020 Govcrning 13nard. A. The governing board of the transportation bencri: district shall be the Spokanc Valley City Counci.l acking in an ex oFFeip arici indcpcndent capac•ity, cvhich shall havc thie authority to excrcise the . Slatutpry powers set forih in RCW 36.73. B. The treasurer of the transportation benefit district shall be the City Finance 17irector. C. T'he board shall develop a material change policy [o address major plan ck►anges khal aff'ect project delivery or the ability tn finance tlie plan, pursuant to [he requirements set ftirth in RCW 36.73.160(1). 17. '1"he botu•d shall issue an iunual report, pu.rsuitnC to the requirements oCRCW 36.73160(2). 3.85.030 Transpc►rtation impror•ernents Funded. A. An estimated * pereent of the fi,nds generated by the tr3nsportation benefit district shall be used to pay for maintenance/preservation of etistinb transportation improvements of regional significauce as identified by the Spokaiie Re~ional TransPc~rtat:ion C.ouncil in the currently adopted Ordinnnce 08-00' 1=stablishing TrnnsPortation Benefit District - 2- Metropolitan Tr•►nsportation Plan, speci.fcally including control of snow and ice, pothole patchina, pavement removal and replacement, gravel road grading, shoulder repair, eraek sea.ling, bridgc and road i_nspection, bridae replir, median maintenanec, bnish clearino and tree trinuning, weed control, litt'er eontrol, traffic control, signsliz.aCion, signage, striping, and other similar on-aoina maintenance ta.sl:s. The eapendihire items shall be identified each year in thc City's street fund budget, and shall be necessitated by existing and reasonably foreseeable congestion. B. An esti.tnateci * percent of the Funds generated by the transportation benefit district shall be used to pay f'or construction of new transportation faeilities of regional significance identifecl by the City's Coinprehensive Plan ancl by the Spohane Regional Transportation COLmcil in the currenCly adopted Metropolitan Transportatioci Plan, and which are necessitated by e:cisting and reasonably foreseeable congestion. 3.85.040 Establishment of Vehicle License Fee. The annual vchicle fee for the City is established at to be collected by thc Washington Departrnent of Licensing on qualifying vrehicles, set fortii in .RCW 82.80.140 ajid Chapters 36.73 and 46.16. 3.85.050 Sunset/Reliealer .Provision. The codc provisions adopted undcr Orc3inance 08-00# shall Cemunate by operation of law six years after collection of fimds actually begins. The code provisions adapted under Ordinancc 08-00* shall be repeglecl by operation of law and cetise to exist at the end oP lhe calendar year in which the City adopts a street utility, or if.' tiie City COtmcil repeals Spokane Valley Municipal Code chapter 3.85 as adoptecl or amended. SecNon 3. Scverabilitv. If any section, sentence, clause or phrase of lhis Ordinance should be held to be invalid or unconstitutional hy a eotirl of competent jurisclicCian, such invalidity or uciconstitutionality s1iaU not afl•eet the validity or constitutinnality of any other sec.l:ion, sentence, clausc or phrase of this Ordinance. Section 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective fivc days after publication oFthe ordinance, or a sutttrnary thereof, in the official newspaper of the City. Aclopted this day of . 2008. City of Spokiine Valley Mayor, Richard Munson ATTEST: City Clerk, C}trisline $ainbrid?e Approved as to Form: Oftice of the Cily Attorney Ordinvice 08-00' Fstablishing TransporEation Betiefit District - 3- • WA State T.icensing: Local transportation beneft disfrict fees Page 1 of 2 Local transportation benefit district fees - A law passed in 2007 allows city or county governments to create local transportation beneft districts and impose a local vehicle registration fee to fund local transportation projects. How a transportation benefit district works . Once a local transportation beneft districfi is set up, the district's board of directors may vote to charge a local vehicle licensing fee due when a vehicle owner buys new tabs. • The firansportation benefit district board has the authority to impose a fee of up to $20 per vehicle without voter approval. A transportation beneFt disfirict may impose a vehicle renewal fee of up to $100 per vehicle or seek other sources of funding . if approved by voters. Vehicles subject to fees . Passenger vehicles • Trucks that weigh 6,000 pounds or less • Motorcycles . Commercial passenger vehicles and trucks that weigh 6,000 pounds or less • Combination trucks that weigh 6,000 pounds or less • Tow trucks . House moving dollies . . Trucks used exclusively for hauling logs that weigh 6,000 - pounds or less . Taxicabs . For-hire or stage vehicles with 6 seats or less . For-hire or stage vehicfes with 7 or more seats that weigh 6,000 pounds or less • Private use trailers over 2,000 pounds • Motorcycle trailers . • Travel trailers . Fixed load vehicles that weigh 6,000 pounds or less . Mobile homes licensed as vehicles Exempt vehicles . ' . All farm vehicles . Campers • Off-road vehicles - • Snowmobiles • Mopeds . Personal use trailers with a single axle and less than 2,000 pounds scale weight http://~vww.dol.wa..;ov/veliicleregistration/localfees_html 3/21l2008 WA State Licensing: Loaal transportation benefit disirict fees Page 2 of2 • Commercial trailers • Combination trailers • 7railers usedexclusively for hauling logs • Horseless carriage, collector, or restored-plate vehicles . • Converter gear . Government vehicles . Private school vehicles . . Vehicles properly registered to disabled American veterans Districts and fees . . No cities or counties are currently charging local transportation beneFt district fees. . Eligible vehicles . The L-~1Transportation Benefit District Eli qibility Report provides useful estimations to help cities and counties interested in setting up a transportation benefit district. The report includes: • Information about transportation benefit district laws. . A list of the types of vehicles subject to transportation benefit district fees. . Estimated data showing the number of vehicles eligible for the $20 fee in fiscal year 2008 - sorted by zip code, city, or county. If you need more information after viewing the report, call us at (360) 902-3606 or send an email to KMat IS,@dOqQV. . I http:/l~N,ww. dol.Nva.gov/i,chacleregistration/iocalfees.httn 1 3/21 /200$ Chapter 36.73 RCW: Transportation benefit districts Page 1 of 1.0 Chapter 36.73 RCW 'T'ranspox-tation bcn.efit distric-ts ChaQ►er Listino RCW Sections 36.73.010 fnfent. 8 7 0 Definitions. 36.73,02Q Esfablishment of district by county or city - Participation by other jurisdictions. 36.73.030 Esfablishment of district by city. 36,73.040 General paw2rs of district. 36 7 a Establishment of district - f'ublic hearing - Ordinance. 36.73.(}60 Auihority to levy property tax. 73.065 Taxes, fees, charges, tofls. 38.73.070 Aufhority fo issue general obligation bonds, revenue bonds. 36.73.080 Local improveiiient districts au#hor'rzed - Special assessments - Bonds. aQ,73.090 Printing of bonds. 36.73. 00 Use of bond proceeds. 36.73.110 Acceptance and use af gifts and grants. 36.73.120 Imposition of fees on building oonstruction or land development. 36,73.130 !'awer of eminent domain. 3 73.140 Authority to contract for sfreet and highway improvements. 36,73.150 Deparfinent of transportation, counties, cities, aiid otherjurisdicbons may fund transportation ' irnprovements. '3 6,73.16q Transporiation improvernent projects - Material change policy Annual r~port. , 36.73.170 Completion of transportation improvement - Termination of district operations -1'ermination of taxes, fees, charges, and tolls - Dissolution of district. 36.73.900 Liberal construction. Notes: , ' - Roads and bridges, service districts: Chapter 36.83 RCW. r„ 36.73.010 Intent . 'rhe legrslature finds tliat the citizens of the state can benef►t by oaoperation of the public and private sectors in addressing transportation needs. This cooperation can be fostered through enhanced capability for cities, fovms, and counties to make and fund transpQrtation improvements necessitated by ecanomic development and to irnprove the performanee of the transportation system. It is tfie intent of the legislature to erscourage joint sfforts by the state, local govemments, and Ehe priva2e secfor to respond fo the nsed for thos@ transpoitation improvements on stafe highways, counry roads, and city strp-ets. Thi is goal can be better achieved by allowring Gities, towns, and counties to establish transportation benefit districts in order to respond to the special transporfation needs and economic opportunities resulting from private secfor developmQnt for the • public good. The legislature also seeks to facilitate the equitable participation of private developers vrhose developments may generate the need ior Ehose improvemenls in the impravement costs. [2005 c 336 § 2; 1987 c 327 s 1.1 http://apps.leg. wa.gov/RCNV/defatilt.aspx?cite-3 6.73 &,full=true 3/21 /'Z008 Chapter 36.73 RC«: Transportation henefit districi:s Page 2 of 10 Notes: Effective date - 2005 c 336: See note following RCIN 36.73.01.5. • 36.73.015 . Definitions. The dzfinitions in this section appty throughout this chapter unless the conEext c[earty requires otherwise. (1) °Disfrict° means a transportation benefit district created under this chapter. (2) "Ciiy" means a city or tawn. (3) "Transportation improvement" means a project contained in the fransporfation pfan of the state or a regional franspoftation planning organization. A project may include investmenf in new or existirsg highways of statewide significance, principal a►terials of regional signficance, high-capaaty transporfation, public transportation, and ather transportation projecks and programs of regional or statewide significance including transportation demand managemenf. :a Projects may also include the operation, preservation, and maintenance of these facilities or programs. . . • [2006 c 311 § 24; 2005 c 336 § 1.] . Notes: Findings 2006 c 311: See note following RCW 36.120.020. EffecNve date - 2005 c 336: "'this acf iakes effect August 1, 2005•° [2005 c 336 § 26.] 36.73.020 Establishment of district by county or city - Participation by other jurisdictions. (1) The legislative authorify of a oounty or city inay establish a transportation benefit district within the cflunty or aty area •or within fhe area specified in subsection (2) of this section, for the purpose of aoquiring, construcking, improving, ' providing, and funding a transportation improvement witfiin the district that is oonsistent with any existing state, regional, • and local Uansportation plans and neoessitated by existing or reasonably foreseeable corigestion levels. The transportation improvements shafl be ovmed by the cfllinty of jurisdiction if locatied in an unincorporated area, by the city of jurisdiction if located in an incorporated area, or by the state in cases rvhero the transportabon improvemsnt is or becomes a state hightivay. However, if deemed appropriate by ihe goveming body of the transportation benefit districi, a transportafion improvement may be awned by a participating port district or transit district, unlass otherv4se prohibited by law. Transparfatian improvernents shall be administere-d and maintained ss other public streets, roads, highways, and transporta8on improvertieiits. To the extent practicable, the district shall conslcler the following criteria rvhen selecting transportation improvements: ' (a) Reduced risk of transportation facility failure and improved safety; (b) Improved Uavsl time; (c) Improved air quality; (d) Increases in daity and peak psriod trip capacify; ' (e) Improved modal connectivity; •(t~ Improved ireight mobitity; . (g) Cost-effeGiveness of the investment; (h) Optimal performance of ths system through fime; and http://apps 1eg.wa.gov/fl.C W/default.aspx?cite=36.73 &#'uI l--true 3/`~ 1/2008 Chapter 36.73 RGW: Tra.asportation benefit districts Page 3 of 10 O Other criteria, as adopEed by the governing body. - (2) Subject to subsection (6) of this section, the district may include area within more than ans county, city, port district, county transporfetion authority, or public transportaHon benefiit area, if the legislative authority of each participating junsdiction has agreed to the inGusion as provided in an interlocal agreement adopied pursuant to chapter 39.34 RCW. Hrnvever, the boundaries of the ciisfrict need noi include all territory wfthin the boundaries of the partiapating jurisdictions comprising the district. (3) The members of ihe legislative authority proposing to establish the districZ, acting ex officio and independently, shall constitute the governing body of the district: PROVIDED, That where a district inGudes area within mort than one jurisdic6on under subsection (2) of this section, the district shall be govemed under an interlocal agre * ement adopted pursuant to chapQer 39.34 RCW. Movrever, the governing trody shall be composed of at ieast five members inGuding at least one elected of{cial from the legislative authorify of each participating jurisdiction. • (4) The treasurer of the jurisdiction proposing to esEablish the disfrict shall act as the ex officio treasurer of the district, unless an interiocal agreement states otherwise. (5) The electors of the districf shall all be registered voters residing within the district. (6) Prior to December 1, 2007, the authority under this section, regarding the esfablishment of or the partidpation in a cfistrict, shall not appty to: . (a) Counties tivith a population grea4er than one i-nillion five hundred thousand persons and aiiy adjoining countiss with a population greater than five hundred thousand persons; (b) Cities witM any area within the counties under (a) of this subsection; and (c) Otherjurisdictions Hrith any area vrithin the countles uiider (a) of ihis subsecfion. [2006 c 311 § 25; 2005 c 336 § 3; 1989 c 53 § 1; 1987 c 327 § 2.1 Notes: Findings - 2006 c 311: Ses note folloNiing RCW 36.120.020. ' Effective date 2005 c 336: See note following RCW 35.73•015, Severability 1989 c 53: "If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumsfance is held invalici, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affecled." [1989 c 53 § S.J , • Transportation benefiit disfrict tax authority: RCW 82.47.020. 36.73.030 Establfshment of district by city. ' See RCW 35.21.225. .......~m. 35.73.040 Gerteral powers of district , (1) A transportation beneft district is a quasi-municipal corporation, an independent faxing "authority" within the meaning of Articfe Vll, section 1 of the sfate Canstitution, and a"Eaxing districf" within the meaning of Articlz Vfl, section 2 of the sfate Constitution. ht"tp://apps.leg.w,-i.gov/RCN`V/default.aspx?cite=36.73&f•'ull--true Y21/'2008 Chapter 36.73 RCW: Tra.nsportation beiiefit districts Page 4 of 10 (2) A transportation benefit disEriU constifutes a boBy corporate and possesses all the usual powers of a corporation for public purposes as vaell as all olher powers that may naw or hereafter be spBCfllCally confeRed by Statute, including, but not fimited to, the authorify to hire employees, staff, and serviczs, to enter into contracts, to aaquira, hold, and dispase of real and parsonal.properly, and 4a sue and be sued. Public vrorks contract [imits spplicable to the jurisdiction that estabJished the disfrict apply fo the district. (3) To rarry out the purposas of this chapter, and subject to the provisions of RCW 36.73.085, a district is authorizAd to impose the following taxes, fees, charges, and tolls: (a) A sales and use tax in acoordance wiih RC+1V 82.14.4455; (b) A vehicle fee in accordance with RCL^182.8U.140; (c) A fee or charge in aacordance wifh RCW 36.73.120. Hotivever, if a county or city within the district area is levying a fee or charge for a transportation improvement, the fee or charge shall be credited agafnst the amount of the fee or charge imposed by the district. Developments oonsisting of less than twenty residences are exempt from the fee or charge under RCVJ 36,73•120; and (d) Vehicle tolls on state routes or fsderal highways, city streets, or county roads, within the boundaries of the district, unless otherviise prohibited by law. The department of transportation shell admmisfer the collection of vehicle tolls auihorized on state routes ar fedsral highways, unless offienvise specified in law or by contract, and the state 4ransportafion cammission, or its suocessor, may approve, set, and imposa the tolls in amounts sufficient to implement the districYs transport2tion improvement finarrce plan. The district shall administer the collection of vehicle tolls ' authorized on city streefs or county roads, and shall set and impose, only ti-Ath approval of the transportation commission, or its successor, the tolls in amounts sufncient to implement the ciistrict's transportation improvement plan. [2005 c 338 § 4; 1980 c 53 § 3; 1987 C 327 § 4.] Notes: Effective date 2005 c 336: See note following RCYJ 36.73.015. Severabiliry --1989 c 53: See note follovring RCW 6 73.020. 36.73.050 Establishment of district- Public hearing - Ordinance. (1) l"he legislative auEhorities proposing to establish a disfrict, or to modify the boundaries of an existing district, or to dissolvo an existing distnct shall conduct a hearing at the time and place specified in a notice published at least ance, not less than tan days before the hearing, in a newspaper of general circulation within the proposed district. Subject to the provisions of RCW 36.73.170, the Iegislative authorities shall make provision for a clistnct to be automa€ically dissolved vrhen all indebtedn@ss of the district has been retired and anticipated responsibilities liave been satisfied. This notice shall be in addition to any other notice required by Iativ to be publishEd. The notice shall, where applicable, speafy the functions or activiYres proposed to be provided or funded, or the addibonal functions or activities proposed to be provided or funded, by the district. Additional notice of the hearing may be given by mail, by pas6ng within the proposed disirict, ot in any manner the fegislstive authorities deem necessary to notify affected persons. All hearings shall be pubfic and !h2 legislative authorities shall hear objections from any person affected by the formation, modification of the boundaries, or dissolution of the district. • (2)(a) Following the hearing held pursuant 4o subsection (1) of this section, the legislative authorities may esfablish a district, modify the boundaries or functions of an existing district, or dissolve an existing disUict, if the legislative authorities find the acfion fo be in the public interest and adopt an ordinance providiiig for the action. (b) The ordinance establishing a district shall speafj/ the funcxions and transportation improvemenfs described under RCW 36.73.015 to be exercised or funded and esfablish the boundarias of the district. Subject to the provisions of RCW 36.73.160, functions or transportation improvements proposed to be provided ar fundnd by the district may not be expanded beyond those specified in the notice of hearing, unless acldifional.notices are mads, further hearings on the expansion are held, and fitrther determinations are made that it is in the pubfic interest to so expand the functions or transportation impravements proposed #o be provided or funded. 12007 c 329 § 3; 2005 C 336 § 5; 1987 c 327 § 5.1 htip://apps.le j.~va.govlRC~,'V/ciefault. aspx?cife=36.73 &full--true 3/21 /2008 Chapter 36.73 RCW: Transportatiou benefit distric~.s Page 5 of 10 Notes: Effective date - 2005 c 336: See nofe following RCVJ 36.73 0. 38.73.060 - .authority to levy property tax. (1) A district mey levy an ad valorem property fax in exces.s of the ons percent limitation upon the property wi?liin the district tor a one-year period vrhenever authoriaed by the vroters oi the district pursuznt to RCW 84.52.052 and Articie VII, ' section 2(a) of the state Constitution. (2) A district may provide for the retirsment of vofer-appraved general obligation bonds, issued for capital purposes only, by levying bond retirement ad valarem property fax levies in excess of the one percent limitation vrhsnever authorized by the voters of the disfrict pursuant to ArtiGe VII, section 2(b) oi the state Constitution and RCW 84.52.056. [2005 c 336 § 6; 1987 c 327 § 6.j Notes: , Effective date 2005 c 336: See note following RCW 6.3 73•015. 36.73.065 Taxes, fees, charges, tolls. (1) Except as provided in subsection (4) of this section, taxes, fzes, charges, and tolls may not be imposed by a district ' without approval of a majority of the voters in the district voting on a proposition at a gener2l or special etection. The proposiNon must includs a spedfic clescriptian of the transpoRatian impravement or improvements proposed by the district and the proposed taxes, fees, charges, and the range of tolls imposed by the district to raise revenue fo fund the improvement or improvements. • (2) Vot@r approval under this section shall be aocorded substantial weight reyarding the validity of a transpatation improvement as defined in RCW 736. 3.b15. . , (3) A district may nat increase any taxes, fees, charges, or range af tolls imposed under this chapt2r once the taxes, fBes, charges, or tolls take efieci, unless authorizecf by the district voters pursuant to RCW 36.73.160. (4)(a) A distnct that includes all the territory within the boundaries of the jurisdiction, orjuristiicHons, establishing the - district may impose by a majority vote of the governing board of the district the following fees and charges: (D Up to trventy doHars of the vehicle fee authorized in RCW 82.80.140; or (ii) A fee or charge in accordance with RCW 36 3.120. (b) The vehiGe fee authorized in (a) of this subsection rr►ay only bc impased for a passQnger-onfy ferry transport3Eion improvement;f the vehicle fee is first approved by a majority of the voters tivithin the jurisdiction of the, districk (c)(i) A disfrict solcly comprised of a city or aties shall not imnose the fees or charges identified in (a) of this subsection wilhin one hundred eighfy days after July 22, 2007, unless the oounty in which the city or cities reside, by resolution, declares thaf it will not irnpose the feES or charges idenfified in (a) of this subsection within the one hundred . eighty-day period; or (ii) A district solely comprised of a city or cities identfied in RCW 36.73.02 shall not impose the f2es or charges until aRer May 22, 2003, unless the oounty in which the city or cities reside, by re5olution, declares fhat if will not impose the fees or chargzs identified in (a) of this subsection through May 22, 2008. (5) Ifi the interiocal agreement in RCW 82.80.140(2)(a) cannof be reacJied, a disttict fhat indudes only the unincorporated tsrrifory af a county may impose by a majority vote af the governing body of the district up to tvventy dollars of the vehicle fee aufhorized in RCW 82.80.140. http://apps.]eg.wa.gov/RCNV/de~ault.aspx2cite=36.73&.full=ixue 3/21/2003 Chapter 36.73 RCW: Trazisportation beenefit district's Page 6 of 10 [2007 c 329 § 1; 2005 c 338 § 17.] Notes: Effective date - 2005 c 336: See note follotiving RCW 36.73.015. 36.73.070 • Authority to issue general obligaUon bonds, reveiiue bonds. , (1) To carry out the purposes of this chapter and nohvitlistanding RCW 39.36.020(1), a district may issue general obligaUon bonds, not to exceed an amount, together with any other outstanding n onvoter-ap proved general obligation indebtedness, equat to one and one-half percent of the value of taxable property within the district; as the term "vatue of , faxable property" is defined in RCW 39.36.015. A district may additionally issue g'eneral obligalion bonds for capital purpases onfy, tagether with any outstanding general obligation indebtedne'ss, not to ezceed an amount equal to five percent of the value of the taxable property within the district, as the ferm "valuE of faxable property" is defined in RCW 39.36.015, when aufhorized by the votsrs of the disfrict pursuant to Artide VIII, secbon 6 of the state Constitution, and may atso provide for the retiremsnt thereof by excess praperfy tax fsvies as provided in RCW 36.73.060(2). The district may, if applicable, submit a singls proposition to the voters that, if approved, authorizes aoth the issuance of the bonds and the bond retirement properry tax levies. (2) General obligation bonds vrith a maturity in excess of forty years shall not be issued. The goveming body of the district shall by resolution determine for each general obfigation band issue the amount, ciate, tenns, condifions, denominafions, maximum fixed or variable interest rate or retes, maturity or maturities, redemption rights, registration privileges, manner of execution, rnanner of sale, callable provisions, if any, covenants, and form, including registration as to principal and interest, registration as to principal only, or bearer. Regisfration may include, but not be limited fo: (a) A book entry system of recording the owmership of a bond whether or not physicaJ bonds are issued; or (b) rECarding the, ovrnership of a bond together writh the requiremeiit that the transfer of awnership may only be effected by the surrender of the old bond and eiUter the reissuance of the old bond or the issuanoe of a new bond to the netiv owner. Facsimile signatures may be used on the bonds and any'ooupons. Refunding general obligation bonds may be issued in ffie same manner as general obligation bonds are issued. • (3) Whenever general obligation bonds are issued fo fund speafic projects or enterprises that generate revenues, charges, user fees, or special assessments, the district rray speciflcally pledge all or a portion of the revznues, charges, user fess, or special assessments fo refund the general obligation bonds. The distRCt may also pledge any other revenues that may be available to the districf. (4) In atldition to general oblfgation bonds, a disfricl may issue revenue bonds to be issued and sold in aooordance with chapter 39.46 RCW. [2005 c 336 § 7; 5987 c 327 § 7.] . Notes: Effectivo date 2005 c 336: See note follovnng RCW 7 . 36.73.080 Local improvement districts authorized - Specfal assessments - Bonds. (1) A district may fomi a local improvement district to provide any transportation improvement it has the autlioriry to providQ, impose special assessments on all property specially benefited by the iranspartation improvemenfs, and issue special assessment bonds er rzvenuz bonds to fund the cosfs of the transportation improvement. Local improvement districts shall be created anii administered, and assessrrients shall be mado and collected, in the manner and to the extent provided by law to cities and toadns pursuant to cfiapters 35.43, 35.44, 35.49; 35.50, 35.51, 35.53, and 35.54 12CW. Havvever, ffie duties devolving upon the city or tawn treasurer under these chapters shall be imposed upon the district treasurer for the purposes of tnis section. A local improvement district may only be formed under this section pursuant to the petition method under RCW 35.43.120 and 35.43.125. ~ (2) The governing body of a disfrict shall by resolution establish for each special assessment bond issue the amount, http://apps.leg.wa.gav/RCN`V/default.aspx?eite=36.73&fu.ll--true 3/21/2003 Chapter 36.73 RC`V: rransporcation beriefit districcs Page 7 of 10 date, terms, conditions, denominaEions, rriaximum zixed or variable interest rate or rates, maturity or maturifies, redemption righfs, regisfration privi(eges, if any, covenants, and form, inciuding registration as to principal and interest, ' registration as to principal only, or bearer. Registration may include, but nat be fim* ited to: (a) A book en4ry system of recording the ownership ofi a bond vrhether or not physical bonds are issuad; or (b) recorcfing the ownership of a bond together vriih the raquirement that the transfer of oavnership may onPy be eifected by the surrendar of the old 'oond and either the reissuanoe af the old bond or the issuanGe of a new bond to the new owner. FaGSimile signatures may be used on the bonds'and any coupons. Ti he maximum term oi any special assessnient bonds shall not excsed ttiirEy years beyond the date of issue. Special assessment bonds issued pursuant to this szction shall not be an indebtedness of the district issuing the bonds, and the interest and principal on the bands shall only be payable nom special assessments made for the improvement for wtiich the bonds were issued and any local improveinent guaranty fund that the disfrict has crea#ed. The ovmer or bearer of a special assessment bond or any interest coupon issued pursuant to this section • shall not have any claim against the district arising from the bond or coupon except for the paymenE from special assessments made for the improvemsnt for vrhich the bonds vrere issued and any local improvement guaranty fund the district has created. The district issuing the special assessment bonds is not liable to the owner or bearer of any special assessment bond or any in'terest coupon issued pursuant to this section for any loss oocurring in the law{ul operation of its local improvement guaraiily fund. 7he subsfance of the limitations included in this subsecfion (2) shall be plainty printed, writfen, or engraved on each special assessment bond issued pursuant to this section. ' . (3) Assessments shall reflect any credits given by a district for rea) property or property right'donations made . pursuant fo RC+N 47.14.030. (4) 7he gaverning body may es4sblish, administer, and pay money into a local impravemeni guaranty fund, in the manner and to the extent orovided by law to cities and towns under chapter 35.54 RCW, to guarantee specigl assessment bands issued by the district. [2005 c3as § a; 1987 c 327 § 8.1 . Notes: Effective date 2005 c 336: See note following RCW 15. 36.73.090 . Printing of bonds. , Where physical bonds are issued pursuant to RC4V 3673.U70 or 35.73.080, the bonds shall be printeti, engraved, or Gthographed on yood aond paper and the manual or facsimile signatures of both the treasurer and chairperson of the governing body shall be incfuded on each bond. [1987 o 327 § e.1 36.73.100 ' Use of bond proceeds. . (1) The proceeds of any bond issued pursuant to RCW 36•7 ,070 or 36.73.Q8D may be used to pay costs incurred on a bond issue relafed to the sale and issuance of the bonds. 7hese costs include payments for 6scal and legal expenses, obtaining bond ratings, prinling, engraving, advertising, and olher similar activities. (2) In addition, proceeds of bonds used to fund capital projects may be used to pay the necessary arid relafed engineering, architectural, pfanning, and inspection cosfs. [2005 c 336 § 9; 4987 c 327 § 10.1 , Notes: Effective date 2005 c 336: S2e note following RCW 36 7. 3.015. fittp://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCVV/de.f.ault.aspx?ci te=36.73&full-truc 3/2 ] /2008 Chapter 36.73 RCVV: Tzp.nsportation henefit districts Page 3 of 10 36.73.110 Acceptance and use of gifts and grants. , A district may acoepf and expend or usB gifts, grants, and donations. ' [2005 c 336 § 10;•1987 c 327 § 11.] Notes: - Effective dabe - 2005 c 336: See note following RCW 36,73.QJ5. " 36.73.120 Imposition of fees on building construction or land development. (1) SubJect to the provisions in RCW 36.73.065, a disErict may irnpose a fee or charge on the oonstrvc.tion or reconstruction of comrnercial buildings, industrial buildings, or on any other commercial or industrial building or building space or appurtenance, or on the development, subdivision, classfication, or reclassification of land for commercial . purposes, only if done in accordance with chapter 39.92 RCW. (2) Any fee ar charge impased under this sectiai shall be used exclusively for transportation improvEments constructed by a disUid. The fees ar charges imposed must be reasonably necessary as a result of the impact of development, construdion, or dassiRcation or reclassificaUon of land on identified transportation needs. (3) If a county or city within tha district area is levying a fee or charge for a transportaNon improvement, ttie fee or charge shall be credited against the amount of Uie fee or charge imposed by ths district. [2007 c 329 § 4; 2005 c 336 § 11; 1988 c 179 § 7; 1987 c 327 § 12.1 Notes: Effective date - 2005 c 336: Seo nofe folloaaing RCW 36.73•01 5. Severability - Prospective application - Section captions -1988 c 179: See RCW 39.92.900 and 39.92.901. 36.73.130 Power of eminent domain. A district may exerciso the power of eminent domain to obtaiii proparty for its authorizsd purposes in the same manner as autharized for the city or county legislative authority that establishsd the district. • (2005 c 336 § 12; 1987 t 327 § 13.1 - Notes: - ' Effective date - 2005 c 336: See nate following RCW 36,73.015. 36.73.140 ' Authority to contract for street and highway improvements. _ A distric# has the same prnvers as a eounty or ciry to contract for street, road, or state highway improvernent projecfs and http://apps.leg.wa.govlKC W/default.aspx?cite=36.73 &full=true 3f2 ] /2008 Chapter 36.73 RCW: Transportai7on benefit districts, Page 9 of 10 to enter into reimburssment confracfs provided for in chapter 35.72 RCW. (2005 c 336 § 13; 1987 c 327 § 14.1 Notes: • Effective date ~ 2005 c 336: SQe note following, RCW 36.73.015. 36.73. S 50 Department of transportation, counties, cities, and other jurisdictions may fund transporkation improveinents. The department of transportafion, countie:s, cities, and ather jurisciictions rnay give funds to districts for the purposes of financing transporiation irnprovements under this chapter. [2005 c 336 § 14; 1987 c 327 § 15.1 Notes: Effective date 2005 c 336: See nots follawing RCW 36.73.015. • 36.73.160 Transportation improvcment projects - Material change policy - Annual report • (1) The district goveming body shall dsvelop a material change policy to address major plan changes that affect project delivery or the 3bility to finance the plan. The poGcy must at least address maferial changas to cost, scape, and schedule, the level of change that wrill require governing body involvement, and haw the governing body aiill address fhose changes. At a minimum, in the event that a transportatian improvement cost exceeds its original oost by more than twenty percent as idenffied in a districf s original finance plan, the goveming body shall hold a public hearing to soliat commeait from the public regarc4"ing how the cost change should be resolved. - (2) A distrilci shall issue an annual repoR, indicating the status of transpartation impravement costs, fransportation improvement expenditures, revenues, and construction schedules, to the public and to newspapers of reoorci in the district. [2005 c 336 § 18.1 Notes: Effective date 2005 c 336: See note follorring RCW 36.73 36.73.170 Completion of transportation improvement - Termination of district operations - Termination ef tazes, fees, charges, and tofls - Dfssolution of district. . Within thirty days of the completion of the oonstruction of the transportabon improvement or series of improvements authorized by a disfrict, the district shall ferminate day-to-day operations and exist solely as a limited entity that oversees the callection of revenue and the payment of debt servicc or financing still in effect, if any and to carry out the requirements of RCW 35.73.160. The district shall accordingly adjust downward its employees, administration, and overhead expenses. Any taxes, fees, charges, or tolls imposed by the disfrict terminate when the finanang or debt service on the transportation improvement or series of improvements eonstructed is completsd and paid and no4ice is provided fo the deparltments administering the taxes. Any exoQss revenues col(ected must be disbursed to the partiapating jurisdictions of the district in proportian fo their population, using population estimates prepared by the office of financaal managament. The districf shall dEssolve itself and cease to exist thirEy days afler the financing or debt servioe on the iransportation improvement, or series oi improvements, construcfed is oompleQed and paid. If there is no debt hftp://apps.leg. wa.govfRCI~'Idefatdt.aspY7cite=35.73 &full=true 3/2 l.!^ 008 Chapter 36.73 RCW: Transporta.tion benefit disixict,s I'age 10 of 10 outstanding, then the district shall ciissolve within thirty days from completion of construction of the iransportaUon improvement or series o'l' improvements authorized by the district. Notice of dissolution must be published in newspapers of general arculation vrithin the district at Ieast three times in a period of thirty days. Credifors must file cJairns for payment of claims due within thirty days of the last pubfished notice or the claim is extinguished. [2005 c sss § 19.] Notes: Eff@ctive date 2005 c 336: See note fallowing RCW 36.73.015. 36.73.900 Liberal construction. • 'I"he rule af strict oonstruction does not apply fo this chapter, and this chapter shall be liberally oonstrued to permit the accomplishment of its purposes. . [1987 c 327 § 16.1 . . • t http://appsleg.Nva.gov/RCW/dcfault.aspx?cite=36.73&fiill---irue 3/21/2003 CITY QF S.POKANE VALLEY SPOKANE COU'n'TX, WASHINGT0N RESOLU'T70N N0. 07-017 A RESOLTJTTQN OF THE CITY OF SPQKAlYE VALLEY, SPOICANE CO1Jn'TY, R'ASHrNG'COY, A,i`MYDWG RESOL[3TIQN 06-024, AND APPROVTNG AN AMEANDED `ZASTER FFE SCHEDUL~ NVffEREt1S, it is the general policy of the City to esklUlish fees thst are refleetive of the cost of services provided by the City; and WHEREAS, the Ciry uses a resolution to establish fees for Ciiy programs, permits and services, and periodiGally, the fee resolution must be updated to incorporate new or moclifed services; and WHEREAS, Council desires to modify tbe Resolution and accompanying Fce Schedule. NOW THEREYORE, be it resolved by the City Council of the City of Spokane Valley, Spokane County, Washington, as follows: Section 1. The changes needed at this tirne are incorporated into the attached schedules, and include (1) preliminary and final short plat fees; final binding site plan fees; and new fees for zoning letters and quick turnaround permits. ' Section 2. Repeal. To ihe cxtent that previous fee schedulcs are inconsistent widi those set forth herein, they are repe.aled. Sectian 3. Effeccive Date. T7lis Rcsolution shall be in full force and e.ffcct on January 1; 2005. Approved this 23`d clay o.f OctoUer, 2007. ATI ES'C': CITY OF SPOKANE VALLEY Christine Bainbridge, City Clerk :Diana Wilhite, Mayor tlpproved as to form: Offce of the City Attorney Resolution 07-017 Fee Resolution for 2008 Page 1 of 18 MASTER FEE SCJIEDULE Fee Schedlile Page No. Schedule A: Development 3 Schedule B: Building 5 Schedule C: Fire Code 13 Schedule D: Parks & Recreation 16 Schedule E: Administrative 19 Schedule F: Other Fees 20 Resolution 07-017 Fee Resolution for 2008 Page 2 of 18 iMASTER FEE SCHEDU.LE Schedule A - DEVELOFMENT AMFNDMEN'TS Comprchensive Plan amendment S1,500.00 Zoning or otver code text Aniendment $1,500.00 APPEALS Appesil of Administrative Uecision $1,000.00 AppeAl of Hearing Examiner findings $300.00 Transcript/record deposit fee on appenls of IIearing S150.00 Esamincr's decisions Appesl of determination made pursvant to S"fC S500.00 10.30.150-.660 ENVIRONMENTAL RFVCFW State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) Single dwelling (when required) S100.00 A11 other developments $350.00 Enviroumental Tmpact Statement (EIS) Review $2,200.00 Addenda nf eaisting LIS Review $350.00 Shoreline Substantial Devclopment Permit $800.00 Critic:al Areas 5300.00 Floodplnin Fcrmit S50.00 Per lot PERiI~IITS Homc Occupatiun Permit $80.00 Conditional Usc Fcrmit 5800.00 Tempc►rar_y Use Permit S1511.00 PLATS Subdivisions Preliminary p1AE S2,324 Plus $40.00 per lot Final plat S1,424 Plus $10.00 per lot Short Plats Preliminsr3• 2-41ots $1,224 Final Plat 2-4 Lots . $924 1'reliminary plat 5-9 Lots S1,424 Plus $25.00 per lot Resolution 07-017 Fee Resolu[ion for 2008 PRee 3 of 18 Final Plat 5-9 Taots $1,224 Plus S1U.00 per lot Plat Alteration Subdivision plat S650.00 Shurt plut S265.110 Binding Site Plan Hintiing sitc plan modification $1,474 Change of Canditions S650.00 Preliminary bind+ng sife plav $1,674 Final binding site plan $924 Aggregation/Segregati on Lot line sdjustment $100.00 Lot live el.iaiioation $100.00 Zern lot line . $100.00 Plus S1U.00 per lot S:[CVS Review uf permarient sigu $50.00 Plus S25.00 if Public Works review is needed Review of temporarT sign 550.00 S1TE :PLANR:EVIEW $550.00 STREE7' VACATfON APPLICATIO\° $1y300.00 VARIANCES Administrative $300.00 Public Hcarings $1,500.00 ZONI\7G Zoning map 9mendments (reione)* $1,650.00 PUD plfln S:l,SQA.AO Plus $25.00 per lul' I'UD modification $500.00 Zoning letter S200.00 kIf rczone is combined with other action(s), cost of otlicr acHon(s) is additiooal. Note: The Building Official is authorized to require the permit applicant to proviclc fcc reimbursernenf tn [he City of Spokane Valley for any professional services required outside of Ciry staff review. Some exiunplcs of potential outside resources include plan review, constniction inspection and surveying. Resolution 07-017 Fcc Resoluuon for 2003 Paoe 4 of 18 Schedule B - BUILD.IlNG The building code permit fecs are coJlected at the Cime of the issuance of die building pcrmit. Other fees are also to be collected at the time of the issuing of lhe buildi.ng permit. Each department for whom the fee is collected is to advise the permit specialist of fees due. GRADP tG Permit Fees Cubic Yards FEE 100 or lesS $20.00 101 to 1,000 $20.00 for the first 100 Cu. Yd., plus $7.00 for cach additional 100 Cu. Yd. 1,001 to 10,000 S83.00 fnr the first 1,001 Cu. Yd., plus $6.00 for each additiona11,000 Cu. Yd. 1.0,001 to 100,000 $147.00 for the first 10,000 Cu. Yd. plus $15.00 for cach additional 10,000 Cu. Yd. 100,001 to 200,000 S368.00 for the first 100,000 Ca. Yd. plus $15.00 for c.ich additional 100,000 Cu. Yd. 200,000 or inore $503.00 for [he first 200,000 Cu. Yd. plus $15A0 for each additional 200,000 Cu. Ycl. Plans Checl:ing Fees Cubic Yards FEE 50 or less No fcc Sa to 100 S12.00 101 to 1,000 S20.00 1,001 to 10,000 $25.00 10,001 tn 100,000 $25.00 for the first 10,000 Cu. Yd. plus $7.00 for each additiona110,000 Cu. Yd. 100,001 to 200,000 $98.00 for the first 100,000 Cu. Yd. plus 56.00 fnr eaeh additional 100,000 Cu. Yd. 200,001 ur more $158.00 X.,and Clearing only (without earth bein,g moved) 565.00 Paving Permit (greater than 5,000 SF - new paving only) $250.00 Re.solution 07-017 Fee Resolution for 2008 Page 5 of 18 SfiRUCTURAL CODE Building pcrmit fees for each projec.t are set by the following fee schcdule. The table below is to he used to determine the building permil fees and plans cheCk fecs based on the valuc of the conscruction work as stated by the applicsnt or the value calculated by the Building Official using the latest vaJuation data published in the Building Safety Journal by the Tntemational Code Council, whichever value is greatest. Valu.ition Table Total Valuation Fee S1 to $25,000 $69.25 for the first S2,000 plus $14 for each additional S1,000, or fraction thereof, up to and including S25,000 525,001 to $50,000 $391.25 for the first $25,000 plus S10.10 for each additional $1,000, or fraction tliereuf, up to and includins S50,000 $50,001 to $100,000 5643.75 for the first $SO,OOII plus $7 fur each additional $1,000, or fraction thereaf, up to ancl including $100,000 5100,001 to $500,000 $993.75 for the first $100,000 plus $5.60 for each additional $1,000, or fraction thcrcof, up to and including $500,000 $500,001 to S1,000,000 $3,233.75 fur the first $500,000 plus 54.75 for each additional S1,000, or fraction thereof, up to and iucluding $1,000,000 $1,000,000 and up $5,608.75 for the first $1,000,000 plus $3.15 for each additional .51,000, or fraction thereuf Valuation Esceptions Fee f'er Square Foot Private garages (wood frame) $19.00 Private garagcs (masnnry) $22.00 Pole buildings $19.00 Opcn carport, de.cks, porches S15.00 Over the counter, yuick turnaround permit fees for siaiple projects, an additional $58.00 Ylans Review Fe.cs For othcr [htin sigus, one and two family residential struetures and the associated accessory buildi.ugs or structures, a Plans R.eview Fee Deposit of $200 shall be collceted at die time of acceptance of the Building Permit Application. The application shall be accepted oiily when the applicstion is determincd to be complete Uy City staCf. For signs, one and two family residential structures and the associated acce.ssory Uuildings or skructures, no plan review deposit will be required at the xime of Building Fermit Application submitCal. The balance of the Plan RevieNv Fee shafl be eollccted at the time af Building Pernut issuance along with the WSBCC Fee. Any excess deposit colleeted during the application process shall be applied to the $uilding Permit Fee. Resolu[ion 07-017 Fee Rcsolution for 2008 P.ige 6 of 18 Plans Review Fees are not refizndable ance the plan review has been stairted. Plans Review Fces are aclditional to Building Permit Fees. Plans review fee (general) 65°/a Of bldg permit fee Plans review fee - Group R-3 occupancies (single 40% Of bldg permit fee family less tban 7,999 sq. ft.) Plans review fee - Group R-3 oceupancies (single 65"/o Of bldg permit fee family 8,000 sq. ft. or greater) Plans review fee- U-a_ nr U-2 occnpancies (sheds, 25% Of bldg permit fee bnrns, etc.) Plans rcvicw fee - temporaty tenf or structure 25% Of bldg pcrmit fee Initial Plan R.eview Fees shall be capped at $35,000 maximum with the followilig excep[ion: Exception #1: 1f additional professional rasources are requircd for indiviciual project plan review for those projects that reach the maYimum Plan Review Fee, the Building Official shall be aut6nrized to require Uhe permit applieant Io pravide those resources to the City of Spokane Valley. If a set of plans already checked and approved is resubmitted by the owner or his/her agent, an hnurly rate of $5$.00 will be appliecl for the re-review. PLUMBWG CODE The plumbi.ng code fees will be collected when the associated permit is issued. lf the plumbing is included in the IIuilding Permit the unit eosts are added, but not ihe b3sic plumbing permit fiee. A. Basic fees 1) Basic fce for issuing eaeh permit $35.00 2) Basic for cacli supplemental permit $7.50 B. Unit fees (io addition to the basic fce) 1) For each_ plumbinfi fixture on a trsp (including $6.00 garbagc dispasals, dish washers, back flow device, drainage, hot tubs, built in water softencr, watex clasetc, lavatories, sinks, cirains, etc ) 2) Private sewage dispasal system $20.00 3) R'Ater heater $6.00 Each 4) Industrial wastc pretreatment interceptor 515.00 includins its trap and vent, escept kitchen type grcasc interceptors functioning as £sture traps. 5) Repair or altcration of water pining, drainage $6.00 Each fixfure or vent piping 6) Atmospheric type vacuum breakcr $6.00 Eflch 7) Backflow protective clevice other than $6.00 Each atmospheric type vacuum breakers 8) Medical gas $6.00 Per outlet 9) Intcrccptors S6.00 Fach Resolution 07-417 Fee Resolutinn fnr 2008 Pagc 7 of 18 IMCHANICAL CODE The mechanicf►] code fees will be collected when the associated permit is issued. if ii is included in the 13uilc4ing Permit, the unit costs are added, bul not the basic mechanical permit fee. A. Basic fecs 1) Basic fee for issuing each permit $35.00 2) Basic for each supplemental permit $7.50 B. Unit fees (in acidition to the basic fce) l) Furnaces & suspended hcatcrs - InstAllatinn nr relocatiau a. up to snd including 100,000 btu $12.00 b. over 100,000 btu $15.00 2) tiuct wark systcni . $10.00 3) Heat pump & air couditioner a. 0 to 3 tons $12.00 b. over 3 to 15 tons $20.00 c. over IS Eu 30 tpns $25.00 d. over 30 to 50 tuns $35.00 e. over 54 tons $60.00 4) Gas water heater $10.00 5) Gas piping system $1.00 Per nutlet 6) Gas log, fireplace, and gas insert installation S10.00 7) Appliance veafs installation; reloeafion; 510.00 Each rePlacement 8) Repsirs or rdditions 515.00 9) Boilers, compressors, and absorption systems a. 0 to 3 hp -100,000 btu or less $12.00 b. Over 3 to 15 hp -1UO,OUI to 500,000 btu $20.00 c. Over 15 - 30 tip - 500,001 to 1,000,000 $25.00 btu d. over 30 hp -1,OOO,UU1 to 1,750,000 btu $35.00 e. over 50 hp - over 1,750,000 btu $60.00 10) Air Handters a. r:acli unit up to 10,000 cftn, including $12.00 ducts b. Each unit over 10,000 cfni $15.00 11) Evaporstive Coolers (uther than portable) $10.00 12) Ventilation and exhaust a. Eacli fan connected to a single duct $10.00 b. Eaeh ventilation system $12.00 c. Eacb hood served by mechanical exhaust $12.00 13) Incinerators a. Xnstallation ar relocation of resiclential $19.00 b. Instal.lation or relocation af commercistl $22.00 14) Appliauces, eacb $10.00 15) Unlisted appliances a. under 400,000 btu $50.00 b. 400,000 htu or over $100.00 Resolution 07-017 Fee Resolution for 2008 Page 8 of 18 16) Hood a. Typc I • 550.00 b. Type rI $14.00 1.7) L P Storage txnk 510.00 18) Wood or Pellet stove insert S10.00 19) Wood stove system - frcc standing $25.00 ENFRCY COl)E Energ,y Cnde Plans check fee is also established to check to mcet the requirements of RCW 51-11 IVAC. These are in addition to the Building Codc Fecs. .if City inspec[ors are assigned to verify Energy Plans, the follawing fees apply. If an outside energy inspector is required, that fee wiLl be determined by the outside agency and the fees below will not apply. Residential Rcmodel/Addition S-0- New Singlc Famil}' $ -0- Tenant Improvement A. 0 to 10,000 square feet 535.00 B. 10,001 square feet and aver $45.00 C. Multi-l.+'amily $60.00 Per building Q. New Commereial and industrial $90.00 oTHr.u -BurLDnvc co:QE FErs Approach Permit 550.00 Demolition Permit Single Family Residence $44.00 Cotnmcrcisl Muildings $125.00 Garagc or accessory bnilding assaciated with a $20.00 residcncc or commercial building Early Start Agreements (Foundations) 25% Of bldg permit fee Right-of-way I'ermit: Category 1 Non-c:ut obstc uction without clean-up $70 2 Non-cut obstruction with clean-up 5105 3 Pavement cut obstruction non-winter S160 4 Pavement eut obstruction, wintcr S200 5 Long-duration or large projects $160 A fraffic control plan review is required if more than 50% of the wiclth of any street is closed or if a single arterial lane is closed. Flan review fee $50 Resaluaon 07-017 Fee Resolution for 2008 Page 9 of 18 If a category 5 permit requires xdditiunal time, the additinnal fee is $40 far each adctitional 3 dsys or part thereof. Multiple-use and long-duration permit.s shall require a minimum deposit of $1,000 Sign Fees Fees collectcd for a sign permit and a plans check fee for sips erected in accordance with the Sip Code. The fec below plus the NVSIICC fee of $4.50. Siy;vs cnountcd on buildings $45.00 Sign and pole mouvting $65.00 7'emporary Certi f cate of Occupancy S50.00 Washingtoti State Building Code Council (`V.S.B.C.C.) Surcharge A flat fee of S4.50 will be collected dn eac;h permit for approved plans or ariy other permit that is is5ucd in accordance with the Spokane Valley Building Code. EXCEPT: For multi-family projects, the fee is $4.50 for the lirst livins unit and $2.00 for each additional unit. The City Finance Depar[ment will for%vard t}iis fee to the WSBCC an a quarterly basis. OTHER MISCEI.;:LANEOUS FEES A. FAr City pcrsonncl 1) .d.ourly rate set for City Emplnyees (unless $58.00 Utherwise specified) .2) Overtime charges 1.5 times rebular rate B. Hourly rate fur contracted service.5 Set accurding to cocitract rste C. HouseMoving f+ee 1) Class I, II, and llI -Moving permit $60.00 2) Class I, II, and ~II - Inspection fee $60.00 3) C1.1ss N(if ali•eady permitted by SPokanc S-0- Couuty or Spolzane City) "Plus SSS.DOper hour after tlie IS" liour, and $.SOper mile if the buildrng to be moved into the City is aulside t6ie City limits Resolution 07-017 Fcc Rcsolutian for 2008 Pagc 10 of 18 D. Work nn any structure or building without a perniit if a SPokane Valley Permit is required: a) Nlinimum investigative inspection fee S55.00 2) Total investigativc fee ta be equal to die permit fee determined for the value of the illegal work accomplished E. Exccss inspections for a given project created by $58.00 Per inspection or . the developer, owner or contractor re-inspection F. Condominium conversion plans review/inspection T3asecl on value of fee project and bldg code valuatian G. Enclosing an eacisting deck or patiq 1) }'lans check fee 40% Of the basic fee for plans examination 2) Basic pcrmit fee Based on value of projecf; minimum $3,000 H. Swimming pools (Ovcr 5,000 gallAns) :S50.00 Plus plumbing fees I. Re-raof Permit: Fee based nn the value of the project. No plan reviecc fee will be charged unless plaos are subinitted for review. J. Change of Use or Occupancy Classification Permit $58.00 K Towers, elevated tanks, antennas J3asec1 on value of project ]3UltiDI1YG CObE FEE EtE l+U1YD P6LICY No Permit Fee refunci is allocved once t6e work has been sG~uled. If a refund is requested,llie request shall bc addressed to the Building Official in wricing, anci shall be received at the Spokane Valley Fermit Center within 180 days of the date of issuance of the permit. Any fee refund request recei<<ed after 180 days of the date of permie issuance shall be denied. Any refund approved shall be limited to 80% of ttle totsll Fermit Fee paid. Refunds shall be limited to Building, Plumbing and Mechanical Permit fces paid to the Ciry of Spol:ane Valley. Resolution 07-017 Fee Resolution for 2008 I'age 11 of 18 Schedule C - FIRE CODE FIEt.F A.LA:E2M, SYTtINKLER AND OTHER PROTECTION SYSTENIS City processing fee of $35 is adcied to thcsc Fire District 1 fees. Plans check and review fees, inspections; aud permit for installatinn of separate fire alarm system or sprinEcler sy5tem applicafions, and otlier fire protection syslems. Fire Alarm System NeNv installation 1-4 devices $150 5-100 dEVices $250 Additional 100 devices $ 50 Each additional panel $ 40 Sprinkler supervision only $ 75 Eaeh additional floor S 40 Fire Sprinkler Systems 1-9 }ieads S 53 10-49 $165 SO-100 $275 101-200 $325 201-300 $350 301-400 $375 401-500 $425 ' 500+ $500 + $.33 per head - For hydeaulically designed systems multiply the abo<<e fee by 2 n`ew Suppressinn Systems Range hoods, halon; C02, dry chenveal, FM 200, i.ntergen spray booths, etc. Unit 1-5 norzles $100 Over 5 nozzles $100 0 per nozzle Bottle(s) $30 per bottle Fire Pump Installation . Plan review & inspection fee $500 Underground Fire Maius - Plan review and inspect. $150 Standpipes not a part of automatic suppression system Plan review a.nd inspecCion $150 Resoludon 07-017 Fee Ftesoluuon for 2008 Page 12 of 18 Other Protection Systems Fire extinguishing system (oiher than sprinklers) - $ 50 plus $1.50 pcr nozzle Standpipe installation Class I and Class II S 58 Class III $ 70 Tnnk installation - per tank Flam.mable and combustiblc liyuids - storage tanl:s installation $ 60 Hazardous materials - storage tanks installation $ 60 Liquefied petroleum S GO Gaseous oxygen systems $ 60 Nitrous systcros $ 60 Medical gas systems $ 60 Hazardous material recycling systems $ 60 Vapor recovery system $ 60 Cryogenic $ 60 R.emoval, abandonment or any combination thercof of flammable or combustible liquid scorage tanks $ 90 Emergc;ncy or stanclby commercial power generator install $ 60 PERNIITS Condifional Use Permit $ 60 Temporary Use Permit $ 60 Tcnts/canopy Pe.rmit (event) To bc determined :P:LANS CHI CIC AiNp REVIEVV BY THE BiTREAU OF FIRE PREVENTION New commercial plans check .Ynd inspec#ion (for Projects i»t mentioried elsewhere) 60 LAND USE Suhclivisiun/PUD Freliminary• $120 Final $ 60 Short Plat Preliminary $120 Final $ 60 Resofu[ion 07-017 Fee Resolution for 2008 Page 13 of 18 Schedule D - PARKS & REC.R,EATION A:C)iV1TN1STk7A.T].VEFEES :Basic fees to be considered when applying rates Adaiinistrative Fee 530.00 Refuse Fee 550.00 AQUATICS Pool admissioa (age 5and under) frce Pool admissinn (age ulcier than 5) $1.00 Fool punch psss (25 swims) $20.00 Weekend family discounE 1 child under 13 free with paying aclult Reservstiou (lcss than 50 people) $100.00 Per hour* Food fcc (if applicable) S25.00 Reservation (50 -100 people) $125.00 Per haar* Food fee (if applicAble) $50.00 Reservation (101-150 people) $150.00 Per hour* Food fee (if applicuble) $75.00 *Minimum 2 hours Al~cOHoiJC BFVERAGE PrRVIIT Alcohulic 13evcrage F'crmit Fcc $10.00 CE•NTERPLACE Conf'ercnce Centcr Wing - Audicurium $75.00 Per haur Auditorium $450.00 Per day Auditorium 5225.00 Per half ciay Auditorium w/Fresentation System $50.00 Per hour * Auditorium w/Presentation System $300.00 Pcr da}' ~ Auclitoriucn w/F'resentatiou System $150.00 Per half day * Auditorium Deposit $50.00 Esecutive Conference Roum $50.00 Per hour Executive Coaferenee Roum Deposit $50.00 vYeeting 17nom (llay & Evening Use) $40.00 Per hour vfecting Roam 5250.00 Per day rlccting Room 5125.00 Per half day Mcctiug Room Deposit $50.00 * Reyuires rental of presentation system on page 16 Resolution 07-017 Fee Resalu6on for 2008 Fage 14 of 18 Great Room Kitchen w/Dining Rnnm Rental $100.00 Per nsc Kitchen - Cnmmercial Use (2 hour min.) S50.00 Per hour Kitchen lleposit $50.00 itilulLi-Use/Banquet Hall $100.00 Per hour MuIti-UselBanqaet Hall $800.00 9 hr sessian Muld-Usc/Banquct HsD $1,500.00 All dAy (6am-lam) Sinall Dining Area $50.00 Per hour Deposit $200.00 Stage $20.110 Per section per day Table Settings (linens & tablewure) $2.00 Per place setting Senior Center Wing Lounge with Dance Floor $100.00 Per hour Loungc Ncith Dance Floor $$40.00 Per day Lounge DeposiE $200.00 `Teeting Roam (Evening Use) $40.00 Per hour lZeetiiig Room (Evening Use) S125.00 4 hr session Meeting Room (Weekend Use) 5250.00 Per day Meeting Room (Weekend Use) S125.00 Per half ciay Meeting Room Deposit $50.00 Private I)ining Room $50.00 Per hoar Private Dining Room Deposit S50.00 Wellness Center $100.00 Per hour Misccllaneaus Cleanuq fee $50-300 Per e<<c»t HostlRostess (aftcr haurs) $15.00 Per hour PresentaNon Systcin (includes proj cctor/p odium/ $250.00 Per day DVDNCR/sound system/camerA system) Room Setup 525.00 Per hour Satellite Video Conferencing $'250.00 Per hour Sounci System $40.00 Per clay 'Cechnieal Support $40.00 Per hour TelevisionNCit $75.00 Per day Touch Psid Voting System S115.00 Base station per +$a5.(10 day Per keypad per day FVENTS - iticludes Psvilion Events include Uut are not limited to activities such as caz shows, totunaments and actiAfies involving 200 or more people. 17he Director of Parlrs and Recreation will make the final determinatian. General Fee 5150.00 iNon-profit applications $80.00 Or frec with sponsorship* *Applications for joint spor,sorship with tlre C'ity of S°pokcme Valley will be considered by tlae Spokane Valley Parks Departmsiit. . Resolution 07-017 Fee Resolution for 2008 Page 15 of 18 FIELD RENTAL Use Fee $25.00 First hour plus $15 eacli additionsl hour IND()(7R USE Open gym admission S2.00 Playground program admission (10 entries) S20.00 MIR.A:I3TAU A-tirahesu Springs Smatl shelter and wuterfall S150.110 Maximum 4 hc,urs Refundable depusit (IeSS than 200 pepple) S50.00 Viirabeau Meadows S6elter (less than 200 people) S80.00 Shetter (200 or mure people) $150.00 Refundable deposit (less thun 200 people) $50.00 Refundable dcposit (200 or uiorc peoplc) $250.00 .1';CC\T.CC SHLL'CE.RS Picnic Shelter (less than 200 people) $30.00 Picoic Shelter (200 or more people) S150.00 Refundable depusit (less than 200 people) $50.00 - Refundable deposit (200 or more people) 5250.00 PROFESSIO\`AL. PFIOTOGRAPHY Permit Fee S25.00 Annuul RECR:EATION Recreation program fees are set to recover costs as specified in the Parks and IZecreation revenue policy. VALLEY NIISSION AItGiVA Rental* $100A0 Per weekeod Refundable deposit $50.00 *Renter responsible for on-site preparation. .Rental requires liability in.rurance. Resolution 07-017 Fee Resolution for 2008 Page 16 of 18 S cbedule E - ADMINIST'RATIVE CoPY FEES C opy af audio tapes, video tapes, pb.okos, maps or otb cr At cosk recnrds nceding rcpraduction i Cnpy ofwrittcn rccords S0.15 Per pa ;e ' Cnpy - L$rge format S3.00 Per pafre Copy ofTull daeu rnente A# cost OTIIERAbMINISTRATTVE FEES NS)P Checlc S25.00 ~ I Resoltition 0 7-017 Fee Resolution for 20 0& Pagc 17 of 1 S Schedule F - OTHER FEES A,DUI..T ENTFRTA.TN1V.CF.:NT FF'FS Establishment Lic:enses ' Livc Adult Evtertainment $1,500.00 Adulf Arcade $,1,5f10.114 Othcr Adult Entcrtainment Licenses Adult Arcadc Devicc Liccusc $150.00 Alanagcr Liceasc $150.00 Entertainer License $150.00 Late License Fee - Chargcd in addition to license fee. Yercent of Past Due Calendar Days Lieense Fee 7 - 30 25% 31- 60 50% 61 and ovcr 75% BUSTNESS RFGiSTRATiOIV FEFS l3usiness registration S 13 each year 'NTonprofit registraiion $ 3 each year SECURITY FALSE ALARM FEES Ttepeaied malfunctioning se.curity false alarms in a given six-month period. First ularm No c6argc . Second alarm $30.00 Third alarm $70.00 Fourth aud suUsequcut alarms S.120.00 S7"Q:1tM WATER [1TILITY CAARGE Or' DEVELOFED FARCELS Each single-family unit each year $21 All ather propcrtics cach S21 Per 3,160 square feec of impervious surface TOW OPERATOR A~YiYUAL FiECISTRATION FEE $100.00 OVERSIZED LOAl7 PER.MiT FEE $25.00 Resoluuon 07-017 Fee Resolution for 2008 Pagc 18 of 18 Ecunamie Developrnent bivision I Application 8c Permit Fees ~ ~ Current O Inereasafro Ogtionl# lntres.irfram P~rn7itNarne Fees ptian A currcnthu~ (prsisnred) au7+cncfecs i ~ R IL4w PMssur9 51e9m $ Hoi 4YaiCr B4-ilcr In:.ra931ian' Untle[ S00 04b BTUB p $Y Y!_U4 $1 @7,501 $19h BiSO 096 i ' B ~pw PmLt--ure SLesm 8 Noi Waler Boikr IneWESGOn' 904A00 -Zi%74,000 B7►J--.i $250_C4 M02.50 2196 52.5Q 096 g 11-pw PfessUf4 S4can 8 Mol 1Y81eF B411B7 In51aMon: Owr Q,Qp6,OC6 E7U9 I ~:04,00 $A94.00 2195 096 B Pox1e1 BdEer hmWlla:iar Untler 9,066 6[6 BTUs $700,00S404A0] 219G S4CQ 496 9 P4'I'9f Bj1Crh7f.L51W13CC 7,046 4G! • 5 000 000 fSfLM 5800.0~~ 59fis3A~} 21S'. 4°6 B Rywcr poc~cr Ins~lle!loir Ovar S,OOO,Gpo eTU2, t,ese fae $.?00.00 SG~.Oa 2 - LE$20 Power 9o61ef 1n5:al1v114n, O'~r 5 04,046 ETUa- u9flabCe E9B 4,00 SR4~U 2: +°S 0°~ B Pavler Boiler Ins;:~Adlip~r' Oved C94 000 BTiI maxsnum lo0 51 M0,00 S9,9i5.U6 2746 8695 B kF31IIInU0r1 Of Eh°G1Yi2 BOiIH I[lld9f 200 k04xyV.u E S2CU.00 5242.04 2196 W4G 6'6 R Irssbll,-11Nn pF Llnfired Preswre VE-ssel N 50-c31 596.90 21$6 I sa01 0% ' E~ Aurlilfanzl f235Uf8 V955B~ aRCr lir$'I 4'QS9e1 IR818IIEd 9L iFw seme limo 5U3¢ I ~"-.096 4',6 ' B Cl.ow Pr4ls!;ur0 5Le8m & HM VlBG3f 64iIPa InVOCi+Sn' Untlet 2.046.01M 8TU5 SGU-60m&0 $1 °•b S80 U54 B lLow Pra:Lwrp sWam & Hat V~e6er 3oiler In~ cdioR Over 2 4,046 BTUs $106,601 i21.b}'I 211 Si00 U56 B IPO~v,'ei eu~F~erlns 'orc U'ndcr 1,006,006 BYUS I 584,Ob ~9fn8A' zi96 S1A fJ'b ~ B Powef Bo'~eF If~5 i4n, 1 00,006 --0.000 BTl~5 5100,00 $121 _06l 2i'k $1c4 096 9 Povj or Bor~,er Iru 4Clio1ti' dver CdQ 0 9TUs $120,04 S:45-24 21',6 8120096 ~ B rrs Gon of ORelrle 3011er under 250 IdoymSls $80.001 fi3o_eo 21*b sG~F o96 ' e 11* uon ot Urv3red Pr~ssuro V~S+cI #rt14.~ fr19.46 ~j V. C °.f1o 0% I ~ sleGoPrasSUr&Teh 5924,00 $145,$0 29SS $12U 0$6 B Bailer Re air 550,40 572.66 2745 1 575 2~ F¢p if "vL, fcclion h Ineurence carn-, ~ ~ qL%! i k} p,3tlrJiGanel reswre vessels aFCr Ics1 vessei, I Led et Ihe farr.e lirno SUSS I a~776 L►°k B I,ly~ooessln Fea i S2"xUQ 530,25 275o S 096 a a I i 9 6widing Psrldn Silb 4VOaR Permlr 51 -$5no of val baso E;.~ ~2"0.78 529,37 .2190 526 199~, B IBuilan Parldns 1.AI. Slle Y`lotx permit SSOS • S2,OOd af val~x hese fae 523.7E ~29_37 2196 S2$ 101 e 9ulldmg. PaAim] LaI, Sile YfBfk Pefmlt $501 • 89„900 4F uolur, v'8ri2iY9 lee 82,$5 Sa-C9 21% I 53 ld`~ El Buildo:y. Pehing LAt, $16a 1"f4fk PCrrnl' $=fiO1 -W3,L110 nf VdIuB, bas6 feo ` W.GEI 57`.,_UJ 21SL ~ $73 i8°f4 I$ulldhrg. Parkin9 Lc1, !30 V1oM€ Pertnil: 51,u61 - 5MA04 at Wua, va,is6Ae iee St 1 A9 513.96 29 % 11 513 139L 6 lBUlltling, Pefldng LoL Sk'4 VJark Pe:nril' $25.001 - S:IJ.004 cl 'rt 1u6, bw4 Ec9 3325_19 5904.60 2194 $372 7496 BuMny, Ydfldng Lo1. 3-49 4VVGk Pcrtnil= ,525,W1 -$96,4Q4 nd vahl4, ++aAahlc m2,1 576.04 21$6 S10 2196 B f~e ~ 12u1kMlg, Pa7kiN Lot, Silb WPuk PermlL• $56,46i - 51iXQ060 ag valU4, basa Ece $,5335.5A JS3S,$EiI 2196 $522 1746 Build¢19. Pa rkirx} ldk 8il9 Y1at Pefmlt $SO,OOS • S 140.0w d v.~1u9. v&118bIB 55.74 86-m 2196 S7 2246 B Ic4 ~ Bsillbhvj. Pnrking La:Si491VOrk Pefrn{k: $101.001 • 5506.0ala! tixJuB, h999199 =4.54~ "5nS19 2196 9872 1846 Bsiilding, P3rking LG, Sitcl"14AS F`e[rnt; $1G1,007 .$506.066ad weJu9, VE[IBhle $-4.A7 ~;-48 2594 1295 6 Ipp ~HUlltllnp, Perking Lo1, Rp V: ork Pem~A' f.:00,041 -$1 ~:00000 uVr 6c- SZ667A4 58,15A.32 21SL $2,972 14% ~ dea ~ Ru~iing, Psrking Loi. SY:e 4'Jark PcRnii: 5504X7 -~1.IX14,004 of vahie, ~'y,{,83 S4.65 2144 59. 496 B 4srletEeiae B Bin~fin . FLrkdeg 6B9'1'lolk Pormll= s$1 40 400 ar velue baae fae $4.521_41 5 476.:6 2146 54:]72 1096 e 6Lflding, Pd1k11W 1A#, Silp WnSc Perrolt' a 51A04,040 oF 4kllWg, v, rire'do toc I 52:5 $I09 21% 53 1636 ~ IGee5liCst9 oi OcxUpanGy rqqqiirej wilh 9ullMlg Pefml:: m114mIRn R4rril tep 556.461 $50.50 $1 °+6 $751 56'fa ~ ,lo.el 16%11 mf -10pA & ~;urcnn lar Stdwt or Fasl Tn, ck rovel al btdItll rtn~ 2596E 1 0% B Quiltll Fbn He'.935w' f6 ubr I 55% 65m C% B I!8ulldl PPan Ftenjew F, sl Trnck 100$6 I 7 Co°6 f% B New SFRIDLnlex PIt n Ae~Faew Fee ##.44 d 2596 B Addimanal Bui,in P%n Reviaw 550,00 S72jo 21% 575 2596 Rlenning fte~iaw al GnmijCs. Dee'ks S olher Naw Rrsidw5ol 04W=lron S $G I S6 525 B Ad~lons B 0erna112On Permr; SFR du , 8nd smesearl atrucEUres I S:~i_OQ 542,35 2196 I Sss 04S I# ❑ernaGLbn Per7li;:Otherust5 S55A4 542,35 21% I Sa5 0% B oernoGe3an AerrnR; Ohher uscs, rnaxiMurn tee ".t350-U6 5423,50 21Si Y $3501 o% B Oenuofitbn?emuLSEPAreAwiara >$2AM 31$OA6 $1A9.50 2794 5235 57°b 9 FencePem7it,F20 riDoll~earR+Prnrr-" +oo valuationbafad 20 B Carad Perrnri;.-s14p Guhlc x 6 ~22.56 ~27.23 21$6 528 2496 B lGradlrw Pertn~; $97 - 1A~0 d~lo rda. i4vaD fc0 ~22,50~ S,27.230 2796 $28i 24+6 Foirnal6edMefiSerFeofaodL!&F-0am~aisedO5o606 1 ~ Pcrmit Name I Currenc I Optlun A IIncroas¢ frorn i Option B Iincr~,se trvm I Fees cuffent (ces (pm,fccred) current fees B Grad'n F'artrcit: SOt • 1,WQCubie rds tiadablefee I 510.50 512.71 21% S12 14% B Cr.xRha Femsil: 9,001 - 10,000 Cub{c ards baso tco ~ $117•001 5141.57 219u S138 16ry, B Grading f'eamit: 9 OOS - 10,000 Cubic arcf- v.^-riablc leo S~J.00 510.891 21 % 510 11 % B Gndir Pcrrnil: il~ODt-1[Q,400CidaSc ards besefee S1911.00l 5238.a'2 2196 5226 14% 8 Gr~adinq f''efmh: 10,00 1 - 1CQAW Cubic)urt15. w,1rir.'.~Falee I $40.501 Sa9A1 21°b 5461 11% _ a Oradir Pwmit: I00,001 ::mi more Cubic vards. Dese fee 5582a01 S6EOIS3 21°ro ~'a31 124~ a Gndi PCr.nit: 104,111 end mnre Cubic ards, variab0e feo I S22-50 5272321'b $E5 11% 3 iGraefin Plen Nevimv: 50 CL&c yards or less dJone $01 E otadin PIan Review: Sl - t00 Cubit urcas S1fi,00 SM151 21°b I S20 3396 B Gradin Plan Roviaw: 101 - i,000 Cubie yerds 522.50 527.23 2i56 S2~ t t% R ~ndin F'L•3n Rovfeve 1,OOi - 10,000 Cubic ras I S30.00 S35.30 2i'.~ S3u i796 B [CCrading Plan Flevte~r. 10,001 - 100,000 Cuhic va.K1s, be4e fee 530.0D 536.30 2~ 9S S;>5 77°,~ B Gradfn Plan Re~o~+: 10,001 - 100,000 Cubieva.~d varlabk:ee 515.00 318.151 27% S17 t,i'w EI Gndin r'InnRevew,100,W1 -200.OOOCubic ardr basofoa 1 5165.00 $Ifl9,65 214e $169 i496 e Gr.u6n Plan Revkw: 100 OD I- 200.000 Cubir +nriahJe fee 59.00 510.89 21;5 S10 5 S% B lGiaQin Ptan Review. 200 001 ar.3 moro paDio yarcs, Case fee $L55,00 SIOB.551 219o $266 i3;~ B 6re~lSig Pian Rcvi~w. 200,001 dnd more O~ie arc~s, vedsble fee S4 v01 $5.46' 21 % SS 11 % B Sian PermiL.: P~anran SCrviees Re•Ae~,v Fee $0.001 550 9 S' PormHs: projeeL'~~, or inciden?e1 s(on tfosU :e/+0.00 SA8.40 2196 $30 -25gb B S) Permits: wa'1 ro'eu:n , or ir~cidcn2:~1 ~an sdd ticnal 520.G0 $2420 21% 530 50% 0 Si n Parmits: ccla si n, intluJin Ldlboards and oH rnk'e firsl SiQO_00 S121.00 21°p $751 -2596 8 ISf n Permit3: pde sipn, indudirr;, bi[board:; and ofi-Pren»e (edditbnel) $54.00 S60.50 2z% $75 56% 8 SI nPermi.s:illimirtittiorJ~ri; !ce I $3.75 S4.54 21`~6 $o 33•b E~ Si n Plan Re+f,~ew E 65% 550 rw 9 Faet;.r, _jill HousinQ S50.OD 560.50 21Se S50 0% $ MEnv3a[Ltued Mob7e Noer.e I • SS0,~0 .460.50 21°,6 SsD 0% B Tem n Strnochim.: initi-'J t~ days I $100.001 $121.00 21% 5100 0'4b 13 Ta St:etures! add_^brtal 180 da4 I ~OO.OD Sc'A5.00 21% v500 096 B tdanutaelured Idobile Hone: De•mlo ment Scr.5ces Piwicw Fee M $50 B Eu3j1ng FiEdxation S100.00 5121.001 21% 575 -25% 8 IRelocatiu~ Detertrana9on: De~+cEo ment Sen4ees f?e~.M1ex Fee 501 I ~0 B Cer,~ca;e oi G+ccu an vothoul a Cld errn'.~ $60.001 S72.601 2196 S75 2S'ie 8 Conificata of pcou ane fer home accu sUon no In ec:bn I -DU 52420 21°A $r` 125`. S CGtific. to ol Ocaj a fur home lio , a.dth irw tion I SE0.00 59656 21;9 $100 254b H Tem ra Cert;:lcata of U.c arKi exuension IAnreol: rnaxirnum fee Ibulld,n ermit feo 3 Tem CerG~iwta of 0.~:t~ pywy. and extension thereol: minimum fee S35.00I $42.351 2t5S I 57151 54a"SS 0 S~'urmin Pool;.: P4irnin Setvkes FieNew fee I 90S25 e ,v~znmin r~oo}s:5FFi ! SSD.W S60.50 217o ST;'i SORS 6 Svrlmm8n Fbols: All Otf+ers I S7&.00$90.75 21% Stoo 33% B IRelrts ecSoits SBD.ODI 572.60 21% S75 25% 6 In^ ections Outside Normsl Irt9 ectot Vdaikir Hours I S6D.0,0146 S75 254b B Wca!c Done w!o u Pe:miVlrn-es3ga[bn Fee (n addi6on .o re;,~ular permil fees) Iregilar permit tae 72 W oPx DOne Nu'a a PermiVirrvessiga[ion Fee (in ad35on io rcryulir pCrmil lees): g100.001 5121.OOI 21 % 5150 SO% 8 mWmum amoun• 3 Safe:y Inspeunn: Comnercia1 130cfin_ . $60.001 572.601 21 % I $75 25i6 B Safetv In, oc:'qn_ Con:rnerc:iP3 BLOdinge, mfnlmlim fee I 5120-U05:4520 21% St 50 25i6 3 SafEdy Ina odia~: Sin lo Fr~mi qesidence - EI_ctrical On ( S5t~.001 b72_FA 21% ~75 25% B I,:wle31 (rte eqioa~: Sin te FAmily Fwslyenao • N.w or morc bugdin tradeg 3120.00 5:45.20 2ty: $1 24 ~ iSateP rn ecilan:Trro-Femi nssir~stce tl 51s0.C~ S161.5n 219~ 5175 174'0 B S e fn edbn: Atu:Z-Farr - Throc ro Six uriL- d 5200.W I $247,.001 219: 1 S.C501 259: 6 Sa:eT hS 'Dn: Nu'4~Farrn • Stt-ron to 50 unitY, h~e f~ 1 5200.40I $242.001 21% 1 $7501 25% B S.~:er : Nat3-Fenly - Se-~n in 50 un'rt~ ,r~ria3to :co 52o.W 524.20 29% 525 25% D Sn:ely h : Mt.l-Fetnl - Oaar SO unfl haso fca 51 OBD.001 31.306.80 2196 51 " 254; B Sdaty ction: pJI~Fv~ni • Over 50 units, vatlebte 9ee 510.00) $12.101 27% I S10 03S ~ Reoaadng Fee tor llsc of Pctlic RO'N ana Lerqe Aocessnry 3uIld5ng Agrtnt Pasr.•through tco I 8 10tsPecibn d new builcling corztrudion: K. 5.000 sq II I 53.00I S3.G31 2196 $4 3396 B-Ilrw r,d'x;n oE nnw bulldin cortsNictlon: 5 W I- 20.000 s fl ba:.n ten $1 SD.OD $181.501 2196 5200 ~'i9e• 8 pns ec•.ien ot new buddin consiruclion; 5 90t • 20,~0 s tt, va8shle fee S1.S01 51.821 2146 S2 3:i96 B tne ection of rte•.~, bu9din con-nsclian: pvet 2L~ 000 s tt, ~e fee 5375.00 5453.751 21% S5D0 33% a ins ection of ruew buWn cansznxucn: over 20,000 sft, varsabie foo I s0.751 so.eil 21% 1 $ti 33s 8 ~eratiorw Re W;a, oc AAiitians to existfnp bu~ E $3.751 54.5421% 55 3396 R - Stamdar9 M g8.25 57' 2i9E $7 32iS E3 Servke3 01600 VWts Of less: 1 - 200 ampu $31.00 Si7.51 2195 540 294; 8 enlces of 6G0 wtts or lesc: 201 • 300 a I $37.25 S45A7 2S9L S3034SS 8 1 S Servlces of 600 wlts or loss: 901 • 400 a rt - 543.50 552.64 2S~ I 5501 i59S B Services oF 606 wMs or lesr,: 409 - 500 a $47.261 557.1 2 i% $60 273l. 3 Servicea of 606 volis or Io;s: 501 - W0 tirnps 551.001 S51.71 1 21, 5b ~P,O) i59S B ServioES of 600 wlts or Iwc: 601 - 700 prn 554.80 S65 27 :'e 5701 28~5 9 (Servioes o: 600 wlts or fcas: 701 - E06 anpa 558,251 570-49I 21% $75 ~ 20iS 7 $ervfee- at 6DD volts or tess: 801 - 900 arr S62-009 575. 2i % S80 2BiS 8 IServfces of 604 wtts or Iess: fl01 - 1000 arr 56a75 S79 215~ s80 22V. 8 Servioea of 600 wh or Ias:.: > 1,000 am s, base fee 555.757 579.551 21S'o S80 22S6 9 Services of 600 wlLs or tess: > 1.000 am S vnAabte fee 5175 S4. 2196 SS 33% B Servicgs a: over 600 vv[t:1 • 200 mnns S55.75867.421 % $701 265e !Services o: over 600 wtw: ZQt - 30p em s 562001 573.02; 21 % 580 29Ye ~Servicas ol over 800 v~: 3D1 -<W am s 568.251 ?82.58' 2196 880 1756 S Seriaces d o-ror 600 %oft: 401 - 5DD am s 572,0D1 $87.1?J 21 % 590 2aS6 B :Sorvicc.^, a1 over 800 vofL.: 501 - 6DD e ns I 575.251 S47.0.`.1 21 % 5901 20% FurmattcdMasterfeeMOdeFPaarrra+.lfkvtsedO5Oca3 2 i I ~ CurrCOl InawaoFl Op[ion B InLTearj)from 9 PermitNamr CRU0nA {„~otfees (p~(~~~ a~rrr.nriees B 3e,vicas ol over 600 ,-o1i E0i . 74o sin e 87~,541 S9628 21% h 51001 8~ B SamiwS OF*vpr BOUVOIIS! 701 - d00 am s S93_04y 5196A 21% Y 5744 2.Q96 g Serwiws o~ over 64U uolts; 8D1 •~J44 ~~n~ s 566.75 3144, 2196 H1100 9 3ervlces af ox'or 600 wll#' :pi = 1000 BELB 594,.56 $109.5i 275b ~2236 B Serui[m of ot'or 000 t+alL' ~ 1,046 em baso Rcc $30,SD $109.51 27% $i10 22Y. $ SoryiC+b" at aver 506 valts: ~ 1 000 a .,rnrlsble iee 53.75 5454 21°,i SS °.,37'. pJpmn emcornnal drc&.s4Faname'Alarm.TeX4Mm,7h9str-,& Scund g10,P0 $71.fi1 21#'e $10 096 B 5 r-tems' B ernpon 8wek4F6r tOr19!RIC1I0114'JIfI 515,00 S1e.15 2196 ~'2A 33% 9 Lnn;aOrmer9 0 48[119 E9 82a','IGm b' GP:6CF9kU7o=5dm0~uMCrvi8C3 I B Faadors S10A0 S12_10 21~4 ~13 5046 (`arrnv~tl WBfk-.lfCf Gr01YYd' $251 B GIeM cllon ..a~?. 5~ 2t96 STv 2596 g IIlSRBLtlplS OI~CiidF N8rii181 IA9 PC6af ~i Of1U ~{OUru FT2-63 2f~fo $7`J 2596 $ AnnWplEde.drit8lWOIKPefrnlti42fn5odipnxFaYl83 18nt21edf1cl5n6 $1304-~ Si,57a# 2F9~S $1,566 75°6 a ,~n~7ue] EIeC1fIC&I WorEi Pefrnii; 2~ Rjoe C1iaRS fol4 La 6 dnt519cInGi~ $2,566.66 S9 14G.~ $i`+6 $3,ODD 15°R ~ Annubl Elecdlcal 1'~ork Pcmtil; 3S h=pecilarts !ar 7 60 12 pFant decl~ciQ11M $3,946.46 Si,71 g,p 21SS 54,546 1 S~6 ~ qi.qnl Eleci~ita7l4'ark PeRrdL 52 ir4p~xGOnS iqr 13 ar rnare QIeM eleCricw~s 35,200.06 $0~92.00~ 21#'o- $6,OOOf 1596 1Nork done w!o a Pormi ~,-.~;ligciian Fee (In sdd?lon 9o roguFir ponmik IMa) r & ;I L"Jork 08i5P s~JM 3 P9fTI1LUEfNBbhQpli4n FCe {i[5 8tltlilipi 14 f9gICdF p9f~Tl; FBCS): 210.001 $12i.U6 2196 575~ 50`~ Ti mlALnum s~rxwnt B ProGetsin FOP $rsrM 2196 B hlin'mum ih. lOn fe9 8Y0_d0 511.B6 2196 St 50% I d B Insiellailor. Perrnd b~w iCC or car er iml= I $300,06 ~3G3.Oa 2:56' S375 25% B InslallalionPa~.~.+e.aielrlef4e e ~2 $30,00 536.3 299b S35 1796 I Q AnramI0yore7i Perrnll, baSB fe6 Or Gu 4r u44 $75.46I 590. r ~ 19b $95 13°6 ' 9 Airrrusl eraUn Perrrdi uar~,blC !ee aer gta ~ 2 56.04 57,26 2196 $9U 6796 B man fee 4rG;u 4`r mi9 wllh deLleleN o era5n crmiS -'30,00 536.30 2746 53a 1796 R AI6oTbon PCnolr $i - J700 of uEdu bav4 9b} $aC6 $2A2} v1$6 2596 ~ ,41ha,L91ocn PermlL V41 - 52 000 oi Vdhrt. Casa tee 519_{OI 522-99 21% ~251 32'96 8 IAIGftstlon Perm~. S70 f- 52,000 Gf v81m. varl26de iee $20d r„2'.r42 $1$6 $3 50% 6 IA1tesa-1lon Perrn',; 22,001 • 825 000 al velL* uase FE; ~ 545.UG SS4r0.ri 2196 $dc'~G B ,ulera7lon Perrn~l; #P.Od7 • ~6 af 4alue varie6Ea iea I 59.OD 514,93 2196 Y 14i B A11e~aiion Pe~'r~: riry5,40i -~„-a0,4U6 of uelu ba~o ~eo 5252,04 $304.92 2196 174'L B A,114r~i4n Pimidl' ~25,001 -~ad0.040 4f ulltop ,ionhle ie9 56,50 57.97 2~96 8°+~ 9 Aller9lian Pemdl: $SO 0a1 • 5100,OOp ql V81Le. hes9 fee $-014.56 $iU1.52496 IS~S 9 F.11ereUon Fem7il: SEO 01 • 5100,066 af velue vaGia6la :es Sf.54 35,4° 2ti~ 17 $6 B Al6efkldon Pr,rmil= 5141 47 -$540 440 4i ralUB. ha'v4 fr.q Eo39.$0 $T73.901 2:5b 5719 1244 I 9 AIMrtGan Permil, 5141 -S500 040 of volup. Yr,rie6le lee 5,9,50 Sa.24 219b S4 169F ,11LerslEon Aermlt M0 1• Si " A00 ar ,rslue hese Eee $2,R'9Sa 52 407.849 174L $2,379 14"6 AJ6eretlon Permit 8590041 -51 0~4 0 af value, variabla ioo S3AQ nfi3 2196 ~ s3 IMS ~ .41,Ur.ikK)o Perimlt' a Si C90 00 of vaiua, n-i-r. iao 53 339.W S4,2a2.80 21°5 S3.8101 891 B fJle:stlan Nemu; ~ Sl 00 GF uslue, wsftahle lae S2_C+} -q_42 2196 S2 036 B Proor~sln FC4 #25.04 530,25 21°la 525 1116 G I r.- F Unde rosind Slore o Tajt5! lnslslleilon a~xt(►~ S3~A1 1a76 S~ 1 g ao°~6. F Rbot~e ~.md S4acn Tsirk Inerslle n: { 54D lor~s s~~ 5~51 ~4 4~ F Above round Skxa Tank InewJsLdan! ~ 506 ora 536"x{O S~',~.01 tiS~S $416 3556 ~ $~txs a 7an!r remaval or abandonmOrn 517-5,00$197. iS°6 fi23~ :37% F S e TEnk phamd~mi:: ]wrne 11e8L11 411 ieilk t 7 1 qp ,,Il~n.; 386.66 865,Sf 7$96 £M 40`.6 F 89a 6To44re Irarsltemtan S60,00 565,917596 S.3A 40'k F StolB 9 7H1L4 68m 4n I=rnonl Uu!-Cd-9er4iC& 566.06 555.31155f. $39 40% F ISta7i rn crks rner I Inn_InsPallauon altanlion,.o ~ir 554.44 SE5,31 75A's 5 40% F IFriy, S6 Frp hVrlranl Cnetalleiion 810,00 510.99, 7554 S 20 13 307a F f'~i'.'a!eflreKS'draMOrs'ChcC< ~ $15.40 ~76. 1946 6 3396 ~ F Pm'a1n FLro 1h'et Check 525,401 U7.2111 1556 F Kire FroLe[iiwJDe'arftn E Li nemF [nJweils+~rn Nermlr 51 •W00 of v,kv. Nome , F Fro P[oicGicnl6eietii5n Equlpmeni Insiolluiion Pcrrni9; 0501 - 5709 oi vslue ~ SE6AQ1 ~57 1696 $94 [ -06°6 F Flre Pra6edioub'd4;actiocti F_tluiNmom InstaIleUon Pemul: $701 - 51 .i04 01 vgsio 860.101 56551 ti596 $34 4096 r F~ Prt4pC11piY0elecllon Equipmerri IruG~nilli0i1 R~ff* $1,-041 -$2, 100 af $11U.66 a11$,74I 15% S,-:a ao% %fylu8 FLre Pra~eclioNDe:eGion EuuiprO~rL Ingtsllstlan PemvL S2,4Q1 -~,E00 of $180,00~ $141,51 1596 $182 A096 r Ivalue F ~Flre Pra?eeuon+Ge6eclion Emdprnent Instclsl~an Pennil: $2~601 -53.5i40 0 $190,00 ~46.92 955€ 5266 50°"S Y9hJQ Ive#~a rolecl~oruLSe~aclion E4~.~Orn-n! Ins!~'~'stlon Permit 53,301 - 54,2~E1q 0 ~25,00 5~4,9Z 1556 $315 4~D°6 t `Fro Pra14cIHanGe6ectlon E4uiuT.rmk In~la kl3n Permit S4,201 - 51,906 c: I I 5260A4 52M,4G 7la~'. 8371 4096 . ehee F ~Fire ProlectbruLeecman EqijGx~~l L~sislla?Im Permit; 54,901 • 55,600 01 S:~S5.U6 5332,01 7594 542P 4~96 el~ie F JFlre Pro6ecfbrMe:aclion f0u1Pm3en1 IrstSllation Permi:: &55,601 • 56,741) P1 5345.C4I S57&5o 1996 ~ S4R3 +FOfi'. tvslue ~omistl~klan~erFeaf~1oU91.NOrln~lRrn'I~r+UDS~J5p6 3 i ~ Permit Namc Current Orptl¢n A tryurv,aFa frnm Optiofl H~ (mm I F~e~ c,errentfers (prc~errad] cur,*aL [eee r IFlre Pro6e01oeti'deteclion EquiRmcnk In :du7.Ean permll: 56,961 - 57,046 af i WM.d6I $#:3_b~ 1596 I SS32 a% '~lue F IFirC Prah~Ciiat~cleeGOn EM~Ipment Insielak~.n Permit 57,00, • 87,700 of S4 10,00 r~-4$3~ 95% I $3741 LQ"6 ~elue F Fir4 Pr44eCli4n'11,CSr.clion Eguiprnefl[ Ins1811fl!lon Perrnlt 57,701 • $9,400 of fAra0.00 w3.$¢ 1596 I $630 ~ ~OR6 vslue Fre Fra7eAioNDa:ccUOn EGir~reen~ tralslle!lan Pe[rnf! 59,441 -$9.100 af F ~ SSaaAO 55 .a.27 15T. I r00 i4 4 ~ F Ivsl,ej ProeectloiY0e?fc0on EqLilprrieni lrsWllafion PsRnt $9, 107 •$9X0 07 ' i 555G9.(1SS99,7075;5 sf761 40i96 F IFua P7a;scGorvDe1=bti E9ui;cnou7 lirtslleilon Pelmlc $9,801 -$10.504 al ~ 5S9kk{Q $672,2M1 1596 S 4096 v,il{iO rAue PIe?eCLOfuY]Bi9C'Jon EQUIPm9f.1 anB6illuli4n P~uil: }$:0,504od ve.7.19. ~ $825.66 $6d0.34 15°6 ~ 5675 4s7°/a haso iae Fam Pmir..5cN77elr.clian Equlpmem Instelletlan Permil; > 510„560 0{ valro, I ~ F F ,rk,hloir_ yl~ 97,09 15% 11 $9 29% F Fir) PrqlccticrOo6eelion rze -jIprnent InsleTatian ?lan Chack: 31 • 5700 oF wlluu Nane u F F9re Fro6ec1lrn'detecuan EquiPn=k Ii-4IdllOW PISiS Check' ~$700 d vslue Sb,6 ~ F IRef " e2tlon E Ulrymonl InxWllmlion l SE5.00 S70,TG Ia# SA9 37% , 339~ , F FlreProte1:91anSysiemVerilloailor~ S15A4 75,39 155S 520 F Fre Arcteclion S-f=rn wcriFCa+ipir: ivsr- rsnL I S7S01 SB,IG 157. 11 Si p ~96 I I f e Il,ispe_IECn_tlLrcLwoCesysiem I $:1_C91 $13.3: 2196 43 L~ -a Ins ec!lon_ tvaW sWVeor inser 527_ 533.2 2196 S2S w~14'e B Irw ac5on: asvraiort.c,rcr 511. 5I3,311 $196 Sl3 ifj94 g Ir~c qs1qw; M~1^~'~in a ulOroesl! ~ 104 004 BTl.Is $13.7` $16.43~ 2196 Si3 i9~ p lhra eciiocY heaiin equl meort ~ 1{IO 0 BiUs 578.2 Si9.5S 2196 ..,r'i.6 2S96 f5 'Ine ecilarr ssp~gbasbtle~ 51U.4 512.10 2196 512 20Sb I B In ecilon: af ' 4i varSable Fog 52,0 S2,52 21% 5:3 5m B In eclion: refr ra6an IAi 1-sOO.oaO 97Ue 513,25 Slfi.(~6 21 °k 5:5 1'~% ' B I Aion, reFd, ,r,,lion avul 106 06: - 546 666 B7Us 322,00 5~~2 2ti~ I S25 1436 E IFl ciiGm aCf 'ad iuo w7lL 569 066 - 1 4 404 6TUs $27.50 $332d 215S $30 9» I 9 IIn lial5' rel _latlan urY 1,000.00 1 -~790 G00 B aUs I $38.50 S4o_59 21% 515 17$6 ',4 ! 3 1rs ec[lan: re:rlperatlou7 un~ , 1,754 04a Wus ~5.00 S7afS 2i S75 1596 3 ~rG hC, k um uSQ AC, U 6o Nfee 6of16 $13.25 S 13.i13. 2:'{z $15 13% 9 G~ uclian_Itiest pum~i erd. tJtrae;ofit4aen4i2ns I ,$22A41 SN~~ rt25 14%fi 9 jfns ec15~n'heaE umoar,dr'.C GReenl4k. ktg Inns ~ ,~27.50 5332 21S~ S30 99b I ~pBCi~OFI: h6di UfR pfld r~C. Oh !8 fi1 18M19 ai..~.4~ $ iS.$ 21% $i,ri 17% 3 In5 oc;ioG~: hu:d 'unk a sitid F.C. ~ lilty Lone 565,C0 $79.6 21 °a $75 1596 , & Ihrs enionvenl~Ehu~fans I S:4.WG_.. 519.391 2196 513 1596 B llns ecilon:ev oraii~esao'aM 59f,U~7 513,311 21% 513 Ib'9L tq* 117o4d $55. $196.551 2196 $fiS 18'+6 ~ 1InM u' B lIn eclian' tXpe I] haotl S 1:.6 513.31 2196 653b I3 In cllan:cloiherd r 11.OD 513.31 2196 S13 16'rb B Ins Ilamrsns~e 11.0 S13.31 2196 Eti3 lArk , *Ea B I~~s cGan' 10 $19.00 559,31 2196 S5a :856 ' B Ins uan:mi6ce11arsaua $18.50 51g,9 2196 513 ,21°k I c~EO~' tnlisleu 86 B IIE.iF'.e 'g 40N E1Vs k $60.00 $21 % S75 2576 ' 9 Lrspoc6cn' unfisletl p86 9 11915ce. fLOb.OC0 ET1J8 S1 10.00 $133_1 21 $925 i 436 B fna ec~on: used aa a r.tc c<66,GW 67US $10.00 STL 21'A $75 2G96 ' ~I !rti xGen_usctl 925 xe ~4664Wk1'PU5 II $1115.40 $1335 25i6 5725 1z96 ' a ILk, ec~"ien'3ith2n~ 706GJCFAd Y ,p13.2~ $76_ 2:ib 515 13% 3 Inepeulan: HVAC i"rnr.nl cirrui• 1 5.+.75 S4. 21SL S5i 3396~ & 1r4c pr~ipochy ronw i ii5 Es9elee $tiQA~ $1~.1 2i96 $72 20°6 6 lne ec!lon h rofYiC In veriablo tloo 52410 S2.4 2146 53E 5096 [P anoTanks I Si iA4 $13 is% B MhrLnurn Irts ectian iae 890. ,u12.7 d 2196 S15 aQ°6 6 Prcccs~ ioa $2;o-. ~5 09S B FoA Ooraa w!o , Penmiulnaestlgstlan Fee Qn addiGon Lo regLtar Parrnil Rxs} ~ 4'lork done wb a F4armiV1P4r.skig.IrAUL Fee (1n etftlitlon Lo regular perrnil iaesl; V00.00 $121 _W 2196 $iS4 i49z rnWLbnum amoun: I I Plu t ing o a eln eclioa iob E $10,00 5a5 21% I $til 10"7G B :PFOOCS;in !ft 1 $25.00sm-1461 2196 $Qol 0% B GMinimurn irq: mwGn ir.p ' I 11~,04 511,9 2156 I 515 54°b B 11+,'mk Qana xA a Perrn~v7rv.w5Ggplipn Ftee lin sdcLilrn Fo rey.iler permlt faea) ~ I I ~ Ilak bme -n~lo s PerrniUlnrre~sGQaiion Fee lin idd'nitnlo reg~~lor perroiL leea)! 5127,04 2Y3~, g7r-,o 5096 m inlrn ~rn emaunL I a I E S6de Sewer Perrn iL I'r]1i0o I *.,~10 SdGI 996 $400°6 S 57daS9V5'eFPefrnlLln5 4GGOn S50 $14 1-06°.6 S9`A 15+796 S Sewer Tappirrij Permit 5104 S2 Z. 14696 Siio 496 S Relne e~JNis 512ci 146°6 I ~.°.~7 496 I I Form6ttedMas~eFB4dadol•Norm-,lIRmAscd4S 4 I Pcrmit Name ICurrent Optlo» AI1°crCaso Isom Option [i IRCrease trom Fees rnrrentfees (pretemd) tsin'rottccs ~ E tiVater ee g pertnit and wa2er mptor oppicallon, alone or rogether $CO S" S40! 0% ShorelineManagetnent Z S~~orrSnes h4anepement Ilcatlon: 32,500 • 510,000 ot value SW4I $1,020 ~ 63% $1 0 6396 z Shorelines Man ent licetlon: S10,001 • S50,0OD od velue SgiO $1,420 63% $1 420 83% 2 IShorellnes N~na ent Iic.n: ~O,OOS - 525D 006 01 valuo 59,655S2 761 S..9S $'2,700 63% 2 Sho~llnes Nana ent lic.~lion: 325D,DOi - 51 000 DW of vaAre S3 3i0 SS 4tX1 SF.% $5.400 63% Z Shorolinas N4~na cnuKit e icat(nn: a 51 000 U00 of valuo L•a3c: fto 54 135 56,749 63~, 56,750 6:90 Shorolinaa Mnns enwt e icaion: > Sl OOP,flOU ot vtifue, uariahle les 0.1046 0.144'o d% 5Aorelinr Mana erneni: aclditional le^ lor vattance S1.325 S2 16;i 83Si 52,160 BJi6 2 kStwrelines aA,zna cTCiu: ad6itlonal fee torconditional uao S11,14 $18 Gt 63lS 51,660 639b Z Pre-:ubminsl Re+Aaw $655 8396 S555 639i Z Permit Amendmem 8095E 8096 8096 0°6 I I o Policy LZ- SEPA - Fnvlronmeni3l Checkli;„ 5150$245 63% 52£0 8i6 SEPA - ACDNS 3100 5163 6395 $185 8596 ~EPA -0SIEIS • Cf y w~i CIP cos Ci cowl Ci rnM SEPA - DSlEIS minirtr.~n c!c zf7 $1 500 S2 448 63% $2,450 83°6 SEPA - Public ~+oticeR C(.'y Ci co.. Cf cosF Ci oost SEPA • RC rodua em4ronmemal document C±, coGt mst CI aost Ci. y ow ~ I Z lLorog lai' One Yeer Extanslon of ra+.^.1 I $3351 5547 834b ~550 649L 2 Latig lafi Frvo Yoar ExlonsiOnoE prrn•s! $2,566 SA 166 6396 54,180 B~l6 Z Lo lat: Phi;&i ol an r roved Ipre Imina $335 5547 6346 S550 ( 84% Z Lon Iat:Vau.MiOn, Ct ati s roved prelimiaag $300 $490 M $430 63Se Z Lon lai: Rn.:l n roval, 5ase tee 81 240 $2,024 6.'1% 12,025 83% Z lon lal: Flnal a roval, vertable tae 514 $23 83% 52S 79S'e 'L Lon letc Atteretlons at 12reliminuy ar linnl 80% 80% 804" 095 2 ShnA pig: One Year Extonsiotts 5335 $547 639o g:50 G49: 2 Short nA: Fivc Yoar Edettsions 6 S418B 63% SG 1 BO 8396 Z ShOrl tea' Phan al en a rrn•ed limfn~ry lat $335 $507 6395 5550 649: 5490 83'.S 2 Short lat: Vacatiom of ml a ved re}}nl at 5300 90 63% Z Short lat: Fln.^! a rovel, ease tae 51 115 Sl 0 (33% 1 $1 U 6396 Z 3ttort let: Fine1 approval, varPablafoo St8 S29 63°0 530 67~'e A IEL- AYeratlans ol oclimina. a 11na1 60?6 80% OiS Z 0.00 Si[e Plan: Exir.~ibns 5547 63Si $554 84% z Site Ptan: Final, bsse fee Sl B2Q S2 970 63% 970 63'Yo 'L B!ntiing Slfa PG3n_ Rn variabb fco S771 $28 63% S3i0 Tfi46 Z 61r(in SGS Pdan: AIG:rntions a! retlm ac finel I 8095 B 80Y. 070 Z Bounda. l.in0 Ad'uslrttwi2 $165 5209 63lb 5350 11296 Z Streoi N:imo Cha o II $330 $1,3551 634'o - S1,355 6.39G 2 IICms rot 1lsted ahaue that r ire a ub1ic hazrin $1,1601 $1 883 63% S1,885 6 Y Stdf senSces ~co; IGtad abrn~e $60 W2 63% S85 )076 - I ~ Airspace E ual Ins oclion I 5335 5 9X, I $335 1 095 z Renmr,aL. Hithin 20 )nars ot pemilt Gsuetue $t ' S S$362 309 fw4% 52,310 ( 8396 E IRarnovd of encroachln im ro+gmerkt in unused street ROVJ 515 $161 9°6 1 5251 6796 E ISVBeI AdOfesa A5&1 nmaM SB Su B% S10i 10D96 Ctkir~p WA. WA $25' WA E SUeet fWdfess E sueet aWmiaion rmii un CBD or eon ested are tor 3 monih& 0 50.54 9% 50.60 j 20% E Parkin me?er revenue loss fee m C8D . SSO 896 578I 58% E Par}dn rrwnor rovcrtuo loss fee in otrter ere 1 I $25i 527 8% $33 56% E Street obRtrvetion crKt: Oum •sr w Te ra Stera Urut 525~ 5271 9% 5100 30095 E Straet abswction rmtl nnr►oen estetl eree : E~acavatlon Initfal3 cfip $tOD 5709 896 StOCi 0% a tree: obssnaction perrrct (nor►oongeseed aree): Excavadon, edd'nortal 3 dor i~ 540 544 9°6 540 070 i1 E S E CStreet obstnrtfon peimit (rron-congecOCd asea): No Bccavs5lai, inrial3 deys $28 996 S25 096 SAree1 atrstru:tEon petmit (noncortgowod urca): No Excavatioaf, eddtonal3 S40 S44 9% 0% E Iowa E ork Done wJo a PennlVlnve ation Fea 5200 $218 976 1 85 150% @xernpt tram B►e 2qulrement far a pcrmit H+ils to gPvc roodced by (SlAC ~ (1 SzaO $21 1 9!6 $20 695 1 E 12.02.0740 E WoAc 4e nd roved 5100 3109. 9% $25 150% X Canstructio Inspectiorr. $t -.f,5 OOD oi value, hese fee S50DI 55009 036 ~',00 096 X Cansinictbn Ins cction: 35,001 - S10 D00 W~~a1ue base fee 31,D001 $1 000I 0% St 000 096 X Canstruuiai lns cction: 810,o01 - SSD,OOO d value. 6asca too I $1 0oD1 S1 0~ 0!6 31 000 095 X Con~ructian Ins ecllon: $t 0,001 - SSO D00 a.aRio, tiz~rEwblo fee 5251 S25 046 $25 096 x Ccnslruaion Ins eeUon: 450,001 - Sl ODMO af tmluo Ds.ae feo S2 0001 000 0"6 $2.000 1 096 X ICOnstructbn tris ec8on: 550 001 • 31 00.000 Wvaluo, vaAahle fee 520 52D 0°+b $201 096 X ICanstrue+.lon tris eGian: $ldt OOi - S5fl0A00 et value, Gese fee $3 , 53.000 d% $3.0001 0% X Coat:irucllon tris ectian: $lbl OOS - S500A00 ef value, variable fee $15 S75 696 $151 096 X (Car%stnic7lon lns ec6an: $500,001 - S9 OOQ,000 01 value base fee ~ $9.0001 $9,000 0% I 0% X [Corc3truc11on hs 'on: 5500 OOS - 51,OOD,ODD ai va7ue variable fee 1 5101 S10 096 $101 0% J{ CorksWCtlon hspedon: > Si,OCO a00 at vslue base 'ee 6 $1 a 001 $14 OOD 0% $14 000~ 096 ;Construction 'ocr. > 81 000 0 0f vslue. ve~ible fee U 351 SS 55 09e Ilns ection: Urwsuai r s Y $401 $441 G% 5401 096 FormsttedAfas:ei€eeA4odoW7orma:Revisst9050608 5 Permi C Name I I Current Optiun A loereasairon1 OptionE Insrc~xrirom I S NrTCntfCCS currenlieei L FeC ~ 1L rGvr,riirire irs ectlan: LMusuel p-VEcLS tl SGir Sffil ~SL ~ 5~ [ps .~y I S12a1 8120, 832U o'6 I SLuv Qew Dverlimo 51901 ~189~ p'1~ 9 5180 0% 1C G4ns;nx-04n Flqn RLviCw' ~1 -$14 00 61 ValU9 Fsds39 fee ~4Q~ $370 646 d S,'i00 0$6 1C GprlSlruCLCn PIBA F1e4IQ1'l S1 0,00 1• $$O.OOO 4F vilud, 6.3:1~ 1e8 $3001 0% .aw7oo 056 1( Cons7ruct"s3n Plan Ro-rirnY $10.001 - g50Aao or vslue, veiiaGle fee Sl S $151: 0% 515 496 1C CansiruU.nn r Iun Ra,rievr g50,007 -~104 044 of value base tlaa 59w 5n41 0°6 5904 7C CcrWrucCbn Plen fie,,iesr. 550 1.'fil OO OOO 4f wlUP. t':t.*Llle ree S13 Sf3 096 $13 A X Cansirualom Plan FGeyier. Sl 01 GU1 • 39a40013 or value, hsse iee S 1 554 SY,gco m gi ~341 096 }C CansiruGian Pl,n :'s-.LC~, 5101 Sp71 -~,570)104 of value, variable fae SI ti Si 1 I 0% I ~1 1 0 4'96 x Grnsinlt'iion F'fan Fbeti5e'n^ SSL6 C61 -51 p C(34 0{ ++ah~o FrIsc fcC SS 756P SS 7S0 4°6 Sd 3501 {~76 k CanslrcicUon PPan Pa+~; 5 i5D1 - Si 6~'J,C06 oi veNO, vs~ie~la lee 510 510 0~1b ~1 41 7~ .orwl~iG~ ~'1ru' %$1 0,004 af value tasa iee $10,500 $10,5661 OPk SiQ ' 4'k 7{ L oittrmclian Paan Revler++; ~$f 0 OOO qF rilUB, V3r1P.hIC !°4 $9 $9 V1 0% ,dd;1 Roviow ~ uircd h tycces~e chsnqea, a~ddluans nr re~siora S6p S~q i5S ~ o9L E ~'IPrrnwe'er Review' 5Ga e c 1446 Sln IB Dq'Idin q & Pnrkui l.hL ~125 5186' @'fa $'2arQ 10045 E 944rtnw ' - s Sb26 I E SLOfrnVrwlof RCVaCw, e K 1 Q95, 01MeG 2 ia 14 9[ze8 -M0 $2724 996 5596 149FY ~ 0 -1-'ms--~5e-Re3 S7ao~ ~ E 56ocmxvs ~-Yuc^.,~43UlE4ee I E St-xFrnxa6erFte++rvr. Slo-a} :(rbC: 'AM1~-ila dral e, K 0.5 rLcrea I S2Y4 5272 9% I S5061 1001,6 ~ GMrFnvnir.r R,rriav,! Sla ~ N`.b a e ai .9,S 1a 2 aues S~1 S~14 996 51 444~ L0446 E IsIa mk~6er Revle~rr. Slo r 1[Nla or aiR-si oif~ILl daSnih~ ~ 2 4a 26 2tre9- I $i,oo4 51 uA 51% S 1,040 096 c - 1[~s r~9?e " M 29 - - S41 1 E Sormwa;¢r Rp~iew, Srende:tl c 90 lais S125I [+6+AI N1A s4U~7 224Y9E C ,514fm%wkr~ Rv.hcwL 513i3dBrtl 10 - 104 kd ~ £250L+6rfJ hUA St~R} 1003b ~ E 9Slarmwqer pe4tew- Standa.rd ~ 14G lois U20PS+A H1A 57W 20M FEE SLOrrm,~!er Re',~ew {`.an x< 10 bSS 5250 ~1+A hErA 5506 100°,'. SN~ITM1'+alor Rc'ACVY Cx.+i ex :0 - 1i10 bi3 65b0 hUAI Fd+A 57 `_O96 E Sta[ix,r3ler Rr.9err Comp*x = i04 Cots 5i WO! AUAI P~+A 51 40N 0'46 E 4Yeivers urVariarKw: I SBO $1651 996 g o°'S E 90mrwirbq ~rn?i s-Mil $541 s% I 61i)o- iob% E n EC810r49dRCfldOIIOFCH19Fd41Si allialivc; 59 69a9 926 51')0' O% E StreeE VEeaUao 5°.,.90 5331 9°k ,4 1496 ' ~~C Annu31 NrnvcpaPCr ~}isrcn^er Rmck I Ss$4 996 4 $7 qi :00~6 C IAIt n ReWa4v: Gbo-+i!o Sevoey R $725 $7' 996 µa25 10096 - E iPQSn RevIE'.'1: Do-sYe Waier - y~_ 5125 $1;~Ei $2 :049a E l'5ndetyalk Caf$, NQw ,S IiC31i0i5 J ~250 3272 q% $3702096 ' E uTFiffiC Im Ci Ana =.is ReviEw Fee I u++11 nYk1 M1ut1 W+ti E IiTnFIiG Conlml PIeH Revlew Fee ~ AU+1 I WJ4 N1A 11 97 1'UA v`J lFsuIlc AnsFyelsReolevrFea I hun u+,rt hUA FL'A I I k 7,M18 A aiian ia 1lur.:aearing exern[ner I 55_S90 SB 7~7a 63^b I 56.701 tl.?5G ' 2 racflir~aroi,oieFrlcrrn p 5:38 b396 11 S6 7696 e I Ap~Sca=ion 36ti Bi oFa 6,39G Sl 095 ~°k Z hT e II IicaiiQn bi5r. icn fr.r iirs! Itre 52 B 10 5~.565 6376 84 725 ~ a4°6 ~ T 9 II Ilggppn vaAWg iqc tqr p~-h addilioral ncre S57 659b I 8541 77°: ~ a III A ~ca;i b~o fca ipr PMi acre S2 B S4 325 639do- $4a90 73% L iT e 131 A 5ca-1 va[IeNe :ee far aacY. addwanpl pcrc' S$6' ~768 6395 E114 1374b 2! I'Se!e plen Feviexv or modi'lv4110n, tow ir.4 tor fr.-11 7eik 2=rPS UU #816 5396 I $8151 53% "sSdo PIoif Ro,AewormatlBlce7on, veriahle fee foreadi addGorwl Lan,zzr4 1 ~335 6396 #.3a7i e49b t ',Ca,}aolitlated Pra5m Renjew. base tseia dimf oc.m S2 5561 ~.9 3255346 0 SA ~ 09 7S`Ya Z Consu:daio[~ Prp Rrn-ir.w, tiw~laBle lee lof eech sddilonsl scre ~1 y2 52151 6.'~$6 ~213 R~ Z Ron= donMit lai snnetl unll dewelopment s~40 5M71 6396 S~ e39S Z MsI Plsnnsd tmlt dwdo menl ~2 Oe4 3~3,2971 Ei346 235 69Y Z~ em poran uee ormik f+11S S~l7 63% SBf3 6l96 2 ~Fi4CSl lai~kcim eftIpment rrz0,baseiaeEorfrsiaana £5d5 5?79E E39a 5908 9296 Z Fla~] 19L5 tlex nt fn4' t'sri, blq Er,a pcr ;udNiliai58! 2~r9 ~33 SSS~ 6396 S55 6746 Z 1=51ablinh p Ir4r.1 rd xe715Btk 5-065 5698. W'1$ ,$B:0 9-096 ~ A=tno arNlin UnIL MM $6531 f3% 5655 54% I!rua~essai D.,eLLn Unlt e I sno71 9653 es% 59 OOD 1sa96 Z 6wiitlen Ime taUon oi Znnin Coda 55579 6396 S59D fi396 G3~6 Z hPf fI53i69F f9 ulr bor~i~ bcfr.ro N~gidnq Exei~fnet 57M, 51.69263?6 $1.895 Z ~xaes6E.+asta9lirne S54 Sd2 63# 595 74°6 Y F~ IRU-fW.~+e ~rhe.tidesi nsmFi ~ ~za61 $aszl es~ 9500i i5a~ ~ IRr.'1a1'+ h{}es F26vG3w Cornrtlit6BC I ~766 51 .27S 1 6346 S7 2751 G396 I . d Use Code,Arnendment~ Z IPfa-$ -bFL, efediued sn applicabon ky I $2501 Laael 63% I Izo i~ Z: I Plsn, rns , ie;d, cade amendrnen bae9 ~sa F4r iirgS lCn DG'C3 S: 15 1329 6396 Ss 0 44896 ~ 6Fran, rnap,lexE, aaie a,nendmcm orial)le {ep ppr apTUEansl !en-sare 1%t,m7 5355 6~ ~InCremerrt a St,o75 z 1P1an. ELap, Le~E, cod~ a~„cnaroen uUso npiloe I a~sr a~ ooh cay c~s, cil w;:t Z Fxceaslxe ataN kime I w0 f824 83°k 525 7!)4'. 2 Pwm6en Gn6e raleGon of Ca ruTiCrl~lw~ Pron SSEO 1 0771 fi396 54 ~l5 B3'k I ~ ' FwrnatledMSr36erFeaRlodd-NarrnalRevieed050609 43 Alame Current A~Non A mcreasc fmm OpUon B t,v:uc trorn Pcrmit ~ Fecs currcot fecs (prcfcrtr.d) m..en[ [ee9 H HistoRc alldin Locel R ister fdanina:iortf - resttlenNel S25 544 7t% S50 1 W'!~ FC-to~ic 21ri1d'M Laal q ister htwnination - commOcCinl S5U ~87~ 7G% 5100 1009a H F5storic Bialdirij ~esign fte%4~w - Admirwtrotivo Onl S10 7496 S25 150°,~ }i FP3l0f(L' glild Design R817Q'M • CUITWn19S{011 ~a9V{ew $25 Sl7 $4~ 74°0 SSO 1fl1Y95 H Histarc Bu7di Pro Tax Reductlon - reslden&il 5125 $21e 749b 5150 20% H ~Hisiaic Buidinp Pro{wrty Tex pedwtion - commorcial <$1,000.000 ot Value j $250 S438I 749e S250 096 H `Hisaafic Buidinq Property T. Rsd.tion • comm. 51M to 55,900,OOD o! V&e 5L50 $436 74°l6 $500 500% H ~Hisioric 8uldlnp Pmporty Tnx Rectuctlon - cornmeidal ~ 55,000,000 01 Vatuo S250 $436 7456 51.000 3009b H ' Sectton 106 Revfew Cam lioncq I 525 S4474% I $50 100^'~ I I I I Multi-Family flousing Pro~ ntive D IConcii6onaf G;nilicatc o17rx Exem fion baso :oo 522~ $5531 14646 54501 10496 D Condi~fonel CenlOce[s of Tax Exom tnn, varebk tee 540 ~8 14lS% SE30 10090 6 C:ondltfonEd Certificate ot Tmc Exert rtcaxlmum fee I S525 51 1 146% 51 000 00'D6 O IEx;ervd CondLional CeAillca?e ot'fax Exem on $200 5492 1669e 5490 10D% D Fdnal Certlticate of Tax Exem iao~ b'?50 5651 146% $350 096 1 oncurrency Itiquir), Application E r iim:ion saool S326ax $zool a% Z i'TO Hesrl Exernfier 515(A 1245 6396 $250 1 6796 z ro cicy cauncn saoo saso 63°s ssao s~s~ 2 Record or trarcai o~aUon staff cost staff oo~t stafi oY1 Z Otticr r oefa r uesUor reconsideration 8100 55635 63% 5550 50% FomWitedldc,^terFee)AbdeENortnalRevised0WG08 7 City of Spokane Develapmen.fi Se.r.vzces LTser Fee Study Dr~~~ Finai Summary Report May 2008 ~ Prepared by FCS Group, Inc. City of Spokane Draft Final Summary Report Development Serviccs User Fce Snidy 512012008 In June 2007, the Ciry of Spokane contracted with FCS GROUP to conduct a cosC-of service and 1'ee stud_y evaluating develvpment services provided principally by Building Setvices, 1'lanning Services, Engineering Services, Fire Prevenuon, Sewer Viaintenance, and other departments of lhe City. The primary purposes of this study were to identify the full cost of service associated Nvith development services and the cost recovery levels ach.ieved in 2006, ancl to use ihis bascline cost reeovery information to f'ormulate fce adjustments ennsistent with cost recovery policies to be set• by the City. Cost of Service Findings The cost of service analysis seeks to answer the followinL key questions: • What is the tocal cost of development perniitl'ing services provided by the City? •What is the cost incurred by each clepartment and fimd? • What is the cost ln provide individual services or pennit~s? To ans«Ter thcse yuestions ihe Study began by invenCorying the types of development permitting services provided by departments throughout the City•. '1"he study t]ien estimated the amount of statf aad other resources devroted by each department to the various types of development serviccs ancl permits that it provided in 2006. To estimate the cost of service the consultant compile.d and analyzed staff payr.oll and timekeeping recorcls, i.ntcrvicwcd City staff, and reviewcd financial repores. The approYimatc total cost ot' devclopmeni permitting serviees city-wide in 2006 was $7.5 million. Significant and atypical capital outlays related to the implementation of tne ne«= perm.it Tracking system were excluded from the total shown in E:chibit 1 so as not to m.isrepresent the ordinary operating cost of providing development services. The baseline costs estimated for 2006 also refleet some annualization of staff positions hirect mid-year a.nd other minor acljusmien[s in sCaffimg assigmrnents ancl coscs. The purpose of these adjustments was to reflect the nonnal or [rend-line cost of service. The results are shovvn in Exhibit l. FCS GROUP 1 Ciry of Spokane Draft Final Summary Report Development Services User Fee Study 5/20/2008 Euhibit 1: Develo ment F'ermittinp Costs by .De arfinent Building Services (4700) $3,811,997 Planning Services (0650) 639,081 Fire Prevention (0440) 429,213 Engineering Services (0370) 1,762,950 Sewer Maintenance (4310) 152;934 Parks (1400) 7,089 Historic }'reservation (0470) 147,023 Develapment I.ncentives 60,539 Code Enforccmcnt 151,495 Ecannmic Develapment Division Overhead 353,078 Total $7,515,400 For Planning Services; Fire F'revention, and Fngineering Services, development pernvtting represents the majoriry or a significant share of their overall deparimental coses. These departrnents alsa provide services unrelated to pertnitfing, some of which are summarized below: • Planning Serviccs: long-range, comprehensive planning and the shoreline master program. • Fire :Prevention: arson invcstigakion, public educa[ion and outreach, special use and event permitting. • Engineerine Services: city infrastructure project design and constniction. The costs of the.se services and oiher service_s unrelated to cievclopment permieting were excluded from the anal_ysis of cost recovery, and are not part of the tota) sho,,vn in E:thibit 1. Ln addieion to the departriients listed in Lxhibit L, the involvemen[ of [he City Attorney's Office, Treastu-er; Police; and Library in development peniiitting was also studied, but the involvement of dlese departtnents was determined to be insia ifcant. T'he study also analyzecl the cosc of development sen,ices bv class of permit or service. Many pernuts require review by inore than one City department. For esamplc, building perniits will often be reviewed by staff in Planning Services, Fire Prevencion, and Engineering Services, in addition to Buildine Services staff. Land use applications will likewise often be reviewed by staff in both Planning and Engineering Service.s. This pattern of i.nter-departtnental involvemcnt was captured in the Fulalysis and factored into the total cost of scrvice for each broad class of permit or service. In nddi[ion to the de.partriiental costs of pertnittinL, the study 31so identified and alloca[ed the overhead costs incurred by the Economic Development Division. These costs iuclude the labor of clerical, accounting and management positions; professional services, and oiher non-labor expenditures made in support of all the departruents that provide development services. Division overheacl costs were allpcated tA each class of perrilit ui proportion to its share of toial permitting FCS C►ROUf' 2 City of S.pokane Draft Fi.nal Suinmary Report Deve.lopment Services User Fee Study 5/2012008 coscs. The total pennitting cost analyzed by class of permit or service is sununarizcd in Exhibii 2. Eghibit 2: Develo ment Permittin Cnsts by Class of Permit Building Code Pernuts $5,041,075 Zoning & Land Use Code flpprovals 515,826 Fire Code Pcrnlits 283,002 Engineering Approvals 632,555 Sewer Code Pecmits 152,934 Private Construction tlpproval 661,211 Historic Preservation Approvnls 160,439 :fJevelopment incentives 68,358 Total $7,515,400 Cost Recovery Findings T3ased on the cost of scrvice finciin«s, Catal pennitting costs were compared to total permit fee revenues to detennine the level of cost re.covery in 2006. City-wide, development perm.itting fees recovered over 80% of permitting costs in 2006. E-xhibit 3 summari2es the resttlts by broad class of permit. Exhibit 3: Cust Recovery Results byC1aSS of Pe.rmif Over (Under) Recovery ' 2006 Cost 2006 Revenue Reeovery % Build'uig Code Permits $5,041;075 $4,332,233 ($708,842) 86% Zoning & Land Use Code Approvals 515,826 268,640 (247,186) 52% 17ire Code Permits 283,002 246,048 (36,954) 87% Engincering Approvals 632,555 493,937 (138,61$) 78% Sewer Code Pemiits 152,934 62,290 (90,644) 41% Private Construction Approval 661,211 661,211 0 1000/0 Historie Preservaeion Apprnvals 160,439 31;298 (129,142) 20% Development Licentives 68,353 9,450 (58,908) 14% Total $7,515,400 S6,105;106 ($1,410,294) 81% The results sho«Ti in Exhibit 3 likely overstate the cost recovery result achievecl for building code pennits somewfiat. This cauld be the case to the extent that some fee receipts in 2006 shoulcl be set aside to offset the fuhtrc costs of performing inspections on multi-year construction projects. The Cit}''s pre-paid liability related to CQt15tPUCtI0i1 inspections may be routinely measured based on project status reporting from the Ciry's perntit lracking system. An eff'ort is underway as a result of this study to develop this eeporting capaciry. The cost recovery result c•alculated for buiJding code plan review and permits in 2006 (86%) may also represent the upper-bound of what is obtaiiiable under current permit fees for another rcason: Construction activity over the last six years Appears to have be.en robust and increasing, FCS GROUP 3 Ciiy of Spokane Drait Final Sunmary Repoit Development Services User i'ee SCucly 5/20/2008 as indicated by the annual buildinb permit revenue.s shown in Exhibit 4. High volumes of development activiry rypically iranslate into strong cost recovery. Normal levels of construction activity could likely result in lower levels of cost recovery at the current peruut fees. Exbibit 4: Recent Tre.nd in Annual Builciing Pcrmit Fee 17evenue ss,ooo,ooo • sa,soq~oo s:,ooo,coo t3,soo,oL4o s3,ooo,ooo u,suo,aoo $4000.000 s i,soo,ooo M,ooo,coo . ssoo,ooo so ?OCG 2Q01 2002 2003 2004 :005 2006 .Cn lieht of the above qualiFcations; it is especially notewor[hy that all of the perniit fees charged by the Cily recover less than the f.ull cost of service. As is rypic:al of most jurisdictions we have studied, buildi.ng code pernvt fees come closest to recoveeing the full cost of service-about 86% for the City of Spokane. Tlle cost recovery for land use and engineering approvals is somewhat lpwea• for the City, as is also typical in many jurisdieCions. It should be noced again that the total cost of each permit elass includes costs incun-ed by several departnlents involved in the development permiCting process. For example, of the $5 million of cost to administer building code permiis (as shown in Exbibit 3), only $3.8 million was incurred by Ruilding Scrviees. The otller costs, wliich ainount to $1.2 million, wEre incurred by Fire Prevention, Planning and Engineering Services, and Code Enforcemeilt, and also include an allacation of Econotnic Development Division nverllead. A.nother useful outcome of the seudy was determining the anounts of inter-fund cost re- allocation necessary to align permit fee retirenues with pernlitting costs. E:chibit S sumtnarizes the cost recovery results i•'ar Building, Planning, and L-"ngineering Services and Fire Prevention, before and af.ter re-allocating costs beRveen Funds. FCS GROUP 4 City of Spokane Draft Final Sumrnary IZeport Taevelopment Serviees UsEr Fee Shtdy 5/20I2008 Exhibit 5: Cost Recovecy Results by Fund/De artment e!I n M4 v+ G - rn ~ C ~ C ~ . L U U ^ y 'C • C • V G7vu, a:n w61 W ci aQ ~C' Development Permiiting Costs Non-rllloeable $3,811,957 S 355,982 $ 283,002 .S 1,232,121 S 360,496 $ 6,093.593 A11ocable to OthcrFtmds/Departmcnts - 283,099 146,211 430.830 511,662 1,421,802 Tota! Cost 3,8! 1,957 639,081 929,213 1,762,950 872,159 7,515,400 T>evclopmentPermitFceRevcnue 4,332,233 26$,640 246,048 I,155,14$ I03,037 6,105,106 Qver(Under)F2ecoveryw/oT/FTransfcrs 520,236 (370,441) (1$3,165) (607,802) (769,121) (1,410,294) IntctfundReveuueTrausferIn - 2$2,717 146,211 480,447 360,167 1,269,542 ]nfcrfimditcvcnuc'lransferUut (1,077,583) (159,461) - (11,263) (21?35) (1,269,542) Over(linder)Recoveryvr•itnUFTrnnsfers S (557,347) $ (247,136) S (36,954) S (138,618) $ (430,I89) S(1,4I0,294) Aside frocn some exceptions such as Fire Prevention, in 2006 the City did not re-allocate development permitting costs beCween Punds/deparlments as illustrated in Exhibit 5.1 Without the i.nter-fund c.ost re-alfocation frorti other City departrtients, only Building Services fully recoverecl its permitting costs. All other departmc:nts dicl not fially recover their costs. VJ}ien the calcula[ed inter-fund cost re-alloeitl'ions are f'actored in; as shoNvn in Exhibit 5, none of thc departments, including Building Senrices, fu11y recovered its costs. The financial impact of achieving full cost recovery would vary widely by department because the interdepttrtmenCal distribution of permit fEe rc:venues has not in thc past been proportionate to the cos~s incurred by al) dePar4nents. Most funds would see a positive change in net revenues as a result of both increasing fees and fully re-allocating costs beriv-een funds. F3uilding Sendces, in contrast, would see a negative change in net revenue (despi[e increased fees) because intcrdepartmental cost re-allocation would increase costs to the Building Fund by more than million. E-vhibit 6 shows the total revenuc impact for each department a•ssuming f'ees were adjusted ta Full-cost reeoveiy iYnd coscs vvere Fully re-alloeated betwecn cieparimcnts. ~ The costs incurred by the Fire Protection Engineer reviewiog building permits wxs direct billed to $uilding Serviccs by Fire Prevention. FCSGROUP 5 City of Spokane Drafi Final Summary Report Development Services User Fee Study 5/20/2008 EYhibit 6: Interdc srtmental Re-Allocation Calculated at Full Cost Reimbursement Re-allocation Fee incr4ase Total Im act F3uilding Services (4700) ($1,077,583) $708,842 ($368,741) . Planning Services (OGSO) 1.23,255 247,186 370,441 Fire Prevention (0440) 146;211 36,954 183,165 Engineering Services (0370) 469,185 138,61$ 607,802 Sewer Maintenance (4310) 0 90,644 90,644 Parks (1400) . 7,089 0 7;089 Historic PrescriTaiion (0470) (13,416) 129,142 115,726 Development Incentives (7,819) 58,90$ 51,089 .F_conomic Development Divisio 353.078 0 353,078 Total $0 $1,410,294 $1,410,294 Cost Recovery Targets The cost recovery analysis indicates Chat all clevelopment permi[ fees currendy chargECl by lhe City are below their Full-cost level. An inter-deparmiental teatn of City sta .ff. has proposed a set of cosi recovery targe.ts be established as a basis for adjusting perrnit fces. Exhibit 7 compares the cost recovery percentage achieved in 2006 td thE cosc recovery iarget praposed by staff for each class of perniit. Exhibit 7: Actual and Tar et Cost 12ecovery hy Class of I'ermit 2006 Proposecl Actual Tarw Building Code:Pertluts 86% 100% "Loninb & Land Use Code Approvals 52% 85% Fire Cnde Permiis 87% 100% Engineering .4pprovals 78% 84% Sewer Code Permits 41% 100% Private Constniction Approval l OQ% 100% Historic Preservation Approvals 20% 34% Develapjiient vlcentives 1.4% 34% All PermiCs 8l °/p 96% ' City staff has estimated-that setting fees to achieve the proposed targe.ts would increase annual perrnit fee revenues by about $1.1 million to a total of $7.2 million, aY the level ot'development pertnil`l'ing activiCy seen in 2006. This would result in about 96% cost recovery for all development permitting services. To put these actual and proposed cosl recovery levels i.n perspective, the followina cost recovery observations have been made for other jurisdictions in tlle state of «Tashington: FCS GROUl' 6 City of Spokane Drflft Final Summary Reporc 17evelopment Services User Fee Study 5/20/2008 • Jurisciictions commonly aim to reeover close to 100% of the costs of buildine permits. • In jurisdictions where planning services is part of an enterprise fund, cost recovery nbjectives are lypieally claser fo 100% ihan in jurisdictions where planning services are budgeted in the general fund. • Cost recovery objectives for land use approvals have bcen 60-70% in Bellevue, around 40% in Vancouver, and close tn 100% in Seattle. Fee Au.stments Erhibit $ lists the percentage fee revenue increases needed to Achieve the target cost recovery proposed by Ciry staff. Exhibit 8: Fee Revenue Increases Needed to Achieve Pro nsed Tar et Cnst Recovery Cost Recovery Required 2006 Praposed Revenue ' A.ctual 1a= lncrease Building Code Aermits $6a/„ 100% 16% Zoning R Land Use Code Approvals 52% $a% 63% Fire Code Permits 87% 100% 15% Engineering Appcovals 78% 84% 9% Sewer Code Permits 41% 100% 146% Frivate Construction Approval 100% 100% 0% Historic Preservation Approvals 20% 34% 74% bevelopment lncentives 14% 34% 146% A11 Pemiits R 1°/u 96°/u 23 °/u The rcquired revenue increascs c3n be calculatcd by dividing, the proposed targct cost reeovcry percentage inCo the 2006 actual cost recovery percentage. Since the completinn of the cost of service analysis based Qn 2006 actual financial data, City staff Iias re-evaluated the City's costs and service levels and determined that an average fee increase to building permits of 21 % cvould be needed to achieve the proposecl eosi reeovery target, insic<<d of the 16% shown in Exhibit 8. To achieve the fee revenue increases shown in E:xhibif 8, Cily staFf has developed hwro fee- adjustment opiions. Option A Optinn A is an across-fhe-bnard, percentage increase uniFornlly applied to all fees in each broad class of permit, according to the schedule shown in Exhibit 1'Vhile this is a common, valid methpd of'adjusling fees ta the cost recovery target, it does not recalibrate fe,es to reflect changes in the relative cos# of proeessing individual pennit t,ypes. FCS GROUP 7 Ciry of Spokar►e Drafi Final Summary Report Development Services User Fee Study 5/20/2008 QpIIOyJ B Option $ acfueves the target cost recovery by recalibrating individual fees based on ihe estimated cost ot' processing the respective individual perrnit types. To recalibrate individual perniit fees, City staff estimated the proportional labor requirements and costs associated wit}► individual permit rypes. This method has produced a schedule of diverse fee adjustnients, sorne more and some less dhan the average required fee revenue increase. Under che Option B schedule of fees, the 16% sttrcharge on building pernlits is discontinued. This surcharge was originally intended to pay for plan review of building permits b3~ Planning or Engineerine Services. The fees for planning and enginecring approvals proposed uncier Opiion B have been calibrated to recover the costs of this review, inste.ad of relying on the surchargz. The two fee schedules are [oo leng[hy to include in tbis summary, but will be presented to tfie City Council for deliberation. l3ecause fee reealibration brings individual fees closer to the cost of processing individual permits, City stafl'recommends adoPtion of Option B. Hourly Rates The f.ee study also calculated full-cost hourly billing rates for u:se by Buildin€ Services; Planning Services: and Fire Prevention. Thc eurrenc hourly biUing rAtes, full-cast haurly rates; and target recvvery rates are summarized in Exhibit 9. Note that the full-cost holirly billing rates are derived from the billable services provideci by teclznical revie4v or inspection stafF Services such as appeal transcript preparation, if principally provided by non-technical staff, should be billed at an fiourly rate thai reflects the salary anci benef t costs of any non-technical persannel who are invalved. Exhibit 9: Hourly.13illin Rates Current Full-Cost Tareet Buildiiig Services $60 $91 $91 Planning Services $50 $8$ $75 Fire Prevention 'NTA $84 $84 Otfter Propased Fee Adjiestnlerits Tn. addition to adjustine current fees, City staff has proposecl some new fee_s be created for pernuts and services formcrly without fees atiaehed: • Building Services review fee for new SFR/duplex • Plannine Scrvices review fees for garages, decks, swirnming pools, and otlier reside.ntial alterations and additions • Fences FCS GROUP . 8 City of Spokane Draft Final Summary:Report Development Services User ree Study 5/20/2008 • Development services rcview fee for sign permits, manufactured homes, relocation deternlination, • Electrical ground work • I?ropane tanl:.s • Street acldress ehange • Dumpster or temporary storage uniC in street • Traffic impact analysis review fce •'Craf_f c control plan re<<iew fee • Hyclrauilic analysis review Fuliire Fee Adjustmeylts Fees proposed by City sta _ff. under Options A and .B do not re.f.lect requirements to fund future upgrades and major replacements of pennii[ing technology. The City's on-going implementation oF the new pennit tracking systean and related technologies has been and Nvil) continue to be fundecl by the use of fund balance in the Building Services Fund. A 1onR-term funding source is needed for recurring investment. Tlle funding requirements for future technolagy needs have not been determined at this time. One option discussed with City staff is a technology fee or surcharge on a11 pe.rniits to be adnpted when the iniCial implementation ot' the new permit tracking system has been completed in all perrnittinb departcnents. 7"o mai.ntain the adequacy of fees until thei.r ne.ct comprehensive reviecv and update, fees should be acijustcci aiuiually far anticipaieci cost inflation. Thc ehoiec af cosi-inflation factor shoulcl reflect increases in the unique mix of sal1ry, benefit, and non-labor cnsrs anticipated by the City and incorporated into its budget. Relisnce on n regional CPI fflctor for annual fee adjusianents may not accurately refleci trends affecting the City, and could lead to tuider-recovery of costs. Coinparisou of Permitting Fees The study effort coiiipared the City's currenC; full-cost, and propASed pernlit fees to che perniit fees charged by othe.r jurisdictions. '1°he jurisdictions chosen for comparison are either neigllbors or comparable in size to the City of Spokane. Two common project rypes were selected as the bases for comparison: a new five-acre subdivision with single farnily homes on nwenty lots, and a new conunercial wareh4use of 37,000 snuare feet. Exhibits 10 and l l illustrate the total of planning, building, and fire Fees charged by eaeh jtiriscliction in the survey. The results are presented as ratios of the full cost of permitting by the City of Spokane, which equals 100%. The developcnent pennit fees currentlv charged by the City of Spokane far these two ty•pes of development projeets arc less than the fecs eharged by ull the ncighborin3 and comparable jurisdictions surveyed. The jees proposecl for the City of FCS GKOUI' 9 City of Spokane Draft Final Summary Report Development Services User Fee Study 5/20/2008 Spokane are also less dhan the full-cost because of the 85% cost recnvery target t'or planning fees and 84% cost recovery target for eneineering fees. For ttle 20-unit subdivision, the fees proposed for the City of Spokane appear to exceed the fees eharged by Spokane County, Coeur d'Alene, and Bnise, but are sCill substuntiully less than the fees charged by comparable jurisdictions such as Portland, Vancouver, and Seattle, and very- clnse to the fees charged by the Cicy of Spokane Vzilley. For the warehouse, the fees prvposeti £or the City of Spokane appear to be less than die fees charged by ull ot]Zer jurisdiciions in the sLuvey. Note that the cost recovery target for Bellevue planning fees is less than 100%, and that the cnst recovery targets adopted by the other jurisdictions have not been identified by the survey and might be less than Full cost. Generally, it appears tlrat the current fees charged by the City occirpy the latia-eod oj the specrrrtn:, und the City's proposed fees ivould be lolv- to »rid-range relative to its neigliborirrg and comparable jurisdictions. .Tt iS alsp imporCant lo note that the [otal of building and platuning fees charged by the City anount to a very small fraction of the cost of deve.lopment. For example, the pennit fees in Spokane would amount less tlzan 1% of the cost of a ncw $350,000 single family home. Lxhibit 10: Subclivision Fee Comparison: 20-Unit Subdivision City of Spokane - Current City ofSpokane - FuIlCost City ofSpokane - Proposed ..-.------Spokane County ------77 I I City of Spokane Valley I i ----1 . I. .I .i City of Vancouver • • • • City of Bellevue - I I I C'rty of Post Falls - - - . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . CityofCoeurd'Alene ----Ciry of Boise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . City of Portland 0% 25% 54% 75% 100% 125°Yo 150% 175% 200% 225% FCS GROU~P 10 City of Spokane Draft Final Summary Report Development Services User Fee Shidy 5/20/2008 T.cliibit 11.: `'Varehouse Fee Comparison: 37,000 Sq-Foot Warehouse Ciry of Spokane - Current • I CityofSpokane - FuIlCost I I i City of Spokane - Praposed • I I I Spokane County ' I I City of Spokane Valley I I City of Vancouver City of Bellewe ' I I City of Post Falls • • I I I City of Coeur d'Alene • . ~ I City of Boise • I I I City of Portland , 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 225% 250% Ynter-fiind Cost and Revenue Alignment This study estimated for 2006 the resources expended across fund lines as part of inter- departrnental develnpmEnt permitting processes. T1le City has recognizecl the need to align permiCting costs and revenues across funds to avnid tmintended subsidies in sotne funds at the expense af other funcls. Three options for doing so are discussed below. Option 1 A11oeate the actual costs incLirred by one department in support of lnother. This mcChod involves a substantial time ]ag as the aetual eost and workload data required to calculate the cost allocation «rould not be available until after year-end. The cost allocation arnAUnt would not ttien be budgeted io the recipient funcl until the second year afl-er the actual costs were incurr.ed by the source department. This lag also hinders the tirnely asses5ment of cost recovery results for both the source and recipient departments/funds. The City of Vancouver uses this approach-it bud-ets staCf cvithin its Developinent Iteview Services organization to multiple funds, and so requires a complcY cost alloeation sy'stem. Option 2 Source department,s direct bill recipient funds for the actual costs of serviccs provided on a rnutine basis. Spokane already does tliis for fire prevention rcview services provided to $uilding Serviees. Aclvantages include current perioci cost recovery. EZequirernents include an efleetive FCS GROUP 11 Ciry of Spokane Draft Final Summary Regort Devclopment Services User Fee Study 5/20/2008 billing system and intcrdcpartmental oversight capability. The City of Bellevue u:ses this . approach in conjunction with a city-vvide :[7eveloptnent Services Fund. Qptiorr 3 Allocate pennit revenues upon receipt to depFU-tments based on previously agreed reimbursement rates. A.dvantages include symmetry of fiscal responsibiliry-in effect each department sets its own fees ancl must manaee its o«m costs to its own hard revEnue constraint. Thurston County began using this Approach fvllo«~ing its cost of service study '►n 2006. At this juncture, the most suitablc method for the City woulcl likely bc incrcascd direct billing (Option 2). Unless aVancouver-style inter-f.und cost al]ocation model (Option l) is required for some reason; its complexity makes it unacivisable. F1 revenue-sharing approach alcin to Option 3 would be feasible afcer the City- has developed reliable permit-costing data at a greater level of detail than presently available. Funci I,iability 1_n recent years, the Building Fund has accumulafecl a balancc of several million dollars. '1'his was in part duc to a healthy level of cievelopment aCtivity. A benchmarking analysis concluctcd b}' the study indicate•d that about $2 iniJlion of the BuiJding Fund balance is the cash oFfset for a pre-paid liability to complete building inspections for issued permits. Summary The City's annual cost of devclopment permitting is abouc $7.5 million, not including significani invescments in new perniitting technology. GVith current fees, dle City recovers about 80% of that cost. These findings are bascd on costs and revenues from 2006, when developmeni activity in Spokane «<as at a cyclical pc31c. Furure east recovery wich current fees would likely be less lhan 80°/u. The City also needs to make provisions for funding future iiivesmient in pennitting lechnology that will follow uiitial it-nplementation of the new pennit tracking systeni. City staff has proposed perniit fe.e adjustments to increase cost recovery to about 96%, or $7.2 million-an increase in permit fee r.evenues of about $1.1 million annually. The City's current fees are the lowest among its neighboring and comparable jurisdictions. The proposed fees would be low- to mid-range among these same jurisdictions. The Building :hund, in particular, does not appear to be over-funded at the present time. vluch its current cash balance is required to pay for on-going and future inspections of issued pennits, and to fund ttie remaining work and eYpcnses to implement ihe new permit iracking system in all departments [hat support developtnent perrnitting. FCS GROUP 12 Notes fram Pauhandling ComEnittec 7-XS-QS i 1. '1 he Pa.nhandling COfT7Si11~~e hAS COITle k117 wIL}'1 F]'le, fOI I QWItIg fU1d ll1g5: a. Police need inoa:e legal tools b, T]Zere arc peopIe with legiitima#e ne.eds c, Social Resources are availabie, but are not unilffisited d. We need a public education progl-an-L on i.nefficsent and efficient givina . e. We need to buiid acoaiition of public auid private partner3 f. We need to seik]e legal issues before we devise lhe educa#i on picce 2. We wish to have legal gIVe, uS 3dViCE Ori the fO}lQWlllg IeGOmui endBd Ch2rtgCS t0 our orrlinances. We should txo 6e that we have inclucl.ed possxble changes with the idea t]l at, after 1ega11uLs commei,ted, wa.will cvaluate each chau ge. , a. Require a 1icmsclpermit to so1icxt , b. C,~irtaiUprobibit cleaning windshields and then asking far donations c. Prohibit a driver £roixx giving fiuYds while driving ' d, Prohibit fraudulent solicitatio'ns e. Tinxe and plaee restrictions . i, VJithin 50 fe.et of an ATM, bus stop, ar tra `ffic sitnal ii, Ozi business property where peimiuission has not been granted , iii, On medkans or islands ~ iv. On freeway exits or ent-rances (distance from txeeway7) v. AIong major arteAals at i-utersections that have ti•affic lights vi. A.t .foux way stops ~ vii. At niglttti_me {dusk to dawn?) f. Cz.i.minalization ofpubic intoxicatxon and open contai.ners (chan.ge to misc~e~ne~no~} ; g. Redefine aggressive panhandling ta inclucle steppung j.nto steets or onto a rnedian 3. Farnextmeeting{Ju1y 29,93 GA.rV~ a. Repart. from !eg'al . b. 1 alic tv Cil'y Manager about tlie process of ordinance going fram comm.ittee to adoption (Bi11) c. Contac:t Liberty Lalce and Spok.ane so this is a znulti juris;dictionsl efFort{Ball) d. S eek Carol bel k,-'s advice on vvhat t}xe pieces of a carnpaign should be ~Bill} e. Call Az,chorage about their education campaign - how it was donc and Ixow it '~'Va,s finan.ced (Bi11)